Playing Advice to Michael Petch

As someone who plays at around Mike Petch's level, and who followed
the matches, I'd like to offer some advice.  I won't offer Monty any
because I don't believe he'd listen.

If you know beforehand that your play differs from ideal theory, or
bot play, then you need to have a concrete practical justification.
(For example, it's of course fine to say "This looks like a hold but
I'll double because I know Monty drops a lot of takes.)

However, Mike seemed to consciously differ from theoretical play when
no justification was available, giving empty rationales such as "I
wasn't rolling well so didn't want to enter a race" or "I thought it
was a take but dropped because of the gammon threat."  If you think
it's a take, you shouldn't drop.

I think Mike Petch would improve his play significantly if he avoided
such irrationality.

As to the question:  "Who played better?" anyone who knows anything
about backgammon realises that the best evidence comes from the
relative error rates.  So, on best evidence, mpetch played better.
This evidence is not incontrovertible.  For example, it's conceivable
that, after bots have improved 20 years from now, bot opinion will be
that Monty lost less equity in the match.  But, since bots are better
than humans, the bot relative assessments are the best evidence we
have.  And currently, they are voting for mpetch.

Apparently, Gammongang (Bob) believes that the most salient evidence
is not the relative error rates but the actual result of the match
series.  Only someone very ignorant about backgammon could have such a
viewpoint and I can't imagine that Gammongang is an expert player.

Paul Epstein