Backgammon Luck versus Skill

Luck versus Skill

How much of backgammon is luck?

From:   Wai Mun Yoon
Address:   hedgehog@cyberjunkie.com
Date:   4 January 1998
Subject:   Re: How to measure luck in bg?
Forum:   rec.games.backgammon
Google:   34AFC727.651F173B@NOSPAM.The18thHole.com

Richard Rasker wrote: > Here are some rather basic ideas as how to `measure luck': > > - (Crude calculation) total number of pips rolled by a > player vs. the number of pips actually moved, so that > dancing and other situations where one can't move are > counted as bad luck. > - Number of shots vs. number of actual hits - I found > that when it's possible to hit a checker, most of the > time a player will hit. Not hitting anything with a given > number of shots implies bad luck. > - Number of possible ways to play a particular roll > (maybe I'm getting into skill-territory here), the > less ways a roll can be played, the less luck the > player has. > - (any other suggestion) I find the concept of luck, whatever it is, and varying personal attitudes to it totally facinating. However, I don't think that ratiocination, in the manner you suggest will resolve very much, since most of the discussion on this subject is qualitative. - Read Danny Kleinmann's Vision Laughs at Counting where he discusses the relative contribution of luck and skill in BG, and concludes that it is impossible to determine the importance of each since BG is a game of 'luck-handling' skills. - The volatility of the dice essentially expands the stochastic search-space for a player. However, the *concept* of 'luck' is different for humans than for 'bots, since 'bots are 'emotionally' indifferent to luck and do not steam. This means that a human with good 'luck-handling' skills is one who not only prepares for nightmare 5-5's, but who avoids steaming after fanning four times on a two-point board, while for a 'bot only the former situation applies. All experienced BG players recognise this and exploit it. Remember Robertie's problem in 'Advanced Backgammon' when he says that a take is a good practical option [though technically incorrect] since the opponent will be severely shaken after a loss? (implying that the short-term loss of equity in taking is more than outweighed by dividends from future steaming). Thus, a quantitative approach to rationalising 'luck', even if it were possible, would not address the real problem, which is that different people *react* differently to the same dice rolls [same amount of 'luck'] - Your mention of a 'personal luck rating' raises some interesting questions. Are some players luckier than others? Are some versions of JellyFish luckier than others? [judging by some of the recent posts, the answer is yes :-) ] Joe Dwek in his intro to 'Backgammon for Profit' admits that he believes that some players are fundamentally luckier than others and so survive in schools stronger than their skills should merit [note: he says he *believes* this, since this is unprovable], while weaker, unlucky players give up the game quickly. However, one should note that students of the game continue to study (and rollout) only because they, in turn, *believe* in eventual reversion to the mean or what is known as 'the long run'. Caveat: "Ars longa, vita brevis." :-) wm (who would prefer to be lucky, than skillful)

Did you find the information in this article useful?

Do you have any comments you'd like to add?