Is LUCK only applicable to highly skilled players?

Manic
Active Poster
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:08 am
Location: UP or DOWN

Is LUCK only applicable to highly skilled players?

Post by Manic » Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:50 pm

When you see the title of this new thread for the first time, i would say that a good chunk of you may laugh.
It does seem that way if you look at it in a common sense perspective.
WHY? well luck should apply to everyone in any given sample. RIGHT?

What does that mean exactly?

Well if a take a random group of a people and ask each one to flip a coin then each person has the same probability of flipping a head or a tail.

Lets now take 1 doctor, 1 lawyer, 1 bookie, 1 professor, 1 teacher, 1 student, 1 cleaner, 1 unemployed person and give them all the same coin and ask them to flip it...

Can any of these people influence what they flip? Or do they all have the same probability of flipping either a head or a tail??

I dont need to answer this, because the question is rhetorical.

Some of the responders in previous threads appear to think that highly skilled spades players are the only ones who seem to fall victim to LUCK elements in the game of spades, and that LESS skilled players are completely immune.

If we start of with any hand of spades and deal it to 4 new players:
1 master
1 expert
1 intermediate
1 beginner

Is it not fair to say that each of these players all have the same probabilty of being dealt a good hand? of course it is.
Is luck proportionate to the ABILITY of the player? NO

If we give the master this hand:
AKQJ
432
432
432

And give their partner the Expert player this hand:

432
A765
A65
A65

Ive given the higher skilled players ALL the exits and all the bosses.
Its clear that both players could bid their hand and make bid exactly and will not take any bags. The beginners will bag the rest.

Does it take skill to bid or play these hands do u think?

What the point of this example?

Well any player can be dealt a good blend of cards.
Whether it be bosses and exits.

It is not limited to skill level or ability.

However this goes further...

It any given game each player or team has the same WEAPONS available to their disposal ? right?

So if we were to control the game such that no bag penalties and no nils were allowed, back in the ole days...

Does luck discriminate now?
Does the beginner or the expert have any advantage over the LUCK aspects of the game???
Not at all, each player is totally subjected to what cards are dealt.
There is not difference in luck it doesnt discriminate. unless u sit in the red seat LOL kidding...

However the difference would be, how these players use their cards, in the best strategic way.

IF the experts keep getting the best cards throughout the game, could you conclude they outplayed the beginners? NOPE the experts might just think its justice. Essentially though they did not have use much skill, the cards were handed to them.

In a game of no bag penalties and no nils, and the only way u can get set, is to be short of your contract, how is the team who doesnt get the ...
1. Trump control
2. count cards

...going to win? they cant can they?
Furthermore the team receiving the majority of the cards with a lead do not have to bid too aggressive do they?
Once a team has a substantial lead due to a couple good hands, then they can virtually sit back and put their foot off the juice and play comfortably and conservatively, until they win, unless theres a huge wind shift and their opps start getting the cards...

So in this instance when one team keeps getting the cards, how does either side counteract this disadvantage??? they have nothing to combat it....

Is it fair that 1 team keeps getting the cards??
Shouldnt the opposition have another bid to counteract this poor luck?

Introduce the bag component one player said...

So now the team who is getting all the cards, have to now be careful of taking bags because of the penalty involved.
So now it doesnt just come down to the team getting the high cards, it now comes down to the low cards as well...
The HUMBLE EXIT cards, the 2,3,4...

Now bidding becomes more pertinent doesnt it? The team who was bidding reserved now must consider if they keep bidding that way, they may take extra tricks and be penalized for it... aaaaaaah

Do u see a trend happening here ladies and gents?
Does it matter which team is getting the high cards now?
It matters who gets the bulk of the high cards AND the bulk of the low cards.

Are the experts better off in this case or the beginners?
Or is it the same???

1. It give both teams the same degree of luck in terms of the cards they get. Now either side can try and combat the high cards with the low cards and try a diff strategy.

2. Sure the Experts could count better, and use their cards to be more efficient, nobody is taking that away from them... However in terms of luck its still the same...But wouldnt u agree that the Expert team is now slightly better off in terms of how they manage the extra weapon in the game? the bag penalty...

THE MORE COMPLICATED THE GAME BECOMES THE MORE WEAPONS AVAILABLE THE MORE BIDS AND THE MORE ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS THE PLAYER WHO CAN BETTER USE THESE WEAPONS THE BEST WILL WIN THE GAME.

