[Bug-gnubg] Re: The importance of METs

[Joseph Heled]

I don't know if 500,000 is enough or not. Different MET result in 
different moves, not just different cube actions. But the effect of MET 
is not that big since, again, many decisions are relative and will be 
right as long the met is consistent.
I just wanted to show that (say) mec is a good choice, while Woolsey is 
not (only 2 digits, where some numbers (-25,-1) are below that), Snowie 
is not (Only goes up to 15).

And I wanted to support my claim with a little data.

-Joseph

Albert Silver wrote:
> I have a question that is really bothering me about this new MET and the
> importance of the difference between the METs in general. At first, I
> was quite enthusiastic about this new one, scoring better than others,
> because I read the difference as being 1.2% better instead of the actual
> 0.12% per match (DUH!). It's true this is an improvement but how
> significant is this, and why isn't the difference larger? I can *easily*
> show positions where just changing the MET will show an equity
> difference between doubling decisions to be an error or not. That's in
> just one position mind you. So why isn't the overall effect on the match
> results larger? Is the sample too small? I realize 500,000 matches is a
> lot, but perhaps the number of doubling decisions where a different MET
> would lead to a different decision is already small, and where this
> would actually make a difference in the score is smaller still, meaning
> that perhaps 500,000 is still much too small a sample. 
>
>                                                 Albert