| |
BGonline.org Forums
Rollout
Posted By: Timothy Chow In Response To: Rollout (Ray Kershaw)
Date: Saturday, 27 February 2016, at 10:10 p.m.
Bob is correct that my contrived games are not intended to be "models" of backgammon directly. They're contrived games that are similar enough to backgammon that it is clear how to define "luck" in an analogous manner, and that illustrate the point I want to make about luck and skill. In particular, I'm not claiming that in backgammon, the luckier player always wins, just that in my first contrived game, the luckier player always wins.
By your own admission, you don't understand how XG measures luck, so it would take a rather long time for me to give a full answer to your question. I'll try a shortcut here (somewhat against my better judgment because this subject is so fraught with misconceptions that shortcuts tend to lead to more confusion than enlightenment). Do you understand my first contrived game? Do you see how the luckier player (almost) always wins even though one player is far more skillful? This is, to a very rough first approximation, what is happening in backgammon. That is my answer to your second (implicit) question about the "implausibility" of the luckier player almost always winning in backgammon.
To answer your first (explicit) question, I have to slightly refine my "very rough first approximation." In backgammon, sometimes greater luck can be offset by even greater lack of skill (as you explained with your example). So, the luckier player doesn't always win. True backgammon is somewhere between my two contrived games (though arguably closer to the first than the second).
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.