Wouldnt you all agree with that statement?

If so what if we were to add new elements to the game?

What about bringing in the HUMBLE NIL???

is this going to benefit the expert or the beginner more???
think carefully!

It depends who gets
1. the cards better for nilling right? and or if
2. their partner gets a decent cover hand?
3. or where the concentration of strength with the opponents lie

So does it matter which team (whether it be the expert team or the beginner team), gets the hands better to nil with???
Well each team has the same amount of luck dont they?
Just as they did when general cards had been dealt, where the high cards helped u bid more and the low cards helped them to bag them more.

This new element doesnt discriminate does it?
Or does it??

If the expert team keeps being dealt the nils, are the experts lucky or good? lol they are lucky arent they? it makes no diff as to their skill level.

However the expert team could very well do several things better:
1. Cover their partner better
2. Take more risky nils and play it better to get covered
3. They could DEFEND against their opps nils better
-either lead better
-or bid better against them
-they could set the cover bid and take extra pts
-they could bag the cover more by bidding low

Most would agree that the Expert would be able to MANAGE the nil bid better than their beginner counterpart right?

So the introduction of the nil bid to the game has it hindered the better player??? or not? Has 1 team been given the advantage of the luck factor?
NO they cant can they? They still have manage the nil in a variety of ways both offensively and defensively... theres no doubt to the extra complexity of the game with the addition of a nil.

Some people claim that the nil yields too many pts when it is made.
But the nil doesnt discriminate does it? any side could have a cake nil dealt...However not every side could make a more risky nil could they?
Even a nil with 76 in a sidesuit can be defeated if the cover hasnt got the coverage. No nils are ever guaranteed.

The point is ad we increase the number of bidding options in the game, it becomes more difficult to MANAGE them all, and use the right bid in the appropriate context.

So is it justified that any team complains about the cards???
Well i guess if one team consistently gets dealt

1. The majority of spades
2. All the low exit cards: 2,3,4
3. good hands for nilling

They can capitalize on more pts, and avoid more bags.
Does this happen often?

Dont the better players COUNTERACT their misfortune?? and create their own luck as it were??
The better players start pushing there hands either
1. bidding higher or
2. bidding lower to try and
3. either bag them or yield more pts?
4. Trying to counteract nils by bidding higher and setting covers?
5. Taking more risky nils to try and claw back the difference???

The better players can JUGGLE all these options and take advantage when need be, even when they r behind the 8 ball and not getting the good blend of cards.

So how can the nil be considered too high in its bonus?
When both sides have the same weapon to use?
When both sides reagrdless of ability can use various methods to counteract their misfortune?

The whole point of introducing extra elements to the game was to make it more complex and difficult to manage but also, provide options for the better player to combat bad cards...
Good players are not immune to poor cards... and neither are bad players.
So should the game not have a blend of bids whereby if a team gets good cards and bad cards, they both CAN still score pts?

This ensures that even though 1 team gets all the high cards, the other team can either nil or bag them, if they get the low cards.

The bid options are crucial for balancing out the distribution of high and low cards to either team.

HANG ON 1 MINUTE....

IS IT JUST HOW THE HIGH AND LOW CARDS ARE DISTRIBUTED AMONG EACH TEAM ...????

whether a team can bid highly or bid lower and or nil etc...???

No there are other factors...

1. The POSITION of KEY CARDS make a huge difference to whether we can SET an opponent, or whether we can bag them....

2. The distribution of all suits.... Greatly determines if we can take more tricks, particularly the trump suit. If a suit breaks more unevenly then a team can be in trouble of making as many tricks as they anticpated...

While better players can MANAGE all the bids offered, and play for the best % of splits, and identify where key cards / honors are situated around the table, they cannot change where they are actually positioned.

What do i mean by this???

Lets take this simple diagram:

.............North
.............QJT
West.................East
xxx...................Kxx
.............South
.............Axxx

you can see that East's King is ON A HOOK
In other words that king is always going to be captured.
But hang on a moment, East was the most HIGHLY skilled player at the table LOL

Position doesnt discriminate...

Of course if south was an absolute creten and led from his Axxx holding then he would endplay his team out of a trick, and make that King good.

The best example we can provide is if we have 4 experts of similar ability playing at the one table...

Think about this for a moment....

Does any team have an advantage over the other???

1. It comes down to the cards allocated
2. The distributional splits
3. The position of key cards
4. The creativity of the players
5. How intuitive the players are in reading their counterparts.

