EXPERIMENT 10:

This is a variant of the previous experiment 9. In this one, the mutant doubles if
it wins the opening roll also, since that gives it a GWC > 50% as well".

After 20,000 cubeful games, the bot won 565,623 (54.23%) and the mutant won
477,421 (45.77%) points, resulting in 88,202 less points, i.e. -4.4101 ppg, for the
mutant

Results in numbers of games were much closer with 9,898 (49.49%) won by the
bot and 10,102 (50.51%) won by the mutant, (which is only a +1.02% difference
this time also for the mutant). Even though numbers of games won has almost
no significance in a cube skill experiment, it is noteworthy that the mutant won
more games in both of these two related experiments..

In this experiment, the cube didn't go crazy high either but did go high enough
to cause big fluctuations even at the level of 1,000 games chucks, with mutant
winning anywhere from 10.52% to 88.95% in a couple of rare case. More trials
are always better for confidence but the indications are that these two mutant
strategy will win disproportionately more points than what would be predicted
from the cube error rates.

What is really interesting here is that compared to experiments 3 and 5, where
the mutant plays like the bot other than the doubling after winning the opening
roll and loses -0.1999 ppg by doing so, in this experiment the mutant lost only
-4.4101 ppg as opposed to -11.1742 ppg, (won 45.77% as opposed to 40.80%),
when it doubled after winning the opening roll.

This suggests that what are considered bad cube decisions when playing like the
bots, i.e. according to the current "cube skill theory", may actually be the better
decisions for a mutant strategy against the bots or people playing like the bots.

You may download the related files, especially the game and session logs, if you
want to tabulate more detailed stats in order to do more extensive analyses.