What percentage is luck involved in a games outcome?

There is already luck involved if playing with low luck.
A great deal imo.
Especially in the beginning of the game, first rnd, and some later, but more units means less luck, when playing
low luck games.
SBR is a good example. The difference between depriving G for 15-20 ipc through 5 rnds or
getting bmr shot down rnd 1 is huge. Maybe numbers could be up to 30 ipc with both UK and US bmr
surviving to rnd 5 and further.
Naval warfare, naval units are more expensive than land units, and naval warfare is very important in revised, often conducted with few units and luck is an important factor in all (low luck) battles with few units.
In all battles which includes air units in the attacking force, when attacking land TT with AA guns there is luck involved,
except those (low luck) battles with exactly 6 air units in the attacking force.
There are some “hardcore” gamers who plays in the lobby now and then who speaks of “no luck” option.
I welcome it and would like to try it, if it is well implemented in the tripleA version.
I would be more happy if most players prefered low luck rather than if a “no luck” option was available though.

I’m suprised that so few ppl see that A&A would still be both about skill and luck with low luck,
but with dice it’s mostly luck which decides the outcome.

@trihero:

Yay, thanks Frood. We both get it!

By the way, who is smiting me -_-? I don’t smite anyone!

Same here - I’m not THAT abrasive, am I?

Anywho, I thought of a few more examples that make the point.

Example 1: You are cooking scrambled eggs. When you cook them, you add a little water to make them fluffier. Assuming all else is equal, there will be two factors determining how your eggs turn out: how much water you add, and how much time you cook them for.
Now in our little controlled experiment, we want to narrow it down further, and find out what difference the amount of water makes. So now we say “Assuming the two eggs are as equal as possible with regard to the amount of time they are cooked, how significant is the amount of water added?”

You then cook a bunch of eggs under the same circumstances, for the same amount of time, only varying the amount of water added to the eggs. You get a bunch of different eggs. Now we ask “What accounts for the difference in these eggs? How significant was the amount of water?”

The answer is that the difference in water accounts for 100% of the difference, since in our experiment we have defined all other factors to be equal.

Example #2:

An even better example, this time from the world of figure skating. Suppose we have two equally skilled figure skaters. By equally skilled I mean that they consistently get the same marks for technical merit. However, the marks they get for artistic impression tend to vary much more - it is more subjective on the part of judges, they skate to different music, etc. so there tends to often be a difference in their artistic marks.

Now we come to the night of the competition. Both skaters do in fact get the same score in technical marks. This happens often in real life and it happens in our example here. Thus, we have a situation where the judges at least have deemed that their “skill level is as equal as possible” - they could find no basis on which to give one a higher score than the other.

So they have the same technical marks. (drum roll please) The question now is “Having scored the same in technical merit, how important will their mark in artistic merit be?”

The answer is 100%. The gold medal will be decided solely by the factor of artistic merit (assuming that there are no other factors beyond those assumed in our question).

Equal Skill DOES NOT EQUAL perfect play.  
If skill is equal the luck factor is no where near 100%.

Take two players who are equally skilled (but each player makes two mistakes every game they play which would define them as equal).  If they play 100 games and end up with a 50-50 split that would tend to confirm that yep they are equal and the deciding factor (while it could be dice) it ALSO could be when each player makes his 2 mistakes and how costly that mistake was (such as a bad purchase which has nothing to do with dice) and I’ll list some other possible factors a little later.

Now, Luck is the same for everyone, so as some of you put it, if you assume equal skill and take it out of the equation and are left with 100% Luck for these games, what happens when two people play 100 games and someone wins 60-40.  I can only assume that you guys would say one person is just luckier than the other, but I’d argue the initial assumption of equal skill was false for these two players.  And the guy that won 60 is actually BETTER than the guy that won 40, not luckier.

Also what happens if you completely remove luck and play no luck for a 100 games and end up with a 50-50 split with players of equal skill?  How did each player win 50?  It wasn’t the dice since you removed that variable.  It wasn’t skill since you defined them to be equal, so like chess there could be other factors involved.

Luck is a factor in small samples of games, but longterm all things even out and you are left with the better skilled players win more.

Also it is possible to be better than someone and lose and not have it releted to dice.  Pick your sport, every year in every sport some “bad team” beats a good one, while it could be luck (like a ref made a favorable call or a call was missed), it could also be the bad team was just on and had a great night.  All humans make mistakes, again it is false to assume equal skill means perfect play.

