Which BGA games are most driven by luck?

[Romain672]

Waiting for the 'Jeu des petits chevaux' : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeu_des_petits_chevaux .
Where it's automatic in most turns, but you got some decisions to make sometimes.

[ChiefPointThief]

I meant tanks. There is 1 tank on each die. I roll too many tanks. (Sigh)

Oh great! There are actual statistics for this (too bad all games don’t have relevant statistics). I average 4 more tanks per game than the average player on bga and almost 6 more than the average winner. Maybe I should partake in the next bga is rigged thread

Just remember the stats are total rolls and not %s. You have more tanks and rays and earthlings than average! Just suggests you re roll more than average. Overall you roll a tank 18% of the time compared to the true odds of 17% so you’ve not even been particularly unlucky.

Of course the winners roll less but then that’s partly why they won!

I have to disagree. After initially making the comment I decided to see if I in fact did roll more tanks than usual or it just seemed that way and noticed that the stat was actually taken. I'm not premium now and can't see but I do have written down my tank/ray stats at the time of the post. A few things to consider is 1. If I have more rolls than average that is probably to compensate for my bad initial rolls (being unlucky). 2. The stats of the earthlings (and cows. chickens for that matter) are irrelevant if your tank average is too high because the tanks cancel them out. These are my tank/ray stats compared to the site.

Tanks Rays

Me 34.78 - 63.87
Average for site 30.79 - 62.20
Average for winner 29.10 - 64.07

So considering that there are 2x more rays than tanks on each die the number of rays on average should be double. As you can see my tank to rays ratio is far worse than what is the average it takes to win a game. I'm rolling less rays than the average winner and 5.68 more tanks. That is unlucky.

[Jellby]

I would say close to 100% of the players will have "worse luck" than the average winner. Because the average winner always wins. And around 50% players should have "worse luck" than the average player, so being in the bottom half is not particularly unlikely (but I don't deny it's unlucky).

[frogstar_A]

I have to disagree. After initially making the comment I decided to see if I in fact did roll more tanks than usual or it just seemed that way and noticed that the stat was actually taken. I'm not premium now and can't see but I do have written down my tank/ray stats at the time of the post. A few things to consider is 1. If I have more rolls than average that is probably to compensate for my bad initial rolls (being unlucky). 2. The stats of the earthlings (and cows. chickens for that matter) are irrelevant if your tank average is too high because the tanks cancel them out. These are my tank/ray stats compared to the site.

Tanks Rays

Me 34.78 - 63.87
Average for site 30.79 - 62.20
Average for winner 29.10 - 64.07

So considering that there are 2x more rays than tanks on each die the number of rays on average should be double. As you can see my tank to rays ratio is far worse than what is the average it takes to win a game. I'm rolling less rays than the average winner and 5.68 more tanks. That is unlucky.

The bottom line is you've been unlucky, but not as unlucky as you think.

As there are twice as many rays as tanks you'd expect the ratio to be 2.0. For all players overall yes it is. For you it's 1.8. That's a bit unlucky.

But there will be variations of course...you've only played 26 games, a small number. I have played over 200 so not surprisingly my average is almost exactly 2.0. If you play more the luck will even itself out and eventually it will be exactly 2.0 for you too.

The comparison with the winner is irrelevant really. The winners have a ratio of 2.2 but of course In a 2-3 player luck based game by looking at the winners you are looking at a subset of lucky games. Of course they will have better scores by definition, but that's a mathematical inevitability and not, for example, an indication that you're not rolling well enough to ever win. I bet if you look at just the games in which you won you'd have a 2.2 average too.

By comparison, in Premier League football on average the scoreline is 2-1 ie the winner scores 2 goals and the loser 1. This means the average number of goals a football team scores is 1.5 but the average by winners is 2.0. Which means that EVERY team has a lower than average number of goals than the winners. Because the winners aren't a subset of teams but rather a subset of game results with a bias to positive results.

[Robarkson]

Don't know most of the others, but Ticket to Ride definitely does NOT belong on this list. There is a lot more skill than beginners seem to realize. I finished in the top 30 in the last arena, out of more than 11,000 players, so I know. And I still have a losing record against the guy who finished #1, though I have beaten him. But he's definitely better than me.

I agree. TTR has a luck component as almost all games do, but there are many levels of skill at managing that luck. I'd rate TTR as being less dependent on luck than say Catan.