Fwd: No bugs, just a question

[hereodt Z]

Hi Ian, 

The luckier player wins a lot of the time. However, I’ve definitely seen many games where the luckier player had played badly enough to still lose. It’s often me!

Lol. With GNUBg or human partner? And at what rate? That's what's bugging me. It happens way too rarely in my games, I think

 

Perhaps you’re sample size is not large enough. That’s all I can suggest.

No worries about that, I studied engineering too, IT even ;). 

Sample size is at least a few hundred matches, I might have reached the thousand mark even.

An in this sample I have just one vague memory of one match where the luckier player (deemed so by GNUBg, 'course) lost.

 

(I’m not sure what happens if you play on any setting lower than ‘expert’).

I set the computer to "World Class". My computer is too slow for higher levels. But I played a couple of times at the next one to see what happens and the computer smashed me to pieces ha ha!

 

Ian, thank you for trying to answer my question

I just noticed that on a pretty large batch of matches, the winner is the less lucky player in, let's say, 2 out of 1000, tops. And that seems not normal.

I realize that I asked this question without providing the actual data - I didn't save the games after I looked at the analysis.

So you cannot possibly give me a clear answer.

Let's try a different way

According to your experience as both programmer and player, what is a usual percentage of the less lucky winning?

If I were to save every game from now on, how many matches (minimum) would you need for it to be statistically sound?

Dear Jon,

Your first two remarks are too technical for me :)

"I’m not sure if a more skilled player is likely to get more lucky rolls because of being in better positions - or if that gets averaged in the statistics of the luck calculation?"

This last one, I believe the first part is true from simple game observation, with GNUBg or real partners - to what degree I cannot know. The second part - not sure how GNUBg evaluates luck, but I would think so.

So Hey!

We could say that the better player will not only win, but also be more lucky because of their skill; and on the other hand, the less skilled can win ONLY if they get lucky (dumb luck)? Interesting thought hmm? Is it true? And to what degree? We've all studied Math, we need a quantitative answer.

But I think that on big enough batch the winner should be the less lucky player more often than it happens in my games. Especially when the winner is GNUBg @ World Class.

Best,

Teddy

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 2:52 PM Jon Kinsey <jonkinsey@gmail.com> wrote:

If 2 players are similar in skill then luck is the determining factor. Even if the skill difference is quite big, jokers are going to give bigger equity swings than blunders in general.

Cube decisions in larger matches give more opportunities for (big) mistakes and a beginner will lose almost all the time in say a match to 11 against gnubg.

I’m not sure if a more skilled player is likely to get more lucky rolls because of being in better positions - or if that gets averaged in the statistics of the luck calculation?

Jon

> On 26 Jun 2022, at 01:24, hereodt Z <777theodore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Dear all who created GNUBg,
>
>
> Thank you for your wonderful, GREAT software.
>
> It provided me with countless hours of fun and relaxation.Maybe a little TOO much, but that's my problem ;).
>
>
>
> How come the winner, be it me or the computer, is always the luckiest player?
>
> I thought backgammon was a game of skill. 'Course, luck plays a role, but the outcome of the game to be SOLELY based on LUCK?! C'mon! How is it possible?
>
> Let's say I am not skilled and indeed, I can win only if I get lucky .
>
> But the computer is World Class, after all. How come IT never wins when it is less lucky than me?
>
>
> Thank you and Best regards,
> Teddy
>
>
>