Playing to an opponents weaknesses

I've decided to put this question in a new thread, but its related to the
concept of  playing BG taking into account an opponents weaknesses. This
concept is a sound one if you really know your opponent.

In the Monty vs Mpetch series Monty has suggested he is the superior
opponent. He states his errors were to trap me into difficult situations
that he had hoped I would play wrong. Lets exclude the cubes in this
discussion. I think the statistics are clear that Monty likely didn't
succeed in making more/larger cube errors compared to himself.

So lets assume that Monty  is a 1950 rated player (this would likely be in
Advanced/Expert territory) and seems to be in line with what Monty thinks
he
plays at. This discussion would still apply if he was 1925. Monty has
stated
he made specific errors to trap me into playing my known weaknesses.

Over the series of 7 matches I ended up with a lower checker play error
rate
than he did. Assume I had average ~1900 based on the matches (The average
was slightly higher)

With Monty at 1950 and myself at 1900 he would be the better player. So
lets
assume this for the discussion.

My view is this. If you make a checker play error (doubtful/bad/verybad -
doesn't matter) in the hopes that your opponent gets trapped into a hard
situation (Thinking they will make the wrong play), one would expect that
the opponents errors in such difficult situations would be larger than the
initial error. Simply put, if you are going to make an error and play to
an
opponents weakness, the opponent on average is going to have to make
errors
that are worse - So the NET equity loss remains in the stronger players
favor.

So lets see what happened. Monty apparently played to my weaknesses, and
believed he succeeded but ended up with an overall checker error rate
worse
than the weaker player (me). In essence it  appears that based on the
final
skill level that he gave  up more in checker play errors anticipating what
I
would do, compared to the errors I actually made.

One might say, if Monty was favored on checker play error rate (because of
his superior abilities) at the outset - than my checker play error rate
should have dropped by at least a pro****tional amount  (and then some!).

So is it possible that Monty went into this thinking he knew how I played,
but in the end his "tricks" to put me in difficult situations actually
backfired to the point that I now became the better player? This is
possible, so lets assume it is true for the sake of argument!

If a near world class player goes into a series of matches, and
underestimates his opponents ability to play tricky situations and ends up
with a higher error rate - wouldn't one conclude that the near world class
player may not really know his opponents strengths and weaknesses to begin
with? If you can't estimate what your opponent will do, you will be
throwing
away valuable equity inherent in being the better opponent (to begin
with).

Maybe a naïve intermediate player such as myself can't understand how a
net
deficit on error rates at the end of the match (compared to the perceived
strengths of each player at the start) can benefit the stronger opponent.

If a near world class player can not estimate an opponents weaknesses
before
playing into them, then I do not think they are near world class at all.
Playing to weaknesses that either are not very weak, and giving up equity
in
the process makes no logical sense.

So maybe the question to Monty is - if you're near world class in actual
skill, how do you rate yourself in knowing the opponent?

Someone asked this in another thread, but can you point out the weaknesses
in my playing ability, and the places where you took advantage of it? To
know there is a weakness is to know the opponent has made the errors
before.
So you'll need multiple examples of similar situations that lead you to
conclude I would make the error you expect (I have never played Monty
until
this series so there is no past history but these matches to go by). Next
you'll have to show that in these given difficult spots that I actually
gave
up more equity than the initial wrong play.

My conclusion is this. Either a) Monty is near world class, but doesn't
have
a clue what his opponents weaknesses are but uses it as an excuse for his
errors, or b) Monty is an Intermediate Advanced player like myself who
play
at nearly the same level of play.

If I were to guess. It isn't A. So I will go with B. But I am open to
Monty
showing all these weaknesses of mine over time that were a NET benefit  to
him because they were exploitable.

For the record, I played into a weakness of Monty. On cube plays  I often
cubed when it was too early, knowing that there was a good chance he would
drop. I can especially show this pattern in his first few matches, BUT I
am
also aware that if he perceived me as the weaker player that he would drop
them (Basically, I was willing to give up equity on cubes hoping Monty
practiced what he preached on this forum). I also believed he felt I was a
WEAK opponent before the first roll.

I believe that since my error rates were within my expected norms, that I
likely was a NET beneficiary of cube errors compared with a supposed
"stronger" opponent. In the overall series stats its interesting to note
that Monty had 16 bad p***** (Compared with 8 of mine), and 2 bad takes
(0)
for me. ON Takes/P***** alone Monty gave up a huge amount of equity
(Comapred to my errors). Unfortunately it wasn't enough to overcome the
luck
- and that's the nature of backgammon.

Mike