Has anyone ever considered how a team is SET ???
Is it just because 1 team is more HIGHLY SKILLED than the other???
Or is it because the position of key cards ALLOWS for it??

See given 4 experts of equal ability, u cannot argue they skill is the key underlying force that affects whether a team can be set.

IT comes down often to the types of cards dealt and how they bid them...
Lots of Expert players stretch their hands given a variety of situations.
Yet when any key honor they have is on the wrong side...then they will be weakened and prone to getting set...

Would u agree then that adding new elements into the game doesnt make it harder for the better players??? it should make it harder for the less skilled players, its more complex and takes more nouse to manage all the different situations, from Bidding to playing...etc...

So if we were to keep adding new elements it would also make it more difficult for any player who cannot manage the new environment....

Isnt is also true that the luck doesnt discriminate against any player regardless of their skill level???

The high cards, low cards, nil hands, etc... all players had full access to all bids....

So if we introduce a new bid into the game such as the blind nil, why should either player be discriminated in terms of luck???

Each player has the same option to use each bid at the table...

The reality is that very few BN's are bid bid correctly, and are ill timed. very few DN's are made. i would say that the 99% of players do not bid BN's at the appropriate times, and hence 95% of them or maybe more go down.

Its the player who doesnt know when to bid them, or cover them or DEFEND against them, or DISCOURAGE their opps bidding them that loses out...

Beginners cannot just bid blind nils and make them LOL
No one can just bid them and get lucky consistently...
id say that less than 5% of DN's bid actually are good DN's and most of them are going to be SET...

I think any PLAYER regardless of SKILL level who has been completely undermined during the course of the game, with their opps getting not only the high cards, but the low cards as well and the nils, deserves the opportunity to COUNTERACT that bad luck of the deals and try and get back into the game...

IF all 4 EXPERTS at equal levels played in a Blind Nil game, and one side got to a lead because the key honors were always OFFSIDE and they were unlucky and thats why they got set...or they didnt get the exit cards to bag... etc etc...................

If they were to bid a blind nil in the right context and get them back into the game, wouldnt u think that it would only justice?

MOST have only talked about the poor disadvantaged EXPERT like they are the ones who are always undermined...but thats not true. Luck is equally spread between all persons at the game regardless of skill level.

The expert is not invincible and is also subjected to poor deals too.

The whole point of the existance of bag penalties, nils and Blind nils is to try and counteract or balance out the luck in any given game...

ITs the team who can BEST manage all these bids or weapons the best that will prevail more than not...

Too many times i hear of players complaining at the table or in forums that they lost to bad cards...
While is it is possible to not receive anything...
Its not impossible to try new things and try and FORCE the game free...
I think good players will try a whole host of creative bids and tricks to try and break the game open...

The most satisfying games are the ones where we have a legit nil and it goes down, or a bad split in distribution and we get set early, and we are behind by 200 pts or so....

Trying to get back into the game opens up a can of worms for creativity and brilliance.

This is the perfect environment to see the best players shine...

Its much more satisfying to comeback from being -199 (9) - 240 down and winning the game in 20 hands,
than to be dealt good cards, and have good positional advantage and be able to set players because they were merely unlucky with the splits...

I just wonder how many Experts out there know how they set their opponents, or do they simply have a HIGH opinion of themelf and that they are just very good players and it was expected??

The grounded experts know, when their was a key card offside or a good distribution opens up, its often not because we were brilliant but because we were in FACT quite lucky...

There are very few times when a player actually defeats the opposition with clever coups and tricks.

The best sets are those when u HOLD-UP the play and FOOL ur opposition, and are able to endplay them. Now if u set someone particularly a fellow expert opposition using a great COUP them i take my hat off to you....
Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect

Openshut
Active Poster
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:56 am

Post by Openshut » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:47 am

Sorry not to give you an equally lengthy response. Here is the problem, If you have something to lose then Dn is fine just like when you bid 2 after your pard bids 1 and get set or you bid 4-7 in first seat and get hanged yah could had been more conservative majority of the times. Now when you Dn you typically have nothing to lose. Hence the whole line of your discourse to prove the concept of the Dn needs to be reformulated.

You need to address it as a viable mutual deterrent, quit the long winded stuff most of the individuals who reads these stuff are quite bright even if we all have our failings in logic or perspective that can impose limits where they need not be.

It’s clear that most know the Dn only favors the losing team; because they are losing. So to make your arguments you needs to disprove this notion.