The same is true for A&A, luck and skill are not the only factors, there is fatigue (mentioned by Shadowhawk), focus, board set-up, bid placement, how serious are you taking the game or your opponent, ego, stubbornness, personality traits, purchases and probably a few others that I wouldn’t necessarily put into the class of “skill”.

Also the skill sets for the Axis compared to the Allies is different.  A great Allied player does not guarantee a great Axis player.

@Frood:

@trihero:

Yay, thanks Frood. We both get it!

By the way, who is smiting me -_-? I don’t smite anyone!

The answer is 100%. The gold medal will be decided solely by the factor of artistic merit (assuming that there are no other factors beyond those assumed in our question).

But there are other factors, which might be what you are looking for.

In this case the judges are a factor.  They could be biased.  While the artistc score will decide the competition, the basis of giving that score may not be uniform for both participants.  I’m sure we are all aware of some wacky scoring that my take place in the Olympics.  Maybe the judge is racist and scores highly for the skater of his race, maybe they are from the same country, maybe they were paid off, maybe they voted for the best looking skater, etc…

@Lucifer:

I’m suprised that so few ppl see that A&A would still be both about skill and luck with low luck,
but with dice it’s mostly luck which decides the outcome.

You, sir, are a heretic.

(Halo 2 grunts chime in)

“Her-e-tic!  Her-e-tic!”

I think the best players are those that are able to exploit the openings left with good luck on an attack, and minimize the problems given with bad luck on an attack.

Those that play low-luck just can’t handle it!  :roll:

–

and now for an impromptu crack pipe moment . . . (fanfare)

STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE

(with crack pipe and low luck)

Ben:  “Use teh forcez0rz, Luke!”

Luke: “okays” (switches off X-wing targeting computer)

Control:  “R U on crack?  wazap?”

Luke:  “No, I’m fine . . .”

(a couple minutes later)

pew pew!

.
.
.

Han:  “WTF u missed!”

Luke:  “wat?  But i used teh forcez0rz!”

Darth Vader:  (spinning around):  “Hahahaha i used low luck!  ur shot have no chance of going in!  all ur base are belong to us!”

Jar Jar Binks:  “Meesa love low luck!  All hail teh Galactic Empirezorz!”

@newpaintbrush:

@Lucifer:

I’m suprised that so few ppl see that A&A would still be both about skill and luck with low luck,
but with dice it’s mostly luck which decides the outcome.

You, sir, are a heretic.

(Halo 2 grunts chime in)

“Her-e-tic!  Her-e-tic!”

You are sometimes funny, but this is a serious matter for me.

Example: UK1. UK make combat moves, 2 inf vs 1 inf in Borneo, 2 inf vs 1 inf New Guinea, DD vs Jap trans,
sub vs sub, 2 ftrs 1 bmr vs 2 subs 1 DD 1 trans in Baltic.
Russia would move 6 inf to Bury because UK DD usually kills Jap trans.
If UK gets unlucky in all those battles, that is a big setback for allies.
Germany may attack UK fleet in sz2 with 2 subs (8 bid) 1 ftr 1 bmr.
These are just examples of battles with low luck in which luck is a huge factor.
You may not have noticed this, but there are almost no battles in which no dice is not rolled, with low luck!

@newpaintbrush:

I think the best players are those that are able to exploit the openings left with good luck on an attack, and minimize the problems given with bad luck on an attack.

Those that play low-luck just can’t handle it!   :roll:

–

and now for an impromptu crack pipe moment . . . (fanfare)

STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE

(with crack pipe and low luck)

Ben:  “Use teh forcez0rz, Luke!”

Luke: “okays” (switches off X-wing targeting computer)

Control:  “R U on crack?  wazap?”

Luke:  “No, I’m fine . . .”

(a couple minutes later)

pew pew!

.
.
.

Han:  “WTF u missed!”

Luke:  “wat?  But i used teh forcez0rz!”

Darth Vader:  (spinning around):  “Hahahaha i used low luck!  ur shot have no chance of going in!  all ur base are belong to us!”

Jar Jar Binks:  “Meesa love low luck!  All hail teh Galactic Empirezorz!”

:lol:

Smite me with your rubber chicken, and give me some of your crack, you seem to have more crack than
Germans have infantry in WE  :-D

@newpaintbrush:

I think the best players are those that are able to exploit the openings left with good luck on an attack, and minimize the problems given with bad luck on an attack.

