| |
BGonline.org Forums
Refute this argument, please (I know someone will!)
Posted By: Michael Petch In Response To: Refute this argument, please (I know someone will!) (Casper van der Tak)
Date: Monday, 12 September 2011, at 10:26 p.m.
"I don't agree with the way Phil formulates it"
We both agree on this. In the past Phil has been eloquent on his website in discussing luck and skill. The problem is that I do not believe that the way it is stated by him now is correct. I'm not even sure that Tobias intended to say "there is no luck in Backgammon PERIOD".
I do understand very well "long term". In the long term with random dice luck should tend to approach zero for any given player. But, to me this doesn't mean there is NO LUCK in backgammon. If there were was no luck in backgammon then Skill would make the difference. If skill is the deciding factor then the more skilled player should win 100% of the time. The reason that it doesn't happen is because of course there IS a luck factor. I'll also make another claim. On average a typical Backgammon match (short term) will result in someone who is luckier and someone who isn't. I believe that short term (a match) luck is positive or negative and being equal is rare.
In another post Phil said "When you sit down to the table, each player has a 50/50 chance to win, however, the better player will win more than that. " . I believe that Phil ran off the rails here (and I totally disagree). If two players of differing (known) skill sit down at the table the chances are NOT 50/50!(Hedging would be pointless if this was true).
The less skilled player actually starts out less than 50% and the more skilled player starts out more before the first dice is rolled. The person with less than 50% would be less skilled and would need luck to make up the difference. The better player can of course use skill to overcome some negative luck.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.