Let us make a deal keep it shorter and I shall try to see your point. In any event I am very willing to be disproved... But you will need to enhance how you put forward your logic.
It can not be half truths nor misguided sight of hand either.

User avatar
Dust In The Wind
Guide
Posts: 5343
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: North Ga Mts

Post by Dust In The Wind » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:55 am

LOL


JUST DUST
TO BE OR NOT TO BE..... NOW WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT??? TO BE OF COURSE!!!!!

User avatar
Just_Ice
Grand Master
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:51 am
Location: Ozarks

Post by Just_Ice » Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:37 pm

Sorry, but I only read the first part of your post. But, I wanted to comment on a misconception that many have. Many think luck affects all players equally, and I thought that's where you were headed with your post.

The general consensus is that of 100 games, you WIN 20 by the *luck* of the cards, you *LOSE* 20 by the luck of the cards, and 60 are decided by skill. Now, I'm not certain that the numbers are that high, but that's just what I've heard from many different sources.

So, let's assume an expert team is going against a team that JUST learned the game. Let's say they play 10 games and the expert team wins all 6 of the skill games, plus the allotted 2 for luck. That means the team who just learned to play will be 2-8 against the experts.

If all things were even, the experts should be 10-0 against the newbies.

Clearly, luck favors the less skilled.

Now, let's say 2 expert teams played each other and they go 5-5 against each other. Clearly, the 4 game swing of *luck* from the deal means far less in that situation, because if 2 teams are even, their record against each other will always be closer to even.

I hope this makes sense. It's not that there is *less luck* in a higher skilled game, because the deals are random for all who play. It's that luck *means less* to teams who are more evenly matched... whether they are higher skilled or less skilled.

So, of the games that ARE decided by skill, the uneveness of the cards is a more significant factor when teams of a more equal skill play, but the 4 swing games are less significant since their records are near the same anyway. So, what Galt means (I think) is NOT that luck is more significant in the swing games, but the 6 other games where maybe only a slight difference in cards can give one side the advantage.

If you still have doubts, consider a common rating system. If 2 players rated 2000 played 2 players rated 1500 for 10 games, the 2-8 recored would be enough to actually RAISE the lesser skilled player's rating, and the 8-2 record for the higher skilled team would be enough to give them a net decrease in their rating.

So, now, I ask you, who does the *luck of the deal* affect more?

Manic
Active Poster
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:08 am
Location: UP or DOWN

Post by Manic » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:44 pm

hope this makes sense. It's not that there is *less luck* in a higher skilled game, because the deals are random for all who play. It's that luck *means less* to teams who are more evenly matched... whether they are higher skilled or less skilled.
When 2 evenly matched teams square off, the luck of the cards, suit distributions and position of key count cards MEANS so much more than if a team were to play a less skilled pairing.

WHY? because its a lot harder to win against a team who is making less mistakes as you are.

The more breaks you get (luck as it were) against a good pairing the easier it becomes to win...

Usually the only way one team can overcome a team equivalent to their skill level is to get the better of key positions.
Better players are much less prone to get sucked in by sneaky plays, and they make far less mistakes.

Sometimes its just 1 unforced error which makes the difference.

Very seldom do you find a team beating another because they made some fancy coup or squeeze to set them....in almost 95% of games its because of the deal:

1. Who gets the Trump control more often
2. who gets the exit cards, the nils
3. where the key cards lie
4. distributional splits
5. * Who makes the least mistakes *

If a team has an impecable record against another team who claim they are experts too, well that idea is flawed. Lop-sided records dont usually exist in huge swings when 2 evenly matched teams are squaring off.

The conundrum is that you will never get perfectly skilled teams squaring off against each other, unless you were to simulate artificial intelligence.
Then it would surely come down to the luck factor.

Better Lead conventions, plays from certain holdings, endplays, trump management all BIDDING esp all make little inroads and what gives a side the advantage over another, but in actual fact, a teams lack of efficiency in any of these areas is really a mistake.

Although many of you may think there are many ways to skin a cat, many different VALID ways to play, to lead, to etc etc...there will always exist a slighty better more officient productive strategy... The players who find that edge are distinctly better players.

Quite often its the Tempo of the hand that makes all the diff. Which opening lead a team makes can make or break whether a set can take place with good teams squaring off.

When a proficient team squares off against a lower skilled team, they can overcome poor distribution's etc by outplaying them. The Deal is much less an issue.

