[spywaregorilla]

I think you will find it extremely difficult to do better than simply checking the probability that each square gives you a spot times the number of victory paths it opens up minus the probability that it gives your opponent a spot times the number of victory paths it opens up for them. Add another clause for paths closed if you want.

Since chance is involved, you will basically never want to do anything but the greediest highest value next action. Sometimes more than half the board has net value of 0 or less which makes them very easy to ignore.

[spacemanspiff01]

Wouldn't you also have to take into account the probability of the following moves also being successful and giving you a win?

[spywaregorilla]

No because the odds are symmetric for every slot. If you have two in a row; and the third slot has higher odds that it goes to the non-roller, you should just... not roll in it.

The timing of when it gets rolled won't matter. The need to urgently consider blocking off other routes to victory will be embedded in the scoring described above.

[orlp]

> Since chance is involved, you will basically never want to do anything but the greediest highest value next action. Sometimes more than half the board has net value of 0 or less which makes them very easy to ignore.

Since passing is not an option, you can't ignore a net value of 0 or less, because all options might have a net value of 0 or less.

[spywaregorilla]

Sure. But there's still no conceivable situation where it is advantageous to pursue such an option while a net positive option exists. Ergo, it is easy to ignore.