Games with dice

[N_Faker]

One-point match backgammon isn't much more than a drawn out coinflip once you reach a level above abysmal.

[Ze Monstah]

One-point match backgammon isn't much more than a drawn out coinflip once you reach a level above abysmal.

Care to rephrase for people whose English is not as bright? This is also for every similar reply.

[N_Faker]

Luck has a far greater impact than skill for games of backgammon without the doubling cube or bonuses for gammon or backgammon. To the point that any player of an average skill level can expect to win or lose about half of their games.

[Meeplelowda]

If i have a FEELING something weird is involved in the algorithm in certain games (like Backgammon...), i am free to write it here, because it is only a feeling, I am not attacking anyone in particular and I want to see other people's opinions.
I think something is off with the algorithm in certain games (perhaps unknowingly).

You are free to write about your feelings and other people are free to point out that there is a reason scientists rigorously collect data instead of just relying on feelings and anecdotes. Human memory and feelings are imperfect, and your expectations of what should happen affect your memory of what happened vs. what really happened. That's why people ask for statistics.

[Ze Monstah]

If i have a FEELING something weird is involved in the algorithm in certain games (like Backgammon...), i am free to write it here, because it is only a feeling, I am not attacking anyone in particular and I want to see other people's opinions.
I think something is off with the algorithm in certain games (perhaps unknowingly).

You are free to write about your feelings and other people are free to point out that there is a reason scientists rigorously collect data instead of just relying on feelings and anecdotes. Human memory and feelings are imperfect, and your expectations of what should happen affect your memory of what happened vs. what really happened. That's why people ask for statistics.

Yeah... try to read all! One has a limited number of daily replays available, after which, the system forbids, with an error message.

I barely had the chance to collect enough data to accuse a cheater in Werewolves game, 'cause the system errored me after 6 or 7 game replays, so I had to ask someone else to replay the other games I needed, and tell me the info I needed. (my accusation was spot-on, shared by most of the game community, and not a paranoia attack or drama seeking).

The difference is that in the Werewolves game there were 10-15-20 games needed for some concise proof, while here (even if in my last 10 games, for me there are enough pieces of evidence to sustain my opinion), the ones asking for STATISTICS (like you) seek for 1000 games, or 1000 moves, or 100 last games, a thing which cannot happen if i do it by myself, because of the error i already twice mentioned.

If you really want statistics, let's do this: we gather 10 people to analyse my last 100 games (me included, of course, and hoping the error message won't appear until 10th. game replayed - otherwise more people would be needed, for a smaller number of games to be replayed by each). We search the games, and look for: number of 6-6s after being taken out, number of doubles for the loser vs. winner, number of wins/losses in a row, number of turn-of-events losing situations in a row, number of getting the exact combination by the winners to win in a row, etc. You will be amazed by the results.

Thanks anyway for your reply.

[Ze Monstah]

Luck has a far greater impact than skill for games of backgammon without the doubling cube or bonuses for gammon or backgammon. To the point that any player of an average skill level can expect to win or lose about half of their games.

In my opinion only, this game is almost 100% luck-based in the way it is given on this site, on other sites and most often, in real life - without the bonuses you mentioned (I agree that the bonuses would make the game less luck-based, and I would be most happy if they were introduced on the site!).

Still, many players, usually the ones who happen to be luckier in most of their games, defend the game's strategy-need (the game being as it is, without bonuses), by saying there are so many books written, and that strategy is crucial, and that luck is far less important, and etc. Some of these players are in the BG top; so they say this, and you throw a look at their games, and you see them rolling only doubles and the exact numbers needed to win, from start to finish... OK...

For instance... with the current number 1 all-time leader in backgammon... I have 28 games, with 14/14 win/loss ratio. So if you consider him a "genius" at this game, of some sort, that means that I am a decent player, at least (again, if we are talking strategy>luck, to which I disagree). I was almost 400 ELO, I had periods of mostly-won-games, but i still found and I still find all my complaints about the algorithm, STRONG, ACCURATE, and I will stay ADAMANT to them, even if I happen to win my next 20 games (I lost 9/10 of my last games, by the way, most of them, in a turn-of-events kind of way, or with the other player with doubles after doubles).