Too many people have suggested either directly or indirectly that good players are handicaped against poorer players in terms of the luck... lol

The deals and all the randomness of it applies to everyone, better players derive their own luck, they dont need to worry about not getting it.

....unless the opposition is a TRUE equal then u want better positional advantages for sure.
Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect

User avatar
Just_Ice
Grand Master
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:51 am
Location: Ozarks

Post by Just_Ice » Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:11 am

Manic wrote:When 2 evenly matched teams square off, the luck of the cards, suit distributions and position of key count cards MEANS so much more than if a team were to play a less skilled pairing.
Yep, included with my quoted comment below, what you have stated is also true.
Just_Ice wrote:So, what Galt means (I think) is NOT that luck is more significant in the swing games, but the 6 other games where maybe only a slight difference in cards can give one side the advantage.
This quote was speaking about more skilled teams facing each other.

Not only are the cards in the 6 games decided by skill more meaningful to more evenly matched teams, but the more skilled those teams are, the more significant even a slight difference in cards can be.

Agreed.

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Post by Galt » Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:14 am

I didn't read the whole post either but I did see the following, which is a grossly incaccurate statement:

"Some of the responders in previous threads appear to think that highly skilled spades players are the only ones who seem to fall victim to LUCK elements in the game of spades, and that LESS skilled players are completely immune."

I have never seen anyone who said anything even close to that, and I certainly didn't say it.

I'll this once again.

There is luck in Spades. It affects all players. If the better team won every game of Spades, Spades would be no fun.

One of the most fun aspects of Spades is trying to use your skill to overcome bad luck or bad deals. Unless one team is really unlucky in a game, it is possible to make almost any game close, UNLESS TEHRE IS SOME RIDICULOUS BID AVAILABLE TO THE OTHER TEAM WHICH RENDERS THE ENTIRE GAME MEANINGLESS IN TERMS OF HOW SKILLFULLY THE TWO TEAMS PLAYED THE GAME.

Does anyone who wins a game with a BN bid ever eave the table thinking "Oh boy, I sure am a good Spades player"? Does anyone who loses a game to a BN bid ever leave the table thinking "Oh boy, I sure need to learn how to play better."?

Only if they are living in lala land.

So, one can write voluminous posts trying to pretend that others have said things that they never said, and trying to prove that luck is skill, or that skill is luck.

In the end, however, luck really is luck, skill really is skill, and all accomplished players, and the vast majority of all players, have no trouble recognizing this obvious reality.
Image

User avatar
Dust In The Wind
Guide
Posts: 5343
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: North Ga Mts

Post by Dust In The Wind » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:52 pm

DITTO, to keep my post short, I also never stated that bad luck is something that befalls skilled players.

JUST DUST

PS - I also did not read the entire post since we went through this one twisting the written word.

I still will not be playing games with BN/DN because in my opinion it is a desperation bid when your abilities to win the game through regular bids has failed whether due to bad luck or lack of skill in comparison to the opposing team.
TO BE OR NOT TO BE..... NOW WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT??? TO BE OF COURSE!!!!!

User avatar
Joe Andrews
Active Poster
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:48 pm
Contact:

Luck

Post by Joe Andrews » Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:40 pm

Some thoughts on a Holiday weekend.

Galt acknowledged a long time ago that luck is a factor in Spades. If the best Spades players won all the time, the game would be less appealing. Good point.

And, I have had my share of "won" games stolen by bad cards or lucky opponent's Nils on the last hand or two. Tough way to lose.

On occasions, I have also "stolen" some wins thanks to great cards, or gambling Nils which made!

"Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you." Still, the skilled Pair will usually win in the long run....

And Dustin is right, a "duplicate" format would be the true to test of skill. The game of Bridge (ACBL) never uses "Fresh Deal" formats to decide the outcome of any of their events from local to regional to National to International competitions.

Spades is not Bridge, and therin lies its charm and randomness.

"On any given day" ......... :lol:





"
Last edited by Joe Andrews on Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Vidurr
Active Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:54 am

Post by Vidurr » Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:32 am

I've seen several articles in the past regarding luck vs. skill. Chess is considered a 100 % skill game. There is no deal, there is no roll of the dice. Two players in total control of their play and moves.

Roulette; almost total 100% luck. Spin the wheel, where she stops, nobody knows.

Some articles then attempted to place a percentage of luck vs. skill for those games in between chess and roulette.

