...

[CaractacusPots]

And yet another game turned around by system. Got to keep the field balanced . . .



I have opp totally pawned here. Opp has 3 pieces penned in with nothing but 2 sound points of mine further round the board waiting should he try to run any of his pieces. There's no way he's getting home. Plus I have 3 spare pieces of my own on top of points to further develop additional points.

What to do? How can the system rectify this hopeless situation for opponent?

Next dice throw for him . . . . 6-6

Out he pops

My throw 2-2

His throw 3-3

then 4-1, 3-1, 6-2


Game completely flips and I ultimately lose.

I can only take it as the biggest compliment that the system feels the need to operate this way.

[Giordano Bruno 1974]

I'm not sure what reponse you are looking for but honestly the whole "I am so good that I should never lose but every Internet site conspires against me" schtick is really not going to get you any sympathy.

[CaractacusPots]

I'm not sure what reponse you are looking for but honestly the whole "I am so good that I should never lose but every Internet site conspires against me" schtick is really not going to get you any sympathy.

Not looking for sympathy. Don't need it. This nonsense is what it is and is prevalent on every gaming site. I expect to lose single games every now and then but the manner in which you are forced to lose games here is frankly just embarrassing. The stark differences between good and bad players should see you have lots of straightforward games where you simply dominate opponent without issue. But it doesn't happen. The system always finds a way to let the underdog back in the game with the miracle 1 in 36 dice throws. Every game has to be a constant to and fro almost but not quite win or lose. That's just not real. Good players soundly beat bad players 7+ times out of 10. The system here just doesn't let you do it.

I could, but I won't, run Jellyfish on my PC alongside the game here putting in the Jellyfish moves which are the statistically best winning moves. I would predict that Jellyfish would lose as much as anyone else despite it's perfect moves every time.

Maybe I should try it. Hmmmmm.

[Jest Phulin]

I must have masochistic tendencies I guess.

And a bad understanding of the world around you.

You have defined a miracle as an event that happens 1 in 36 times. That often isn't even statistically an outlier.
You have stated 6-1 has a 3 in 36 chance of happening. It has a 2 in 36 chance. (6-1, 1-6), or 1 in 18

System now gives me 6-1. a 3 in 36 (1 in 12) disaster roll.

You have stated that a good player will beat a beginner about 7 out of 10 times. You have also stated that you should have beaten a particular opponent 8 or 9 times out of 10.

These are not consistent.

[Giordano Bruno 1974]

I'm not sure what reponse you are looking for but honestly the whole "I am so good that I should never lose but every Internet site conspires against me" schtick is really not going to get you any sympathy.

Not looking for sympathy. Don't need it. This nonsense is what it is and is prevalent on every gaming site. I expect to lose single games every now and then but the manner in which you are forced to lose games here is frankly just embarrassing. The stark differences between good and bad players should see you have lots of straightforward games where you simply dominate opponent without issue. But it doesn't happen. The system always finds a way to let the underdog back in the game with the miracle 1 in 36 dice throws. Every game has to be a constant to and fro almost but not quite win or lose. That's just not real. Good players soundly beat bad players 7+ times out of 10. The system here just doesn't let you do it.

I could, but I won't, run Jellyfish on my PC alongside the game here putting in the Jellyfish moves which are the statistically best winning moves. I would predict that Jellyfish would lose as much as anyone else despite it's perfect moves every time.

Maybe I should try it. Hmmmmm.

That would be cheating and likely to get you banned.

I don't really see the point in endlessly repeating that you are a really good player and ought to win more.

As I said before your argument for games being rigged requires the game to have AI. Programming AI is a really big deal, more difficult than the actual game. Do I believe that people do this for free so that BGA can make money from it? No, not at all. I esppecially don't believe that they would keep quiet about it.

If they did have AI then it's odd that only the one game offers a computer vs player option. You'd have thought a site with AI that wished to make as much money as possible would allow this option. There must been some people who'd rather play against a computer. I would when I'm only learning a game.

But I don't see the point in repeating this. You think all games sites are rigged and even the Elo system (in use in pro chess since 1960) is a rigged system to maintain the interest of weak players.

My conclusion is that you are either not as good at backgammon as you think you are or backgammon is a game with a large amount of luck and even the best players don't win consistantly.

[Giordano Bruno 1974]

You have stated 6-1 has a 3 in 36 chance of happening. It has a 2 in 36 chance. (6-1, 1-6), or 1 in 18

To be pedantic 6 to 1 means that there are 6 chances of something not happening compared to 1 chance of it happening. That's a 1 in 7 chance of occuring. He's wrong about it being 6 to 1.

edit: I think I got the wrong end of the stick here. Please ignore. You meant 6 then a 1.

[CaractacusPots]

Forgive me, I need to just correct your statements there

You have defined a miracle as an event that happens 1 in 36 times. That often isn't even statistically an outlier.

No. I have defined a miracle as being given the 1 in 36 dice roll AT THE PRECISE TIME IN THE GAME when it is needed to turn a game around.
The 1 in 36 by itself is not a miracle. The timing is everything.

You have stated 6-1 has a 3 in 36 chance of happening. It has a 2 in 36 chance. (6-1, 1-6), or 1 in 18

No I didn't. Read my post again. Opp had 1pt and 6pt covered. The only dice throws that would prevent me getting on the board were therefore 6-6, 6-1 and 1-1. However in my haste I DID get those odds wrong because there are 2 ways to roll 6-1 thus there were just 4 rolls in 36 possible rolls that would prevent me from getting on the board. So it was 1 in 9. So at that particular point in the game it was a 1 in 36 miracle throw followed by a 1 in 9 miracle throw, collectively 1 in 324, happening at the exact point in the game needed to turn it around.

backgammon is a game with a large amount of luck and even the best players don't win consistantly.

Sorry but that's is patently nonsense. The one truth in all of this is that the best players DO win matches consistently. Anyone can win a single match but over many matches the best players will always come out on top and very significantly so.

[CaractacusPots]

To be pedantic 6 to 1 means that there are 6 chances of something not happening compared to 1 chance of it happening. That's a 1 in 7 chance of occuring. He's wrong about it being 6 to 1.

Good grief man. 6-1 is the dice throw not the odds

1 in 6 is the odds.

[Giordano Bruno 1974]

To be pedantic 6 to 1 means that there are 6 chances of something not happening compared to 1 chance of it happening. That's a 1 in 7 chance of occuring. He's wrong about it being 6 to 1.

Good grief man. 6-1 is the dice throw not the odds

1 in 6 is the odds.

It's not. Jest Phulin is correct. There are two combinations out of thirty six. The odds are 1 in 18.

[Giordano Bruno 1974]

No. I have defined a miracle as being given the 1 in 36 dice roll AT THE PRECISE TIME IN THE GAME when it is needed to turn a game around.
The 1 in 36 by itself is not a miracle. The timing is everything.

The odds aren't dependent on the game situation. A 1 in 36 dice roll is always a 1 in 36 dice roll no matter what the situation is. If you had 36 identical boards, you would expect one to get the need number and the other 35 to fail.