Those that play low-luck just can’t handle it!   :roll:

–

and now for an impromptu crack pipe moment . . . (fanfare)

STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE

(with crack pipe and low luck)

Ben:  “Use teh forcez0rz, Luke!”

Luke: “okays” (switches off X-wing targeting computer)

Control:  “R U on crack?  wazap?”

Luke:  “No, I’m fine . . .”

(a couple minutes later)

pew pew!

.
.
.

Han:  “WTF u missed!”

Luke:  “wat?  But i used teh forcez0rz!”

Darth Vader:  (spinning around):  “Hahahaha i used low luck!  ur shot have no chance of going in!  all ur base are belong to us!”

Jar Jar Binks:  “Meesa love low luck!  All hail teh Galactic Empirezorz!”

new paintbrush, you are definitely incontrovertibile and unquestionably a genius!

I would try to add my contribution!

STAR WARS: The Empire Strike Back
(without crack pipe… but with two beers)

Darth Vader:  Impressive. Most impressive. Obi-Wan has taught you well. You have controlled your dice. Attacking with 18 dice points to have 3 sure hits!

“Low Luke”: yes I was the best student in the last course of Master Yoda!

Darth Vader: Again that small, green, low lucker! One of this days I am going to cut him into little pieces!

“Low Luke”: Yeah! I fight only when I am sure of winning! I take no risk! Dices are so… random!

Darth Vader: But you miss most opportunity and looking only for sure battle your game is predictable and standardized! I will overcome you! If you only knew the power of the dark dices! (…classic Darth Vader mask noise…) It is why you failed at destroying the Death Star! I won the Boonta Eve classic podrace because I take in account risk in my planning!  With ordinary luck I destroyed a Confederation of Commerce Control Warship and I was only nine!

… noises of lightsabers …

“Low luke”: What did you invented? Those attacks!!! They have not an exact multiple of 6 as die points… AAAAAAAH … my hand is gone!

Darth Vader: There is no escape. Don’t make me destroy you! … I am your father!

“Low Luke”: Nooooooooooo!!! (falling down, with one less hand…)

Darth Vader: Luke! Listen me! Have an haircut!

I agree, there probably are other factors besides skill and luck. However, the question seems to assume that those two are the only ones, so as the question is stated, the answer has to be 100%.

My point is that as stated, the question by definition means that skill is NOT a factor in deciding the game between the two players. Since it is equal, you cannot say that one or the other play won on the basis of skill. With skill eliminated, that leaves luck as the only factor contemplated in the question.

what if the players are equally skilled, but one player is more skilled at taking advantage of strategic openings that occur because of the results of a lucky attack, but the other player is more skilled at minimizing the problems that occur because of the results of an unlucky attack?

WAT THEN?

I think for players of equal skill, luck determines around 30% of the games played.

If skill is not exactly equal (which only happens in theory, not in real life), then the importance of luck depends on the degree of difference in skill.

E.g. if I am playing someone who is just a little better than me, then I might beat them sometimes on account of luck. Luck will be a major factor in determining the games.

I cannot beat a superior player on skill alone. On the basis of skill, they have me beat.

If on the other hand I am playing someone who is WAY better than me, or someone who is way worse than me, then I will lose every single game, or win every single game. Luck becomes an insignificant factor when skill differences are large.

Now, since the significance of luck varies depending on the skill difference, you need to know exactly how big the skill difference is to determine how significant luck will be as a factor. “Roughly equal skill” does not give enough precision. Depending how roughly equal skill is, luck could range from a 95% factor to a 30% factor.

Do you see how the importance of luck varies according to the amount of difference in skill?

Look at it this way: going into a game, it is easier to predict the outcome when the skill difference is large. When there is little skill difference, it really is anyone’s guess as to who will win - you might as well toss a coin, because on the basis of skill you can’t predict. Thus luck is a bigger factor in that game.

I would argue that Dan.

There is a 3rd element, and one that I have found to be the PRIMARY determining factor in numerous recent games…
ERRORS.

SKILL is what a person has in terms of knowledge, ability, etc.  And based on my win/loss record, I think it is fair to say that I am one of the more skilled (in the top tier actually) of players on this site.

LUCK has come into play in a few recent games… the recent Tournament loss as a notable example (zero point 4 freakin percent probabilities…)

But an ERROR is different from skill.  And simple mistakes (for example, in my current game me missing a free liberation of Norway by Germany, or Jen’s strafe of Caucuses instead of the safe and easy route through Kazakh because she overlooked it) often times are the REAL factor in any given game.