As example, card games including spades, have been rated as much as 80% luck and 20% skill. Others tend to think it's 50/50. Some go as high as 60% skill and 40% luck.

For those who play regularly; discuss hands, bids or games or maybe read to improve their game; it can be a real ego-deflator to lose to the luck of the deal despite all the hours of "homework" and study.

So why the rise in spades and other card games on the internet? My guess is that in part it is exactly because of that element or percentage of luck.

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Post by Galt » Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:00 am

I generally estimate it at around 40%, meaning that 40 out of 100 games would be really hard to either not win or not lose.

I think that if the luck factor was much higher, you would not see the wide range of winning percnetages across players.

For instance, if the luck factor was 80%, it would be almost impossible to have an 80% winning percentage, yet many highly skilled players win at around that level. Doing so would be hard even if the luck factor was 60%.

I also agree that the fact that almost any team can beat almost any other team in a given game is one of the things that gives Spades its appeal. It i like I said earlier. If the more skilled team won every game, the game would not be much fun.
Image

User avatar
Just_Ice
Grand Master
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:51 am
Location: Ozarks

Post by Just_Ice » Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:29 am

I also feel, at least to a point, skill can overcome bad cards. Not always, though, because I agree with Galt, that there are some games you have to try to lose in order to lose. I think this presents the challenge to expert players who play less skilled players. It creates the potential for each and every game to be challenging, and I think that's part of the appeal also.

Vidurr
Active Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:54 am

Post by Vidurr » Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:10 pm

Just_Ice wrote:I also feel, at least to a point, skill can overcome bad cards. Not always, though, because I agree with Galt, that there are some games you have to try to lose in order to lose. I think this presents the challenge to expert players who play less skilled players. It creates the potential for each and every game to be challenging, and I think that's part of the appeal also.
For sure part of the "fun" in cards is the underdog pulling out a win sometimes based entirely on the luck of the deal. "The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat".

I've always been a believer in allowing players the opportunity to play as they want on HW without limitations. It had to be that way because there was a time when HW just didn't have enough players to play certain games or certain rankings. I also know the risk of making generalizations, especially in this forum.

But even I'm amazed at some of HW's "expert" players who have taken the "concept" of "skill can overcome bad cards" to the point of manipulation. The example that some players thrive on... is the "expert" player who only plays "prov" games or other low ranked games.

There are a few who do this regularly. I seen a 20 - 0 nic recently that was loaded with opponents of a 1300 rank or substantial losing records. There was also a 45 - 5 won/loss record, that again was achieved only by playing lesser opponents.

So that 20 - 0 nic means what? That 45 - 5 record with a 1700 rating means what?

Some players overcome "bad" luck by only playing lesser skilled players. Just look for the 90+% win percentage.

HW may have grown enough that it is no longer necessary to have players with a 1700 rank play 1300 ranked players. Maybe it's time to set a "top" limit on table settings in addition to the bottom limit. A 400 point difference in opponent rankings is manipulation. Maybe that ranking difference should be limited to 200 or even 100 points?

There was a time in HW that it might have been necessary to have such extreme ranking differences at a table in order to get a game (without creating a new name).

But now it is just manipulation of the system to beat "bad luck" with "skill" by just playing a much lower ranked or lesser skilled player.

User avatar
Ralphie May
Active Poster
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 3:07 pm
Location: Chattanooga TN
Contact:

Post by Ralphie May » Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:06 pm

I would rather be good then lucky because skill beats luck. If it is just the luck of the cards then why do I win considerably more then I loose on a regular basis?
Image

User avatar
dustin7609
Active Poster
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:22 pm

Post by dustin7609 » Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:47 pm

A pretty good analysis, Manic.

If we were to plot the luck factor, it would be a curved graph.

As the opponents' skill level approaches your team's skill level, the luck factor approaches 100%. Theoretically, with 2 equal pairs, the luck factor should be 100%.

The more disparate the skill levels between the two teams, the more the luck factor approaches 0.

There are many different aspects to what we call "luck". Of course the most obvious -- the cards one is dealt.

Of course, there is the notion of unforced error and when it will occur. It is of course "lucky" when your opponents make that unforced error. For instance, let's assume an expert pair makes 1 error every 2 games (just for the sake of argument -- in truth, even an expert pair errors much more often than this). It would of course be fortunate for your side if they happen to make an error during YOUR game while unfortunate for the next pair they face. This is prevalent in top-flight duplicate bridge.

I think this notion exists in all endeavors, including Chess.

Post Reply