Games' Luck stats

[Wicksweff]

Where does the Luck value in a game record come from?
Is it just a subjective value assigned by the game devs?

It seems to me that BGA has a mechanism for determining the Luck value for a game empirically.

The standard deviation of individual players' performance at a game is a measure of how much of their performance is not attributable to their skill, and therefore likely attributable to luck.

-Wicksweff

[N_Faker]

Is it just a subjective value assigned by the game devs?

Yes.

[Wicksweff]

So in most cases wrong then...

[Tisaac]

So in most cases wrong then...

Well that's pretty subjective, right ?

[RicardoRix]

It seems to me that BGA has a mechanism for determining the Luck value for a game empirically.

No, if there is randomness like dice rolls or card draws, then everything is purely random - every game - all players.

The standard deviation of individual players' performance at a game is a measure of how much of their performance is not attributable to their skill, and therefore likely attributable to luck.

Sounds likely.

For 2 players, one much better than other in all games:
If it's chess then likelyhood is constant wins for the better player, whereas the more luck based game, the weaker player may just strike it lucky in say Can't Stop or Yahtzee.

[Giordano Bruno 1974]

Where does the Luck value in a game record come from?
Is it just a subjective value assigned by the game devs?

It seems to me that BGA has a mechanism for determining the Luck value for a game empirically.

The standard deviation of individual players' performance at a game is a measure of how much of their performance is not attributable to their skill, and therefore likely attributable to luck.

-Wicksweff

I like your maths but most games are opposed. My score doesn't just reflect my ability, it's also dependent on how you play, not just your skill level either but also whether you choose to maximise your score or minimise mine. If I lose heavily to Kasparov at chess that doesn't say much about my skill level and nor would heavily beating a 6 year-old.

Games like Yahtzee where my opponents' actions don't impact on my score are more easily analysed in the way that you suggest.

[SamHellerman]

I suspect that the way to measure the influence of luck is if you could study a good number of games in which a top-ranked player plays against an established but extremely low-ranked player. For Chess you should find that the top player wins about 100% of the time; for War 50%.

That said, not many Chess games like that are likely to happen.

[SamHellerman]

Scratch that. There can be games with considerably more random influence than Chess that still meet that "best player beats worst player 100% of the time" criterion.

Maybe a better way to look at it is: how many tiers could you group players into such that a typical member of a tier would beat a typical member of the next lower tier 75% of the time. Chess is going to have many tiers like that, from the Kasparov Carlsen tier until you get down to the "just learned the rules today" tier. (In theory, about 14 tiers.) Azul probably has several. Lost Cities might have like two.

Anyway, could take a lot of data and some complex math to make sense of this.

[Giordano Bruno 1974]

Scratch that. There can be games with considerably more random influence than Chess that still meet that "best player beats worst player 100% of the time" criterion.

Maybe a better way to look at it is: how many tiers could you group players into such that a typical member of a tier would beat a typical member of the next lower tier 75% of the time. Chess is going to have many tiers like that, from the Kasparov Carlsen tier until you get down to the "just learned the rules today" tier. (In theory, about 14 tiers.) Azul probably has several. Lost Cities might have like two.

Anyway, could take a lot of data and some complex math to make sense of this.

I saw something similar to that in an article on backgammon.

https://thegammonpress.com/comparing-ga ... ll-chance/

Now consider the following experiment:

(1) Take the best player in the world. (In the case of chess, it’s Magnus Carlsen of Norway.) Call him Player 1.

(2) Find someone that the best player beats 75% of the time. Call him Player 2.

(3) Call the difference between Player 1 and Player 2 one skill differential.

(4) Find someone that Player 2 can beat 75% of the time. Call him Player 3. The difference between Player 2 and Player 3 is another skill differential.

(5) Continue this process until you have taken the chain down to an absolute beginner.

(6) Count the number of skill differentials involved. This is the complexity number of the game.

Complexity Numbers

Go 40
Chess 14
Scrabble 10
Backgammon 8
No-limit hold’em 8
Checkers 8

[Giordano Bruno 1974]

Scratch that. There can be games with considerably more random influence than Chess that still meet that "best player beats worst player 100% of the time" criterion.

Maybe a better way to look at it is: how many tiers could you group players into such that a typical member of a tier would beat a typical member of the next lower tier 75% of the time. Chess is going to have many tiers like that, from the Kasparov Carlsen tier until you get down to the "just learned the rules today" tier. (In theory, about 14 tiers.) Azul probably has several. Lost Cities might have like two.

Anyway, could take a lot of data and some complex math to make sense of this.

I think we both read the same article.