Do You Have Luck-handling Skills in Backgammon?

Do you consider yourself to be lucky or skillful in Backgammon? How about a combination of the two? In this article we discuss the importance of handling luck in a game.

I find the concept of luck, whatever it is, and varying personal attitudes to it totally fascinating. However, I don't think that ratiocination, in the manner you suggest will resolve very much, since most of the discussion on this subject is qualitative.

- Read Danny Kleinmann's Vision Laughs at Counting where he discusses the relative contribution of luck and skill in BG, and concludes that it is impossible to determine the importance of each since BG is a game of 'luck-handling' skills.

- The volatility of the dice essentially expands the stochastic search-space for a player. However, the *concept* of 'luck' is different for humans than for 'bots, since 'bots are 'emotionally' indifferent to luck and do not steam. This means that a human with good 'luck-handling' skills is one who not only prepares for nightmare 5-5's, but who avoids steaming after fanning four times on a two-point board, while for a 'bot only the former situation applies. All experienced BG players recognise this and exploit it. Remember Robertie's problem in 'Advanced Backgammon' when he says that a take is a good practical option (though technically incorrect) since the opponent will be severely shaken after a loss? (implying that the short-term loss of equity in taking is more than outweighed by dividends from future steaming). Thus, a quantitative approach to rationalising 'luck', even if it were possible, would not address the real problem, which is that different people *react* differently to the same dice rolls (same amount of 'luck')

- Your mention of a 'personal luck rating' raises some interesting
questions. Are some players luckier than others? Are some versions of
JellyFish luckier than others? (judging by some of the recent posts, the answer is yes) Joe Dwek in his intro to 'Backgammon for Profit' admits that he believes that some players are fundamentally luckier than others and so survive in schools stronger than their skills should merit (note: he says he *believes* this, since this is cannot be proved), while weaker, unlucky players give up the game quickly.

However, one should note that students of the game continue to study
(and rollout) only because they, in turn, *believe* in eventual
reversion to the mean or what is known as 'the long run'.

• 
• 
• Email to a friend
• Print