| |
BGonline.org Forums
Refute this argument, please (I know someone will!)
Posted By: Daniel Murphy In Response To: Refute this argument, please (I know someone will!) (Phil Simborg)
Date: Monday, 12 September 2011, at 10:40 p.m.
I will be happy to tell you the distinction: you have no control over what happens with the draw...it is ALL LUCK if you get a bye or if you draw Neil Kazaross in the first round.
You DO HAVE CONTROL of what happens in a game of backgammon....regardless of the rolls, which will conform to the odds over time, you can win more by making correct decisions.
Thank you. Our point of contention becomes a little clearer. Of course I have control over how I choose to play my moves, and of course I win more by playing better. But I do not have control over what rolls are rolled. That is the element of luck in backgammon. And that element of luck is no different from the luck of the draw, which is also out of my hands, and which I can also expect -- with similar confidence -- to "conform to the odds over time."
Indeed, I would think that by your definition of luck you should have to maintain that there is no such thing as "luck" in the draw, either, since one should expect a fair draw to "conform to the odds" over time and in that regard is no different from "the rolls, which will conform to the odds over time," and further, "regardless" of the draw, after the draw that I have no control over, I will "win more by making correct decisions" in that part of the game that I do have control over.
In other words, I do have some control over how often I win regardless of what the dice may be, and I can improve my odds by learning to play better. But likewise, I have some control over how often I win regardless of what the draw may be, and I can improve my odds in exactly the same way. And in neither case does the fact that I have an advantage over a less skillful opponent mean that luck has no role in deciding whether I win or lose this or that game, match or tournament.
I cannot understand how people do not see the difference between an event that is all luck, or all odds, where you have no control over the outcome, and events where you do. And that is the difference.
I don't know which people you have in mind who can't see a difference between an event entirely determined by luck, and an event determined by both skill and luck. I certainly can distinguish between the two. Our disagreement lies elsewhere. By your argument, if we introduce the slightest element of skill into an event otherwise determined by luck, then poof -- it's all skill and no luck, only "odds." I maintain that the luck is still there, luck being only a name for variance from expected probability, i.e., odds.
Imagine playing hypergammon but with only one checker per side. Imagine that the rule is that you must hit if possible. We should be able to agree that such a game is all luck. There is no strategy I can adopt that will change my probability of winning from 50%. Now imagine that we change the rule so that a player can decide whether to hit or not. This will occasionally be possible on a combination roll. We should be able to agree that the rule change has introduced a small element of skill. If I am more skillful than my opponent in my choices of hitting or not, I will have an advantage. The game is no longer "all luck." But neither (I maintain) has it suddenly become a game of "all skill." I won't suddenly claim that "there is no luck in one checker hypergammon." The dice still have a role in determining the outcome, and I am no less hesitant to call that role "luck" than I was before the rule change, when nothing but luck determined the outcome.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.