Regarding your reply above (the 2nd. one was easier to read, and after I read it, I also understood the "abysmal" from the first try), being a luck-based game... It is obvious that one might expect a near 50% win/loss ratio. So i don't understand the usefulness of your reply: neither the OP, nor myself, referred to the 50% expected... I personally referred to things regarding weird algorithm, mostly, and the fact that for me, there are too many "1 win in 10 games" periods, to not think something might be off.

[N_Faker]

... I would be most happy if they were introduced on the site.

https://boardgamearena.com/gamepanel?ga ... nmatchplay

-

So i don't understand the usefulness of your reply: neither the OP, nor myself, referred to the 50% expected... I personally referred to things regarding weird algorithm, mostly, and the fact that for me, there are too many "1 win in 10 games" periods, to not think something might be off.

And anyway... IMO, you can call everyone who has a "feeling", paranoid or any other name (since i was called in that post, as well), but I think that a decent player... who frequently loses more than 5 or 6 Backgammon games in a row, without playing too risky! (regardless of who he/she plays with), or loses more than 75% games of the last 20 games played in a short period of time... is enough proof that something is not ok. Then the luck changes to 180 degrees for the next days, and so on. So IMO, I prefer games where the luck is far less needed than Backgammon, Koi Koi, Buttons and their relatives.

You claimed that strings of losses or wins is "proof that something is not ok".

[Ze Monstah]

... I would be most happy if they were introduced on the site.

https://boardgamearena.com/gamepanel?ga ... nmatchplay

Thanks for the link. I knew about that. But...
1. I do not wish anymore to become a reviewer (and even if i did, having less than 50 kind of games played, I cannot);
2. Even if I applied, I am not sure I would be accepted...

Anyway, I just got involved in this thread, because I saw the OP's question, and i felt to write complex pieces of answers, and I think I touched all the details I wanted.
I hope no one felt offended by the lack of agreement and by the way I answered.
My idea was: I think the algorithm in some games might be unknowingly flawed.
Bye bye.

[Ze Monstah]

... I would be most happy if they were introduced on the site.

https://boardgamearena.com/gamepanel?ga ... nmatchplay

-

So i don't understand the usefulness of your reply: neither the OP, nor myself, referred to the 50% expected... I personally referred to things regarding weird algorithm, mostly, and the fact that for me, there are too many "1 win in 10 games" periods, to not think something might be off.

And anyway... IMO, you can call everyone who has a "feeling", paranoid or any other name (since i was called in that post, as well), but I think that a decent player... who frequently loses more than 5 or 6 Backgammon games in a row, without playing too risky! (regardless of who he/she plays with), or loses more than 75% games of the last 20 games played in a short period of time... is enough proof that something is not ok. Then the luck changes to 180 degrees for the next days, and so on. So IMO, I prefer games where the luck is far less needed than Backgammon, Koi Koi, Buttons and their relatives.

You claimed that strings of losses or wins is "proof that something is not ok".

I claimed that FOR ME, EXAGGERATED strings of losses or wins are "proof that something is not ok, or might not be ok" (of course someone might be unlucky in 90% of the 20 games in a day, then be 75% lucky in the 30 games in the next day, but I don't buy it, as well as many other stuff).
One might have 50% w/l ratio, with 20 wins followed by 20 losses, the strategy level similar in all games, the difference being the one who got the excessive luck - her/him or the enemy, with the details i mentioned before.
So I do not see the relevance of the win/loss ratio... Again, neither me nor the OP mentioned the W/L ratio, but other details.
I do not think we understand each other well enough to debate this.
Thank you for the opinion.

[Meeplelowda]

I claimed that FOR ME, EXAGGERATED strings of losses or wins are "proof that something is not ok, or might not be ok"

How many wins or losses in a row in N games meets your criteria for "exaggerated"?