Hossein, I applaud your efforts to commentate, annotate and show XG analysis simultaneously, and I appreciate that it's not easy and that few can do it. However, the analysis is frequently lagged or missing altogether in this video, which is tiring on the viewer. I hope you continue to improve. Personally, I would prefer to miss the commentary rather than the XG, which I rely on most (I know - uncool to admit, but true. Life is too short to watch unanalysed bg). Ideal, and perhaps easier on everyone (though more work for you) is to post-produce the analysis display (and perhaps even the annotation).
Speaking of game equity loss as 'percent', as Hossien and Justin N. often do, is somewhat inaccurate, grating to a math nerd's ears. I hope it doesn't become widespread. Preferred usage is millipoints, mills or centipoints*, rather than 'percent'. Percent of what? - often in backgammon, the users of the term don't even know, and don't distinguish different percentages (as Simborg didn't in his stupid argument with Olsen whether gammon was 'worth' 2.4% or half that at 4 away post-Crawford). 'Game equity' normalizes the single-game swing to the range [-1.000, 1.000]. It would make some mathematical sense to speak of percent of that whole 2-point swing (gammon values are such a percent; PR of 3 is also .3%/decision in such a sense, though the average normalized equity loss is .006 in that case). However, it doesn't feel as natural in the context of comparing plays, and the 'percentages' you quote are double that anyway. You could say you''re speaking of 'the percent of the swing from 0.000 to +1.000', but that is not very meaningful, since the normalized equity 0.00 does not even apply to the start of a game at any uneven match score. Granted, mathematically, percent can be used for any number, and you could say you mean 'percent of an equity point', but it's a little like saying '2% of a meter' (or worse, just '2%') rather than '2 centimeters'. * Actually, I'd like to see the word 'cents' come into more common use for this. Thinking of the -1 to +1 game equity swing as if it were worth a dollar won or lost - that is a good way to think of normalized game equities, intuitive even to beginners. In this sense, a 0.250 error really does 'cost you 25 cents' on average.
it's frustrating that galaxy deleted my comment from a few minutes ago. bg galaxy are not good people, in my opinion. i'm out. goodbye to all the nice friends i met there: i was 'jim 12'.
![Phil Hellmuth Can't Handle Crazy Trash Talker! [Full Match]](/img/n.gif)
Exciting match! Great job!
1:29:00 Hossein can you please share with link or where i can find this seminar by Mochy pls?
Hossein, I applaud your efforts to commentate, annotate and show XG analysis simultaneously, and I appreciate that it's not easy and that few can do it. However, the analysis is frequently lagged or missing altogether in this video, which is tiring on the viewer. I hope you continue to improve. Personally, I would prefer to miss the commentary rather than the XG, which I rely on most (I know - uncool to admit, but true. Life is too short to watch unanalysed bg). Ideal, and perhaps easier on everyone (though more work for you) is to post-produce the analysis display (and perhaps even the annotation).
رو زبانت کار کن😂😂👏👏
حسین جان کانال خودت چرا فعال نیست؟
Speaking of game equity loss as 'percent', as Hossien and Justin N. often do, is somewhat inaccurate, grating to a math nerd's ears. I hope it doesn't become widespread. Preferred usage is millipoints, mills or centipoints*, rather than 'percent'.
Percent of what? - often in backgammon, the users of the term don't even know, and don't distinguish different percentages (as Simborg didn't in his stupid argument with Olsen whether gammon was 'worth' 2.4% or half that at 4 away post-Crawford).
'Game equity' normalizes the single-game swing to the range [-1.000, 1.000]. It would make some mathematical sense to speak of percent of that whole 2-point swing (gammon values are such a percent; PR of 3 is also .3%/decision in such a sense, though the average normalized equity loss is .006 in that case). However, it doesn't feel as natural in the context of comparing plays, and the 'percentages' you quote are double that anyway. You could say you''re speaking of 'the percent of the swing from 0.000 to +1.000', but that is not very meaningful, since the normalized equity 0.00 does not even apply to the start of a game at any uneven match score. Granted, mathematically, percent can be used for any number, and you could say you mean 'percent of an equity point', but it's a little like saying '2% of a meter' (or worse, just '2%') rather than '2 centimeters'.
* Actually, I'd like to see the word 'cents' come into more common use for this. Thinking of the -1 to +1 game equity swing as if it were worth a dollar won or lost - that is a good way to think of normalized game equities, intuitive even to beginners. In this sense, a 0.250 error really does 'cost you 25 cents' on average.
it's frustrating that galaxy deleted my comment from a few minutes ago. bg galaxy are not good people, in my opinion. i'm out.
goodbye to all the nice friends i met there: i was 'jim 12'.
یکی در میون فارسی برو داداش🤦😅