General improvement

[driven2sin]

Its the mutual masturbation society at its best.

If anyone else was to use the "play your cuzins" strategy, their rank would become frozen.

i guess half of the players are my retarded cuzins then J.. i obviously have no friends here and too cheap to have anything besides my lifetime account

the only reason i show 90% wins, is that on those months i use a guest account to play the lion share of my games to get the 'gambling itch' out of my system. Or when playing late or drunk or both...

in the past i would just use my member account and not bother to care but lately i've been trying to make a point that i really don't lose much when playing for keeps..

just a few months ago i won around 80 games or so with a high %.. so not sure how you neglect that

[J]

I intentionally did not call out anybody by name in my first post here. It's fun to see who responds.

Played a game against Cinder. He seems like a decent chap, his posts are respectful, and he is a fan of the game. Because neither of us are as skillful as the top players (who win 20-0 every time), our game was nip-tuck. In the end, the board was pock-marked with acid holes and Cinder had bankrupted alot of his back line. It came down to my one piece against his four. I had scramble row and column and swap column and radial. I waited until I thought my odds were as good as they would get and did my scrambles. Lo and behold, I end up right next to his quad piece. End of game. I asked if he thought that was skill or luck and he said skill. I disagree with him. Was I "skillful" in waiting? I guess you can call it that; more like common sense to me. Was I skillful with my scrambles? No way. While I was hoping it would land in a good spot, I had no control over it. I was lucky. And by lucky, I am not comparing it to D2S getting "lucky" with his cuzin. That's called his Family Reunion Weekend.

[OncoByte]

No one is denying that there is luck in this game. Of course your scramble could have gone poorly. That is not the point. You managed your odds and took a chance. Knowing when to do that is skill. Getting it to work is lucky. But the randomness is evenly distributed - your scrambles are not more likely to work than your opponent's given the same scenario. So - over a large number of games, the contribution of luck washes out. All that's left is how well you managed the randomness that is part of the game. When players are evenly matched, luck plays larger role in any given game. The loser, rightly, can often say that they got less lucky than their opponent in that one game. A losing record over several games is harder to blame on luck.

When players are unevenly matched, however, the worse player attributes their loss to bad luck. That's like blaming your uncle Louie's death on an unfortunate heart attack when what actually killed him was a lifetime 3 pack-a-day habit and the 100 pounds of lard he carried around his diabetic waist. Yes, he was unlucky to have a heart attack, but he voluntarily stacked the odds against himself. So, yes, your opponent clobbered you with a lucky Recruit, Bombs, Recursive, whatever, but you likely let it happen.

Some people complain about the "luck" aspect of the game as being frustrating. The truth is that it's both frustrating and elating. It adds an emotional response that many deterministic games like chess, checkers, or go simply don't have. "Holy crap, I relocated next to his uber-piece with my lone Scavenger!" or "That's bullshit! That volley of bombs took out 5 of my 6 pieces without touching one of his!" These kinds of responses are what make the game fun. The reward of coming back from behind 10% of the time is enough to keep you playing until the last man the other 90% of the time.

Final thought - who gives a shit about the leaderboard? It's flawed. Even if no one played their cuzins and accepted any challenge - there is going to be heterogeneity in the skill of opponents one faces. Just play the game or GTFO people, but stop whining about it. It ain't gonna change and we don't want it to.

[cinder]

I actually realized during that game, what J and a few others have been trying to say. They are not saying "this is all luck" (or maybe they say this sometimes), but actually saying "luck is a big or huge factor in this game". I said in game chat that J was using skill, but in fact it did come down to luck.

I realized that luck is a huge factor. So yes, there is skill involved in playing which influences who win, but also luck plays a very big role. This game and J's comment changed my mind here. Most games do come down to luck (and skill is there too). If I win against Rhox, it will be because I get some lucky orbs. If I lose, it is because I did not get lucky, and he is a very good player.

I think we argue that skill is important, and newer players say "wait a minute, how can you say luck is not a factor!!!".

Our game was an epic game that did in fact come down to luck several times in the end game. A perfect example. I would have won probably (at the end after being lucky), but he did a scramble and landed next to my last guy. So in the end the game was decided by chance.

The newer players are right - luck is huge in a single game's outcome.

The veterans are right also: skill plays a bigger role than many new players think. Skill does in fact make a difference, as you can see with the top ranked best players, who are hard to beat. If I am average or decent, and I play Rhox when he is playing very well (maybe all the time), then I think I will win about 20-30% of the games, and he will win the rest. Skill causes him to win his 70%. If I was a decent beginner, then I would only win about 15% (when I got lucky - think teach row).

[J]

I agree that the ranking are worthless. My original post to Lurch was to that effect. In my opinion, those high winning percentages with so few games played are not indicative of their "skill" level.

If those players take offense, good.

Unfortunately, the ranking system is how some players (especially new ones) judge their skill level and may get frustrated at the game even though they may be a decent player.

[driven2sin]

guys, if any of you played high level backgammon, like I said many years ago, you would 'get it'
please debate these same points to anyone who studies advanced backgammon (like I saw way back in the FIBS days)

I tried to discuss these finer points nicely for years here with no progress. The regulars at FIBS would of just told you to leave and go to the library for a few books before you came back.
Any real disussions here get mocked. Onco has been the only player that reminds me of those days.

check this out for a taste of how a game with high probabilites can get broken down....

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/138/backgammon/best-move-843150/

QR has many other permutations but usually only if you let it get that far.
For example, a lot of players do not understand that it actually hurts your chances of winning by picking up more orbs than you reasonably need to end a game.

The players that play passive QR are the same ones that play ultra conservative, one game matches of backgammon. Where they end up with 3 or 4 spots with all their pieces and only leave an open if they have no other move. They only see the bad in being exposed, not the gains.

They rather see QR mainly as poker/combos instead of a strategic board game. I see it in the reverse.
The good news is that many styles can win. The bad news is that most players only see the game one way.

[J]

Since this is a suggestion thread, I will suggest that these "top-players" post the screen names of their opponents. Should not be difficult since they only play a few games and only at the beginning of the month.

[Rhox]

What good will that do J? Won't fix the ranking system flaws.

[J]

It is not going to fix the rankings. Did not say it would. Besides, who said the rankings are broken?

So I will shoot back. What is the harm in posting your opponents?

[Rhox]

If I'm not mistaken, you were the one who called the rankings "a fucking joke."

It's unnecessary. The "top players" don't have to prove anything to anyone. I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't care less if you approve of my list of opponents. Revealing who I play doesn't change a thing.

[driven2sin]

It's unnecessary. The "top players" don't have to prove anything to anyone. I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't care less if you approve of my list of opponents. Revealing who I play doesn't change a thing.

especially if top whiners go silent when discussing risk/reward tactics.

[J]

I dont consider broke and joke the same Every month it is a race to 13 out of 14. If that is what the powers that be want, then it aint broke.


And you are correct, you do not need to reveal a thing. Stay quiet and people will think you're dumb. Speak and you prove it.

[driven2sin]

I dont consider broke and joke the same Every month it is a race to 13 out of 14. If that is what the powers that be want, then it aint broke.

round and round.. i'd say read this thread but you were right in the middle of it so i am thinkin u have mad allllzzImazzzz

[J]

Not sure what "mad alllzzImazzz" is. But I will take it a compliment.