Mistakes are NOT a lack of skill (unless you keep making the same mistakes over and over, never learning from them).  And I personally think that, skill levels being approximately even, that ERRORS will decide the game more than 2/3 of the time.

I think really this boils down to semantics, because I have a different definition of skill that includes mistakes. I think the idea that a given player has a fixed amount of skill is a bit of a fiction. Rather, players will show different degrees of skill between games, and even within the course of a game.

The frequency with which you make mistakes, and the severity of those mistakes, is really a measure of your skill. Someone who screws up all the time is really not skilled, and someone who almost never does, is very skilled.

A mistake is basically an un-skillful move. In a way, most moves (except most of mine :) ) are mistakes, some just worse than others, because really, a mistake is a move that is not “perfect”. The severity of the mistake is just a matter of how far from perfect that move in.

So if I make a lot of mistakes in a game, I would say that I was not very skillful in that game. It will slightly decrease my overall “skill” measurement, which is some kind of average of how skillfully (ie. how mistake-free) I have played all my games. As I get older and senile, I will make more mistakes… I guess there’s skill in executing your moves, and a sort of meta-skill that indicates how skillful you are likely to be in a given game.

What you are describing I would call knowledge, experience, which will help you to play more skillfully. An error of oversight does not mean you are less experienced, but it does mean that that one move was executed with less than perfect skill.

But, it’s just semantics really. My beef was with the question, which is a matter of logic - “all else being equal” etc.

That’s what you do in a scientific experiment. You try to control all the other variables, so that you can measure the effect of one variable. Now, once you have controlled for all else, the one remaining variable will be the one that accounts for all of your results.

@newpaintbrush:

I think the best players are those that are able to exploit the openings left with good luck on an attack, and minimize the problems given with bad luck on an attack.

Those that play low-luck just can’t handle it!   :roll:

I disagree very much indeed, Sir!
But you actually got a point in your reasoning.
I prefer low luck, but I also play a lot of dice games.
In some games I played, multiplayer (dice) games, my observations concludes that this is sometimes a psychological factor.
If the attacking player uses overhelming force, but the dice gods are mad, then this sometimes leads to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_stress_disorder

and in severe cases this may develop into: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder

Seriously, do you want to fill up the psychiatric hospitals with A&A players diagnosed with combat fatigue?

I’m gonna write to health politicans in the entire western world, low luck shall be mandatory!!!

Personally, I think Low Luck should be relegated to the House Rules area, since it is a very significant change in the rules of the game from what is printed in the OM, via the Erata on AH’s web site, and from all versions of LHTR.

I think Nuno in another thread made a smart a$$ comment about custom rule sets that he felt were created as ways for players who can’t win using normal rules to be able to change things enough so that they CAN win.  If one grants that to be true, then Low Luck as a House Rule Variant to allow a player who otherwise cannot win to have a chance at winning would have to also fall into that category…

@ncscswitch:

I think Nuno in another thread made a smart a$$ comment about custom rule sets that he felt were created as ways for players who can’t win using normal rules to be able to change things enough so that they CAN win.  If one grants that to be true, then Low Luck as a House Rule Variant to allow a player who otherwise cannot win to have a chance at winning would have to also fall into that category…

Remember the classic boardgame? Played with original OOB rules.
I calculated that if UK+US used all ipc on research, then either US or UK would discover heavybombers rnd. 2,2 on average.
No TTL, 3 dicerolls, without “house rules” the game is unplayable if ppl use this flaw in the OOB rules.
And OOB rules both in revised and classic there’s no mention on bid……?
So bidding is a house rule…?
With this kind of thinking we’re all infidels…

Personally, I think Low Luck should be relegated to the House Rules area, since it is a very significant change in the rules of the game from what is printed in the OM, via the Erata on AH’s web site, and from all versions of LHTR.

I agree completely. Low Luck is a decent strategic modeling tool, but in practice it is indeed different in many ways.

The most obvious way in which it is different is in small battles. For instance, 2 fighters will always hit one infantry in LL. But in practice, they don’t quite hit one infantry on mathematical average, because even when both fighters “hit”, only one infantry dies. So 75% of the time 1 infantry dies, and 25% it doesn’t. So in full luck the “average” chance to hit the infantry in one round is really more like 75%, not 100%.

Low Luck is fairly accurate in larger battles when all of the attacking/defending units have a target to hit by themselves instead of “overshooting” on one target.