What percentage is luck involved in a games outcome?

@jsp4563:

@froodster:

Do you agree that a good player can beat a bad player even if the bad player rolls better dice?

Yes

So in such a game, dice are less significant in determining the outcome - the outcome is pretty much sealed by the inequality between the players.

That’s all I’m saying.

@axis_roll:

Did I really just ask Pagan to ramble….?!
I must be losing it.

It must be the name.  Anyone I know that is Pagan (myself included) or just has some affiliation with Pagan tends to be able to ramble on  :evil:

logic would say that 2 inf, ftr v. inf is better than inf, ftr v. inf

For me Personaly, If I am lucky early on I will push the advantage.  I will attack with lower success odds and I may leave a little less on defence.  If my luck turns bad I tighten it up and play harder with no “mistakes”.

My luck almost always runs in streaks, so if I’m on I push it.  That may not be scientific, but it works for me.

@Wazzup:

logic would say that 2 inf, ftr v. inf is better than inf, ftr v. inf

In a vacuum, yes. But that extra Inf may also be needed elsewhere, and it’s still better to attack 1 Inf 1 Ftr v. 1 Inf than not at all.

DF: I think there is some method to your madness. Once you have the upper hand with early luck, you can afford to take a few risks. If they fail, at worst you have equalized, but if they pay off, you have created an even greater advantage. A risky attack is not as risky once you have a cushion, because a loss is not catastrophic in that it would suddenly give your opponent a significant advantage.

@froodster:

@Wazzup:

logic would say that 2 inf, ftr v. inf is better than inf, ftr v. inf

In a vacuum, yes. But that extra Inf may also be needed elsewhere, and it’s still better to attack 1 Inf 1 Ftr v. 1 Inf than not at all.

DF: I think there is some method to your madness. Once you have the upper hand with early luck, you can afford to take a few risks. If they fail, at worst you have equalized, but if they pay off, you have created an even greater advantage. A risky attack is not as risky once you have a cushion, because a loss is not catastrophic in that it would suddenly give your opponent a significant advantage.

And I think just the opposite. Once you HAVE luck and an advantage, why are you creating an opportunity for your opponent to get back even?? You should still be conservative, and slowly advance, using the advantage you have rather than trying to create a bigger one. Make your opponent force a lucky battle, where the odds are against him, rather than you giving him opportunities.

Of course, such decisions, need to be made. And, of course, such decsions depend upon the player’s knowledge/skill.

Which means that if you have an advantage, and “blow it” because you were more agressive, then the loss of your advantage was due to your decision (thus “skill”), not the luck of the dice.

Squirecam

I agree, the best thing is to play it safe. But you can afford to take more risks when you have the upper hand already. You do trade-off relying on skill for gambling on the dice though.

@froodster:

I agree, the best thing is to play it safe. But you can afford to take more risks when you have the upper hand already. You do trade-off relying on skill for gambling on the dice though.

Yes, but here is what happens.

B has an advantage over A.
B, not content with it, takes “risks”. A makes a comeback, and wins the game.

What does “B” say???

“I had you beat. But you got lucky dice….”

When in reality, B made a tactical error. It was his “skill/lack of skill” in that decision which gave A the chance to come back.

Which is why most of the luck/skill debate, IMHO, involves dice crying rather than looking in the mirror and blaming yourself for your decision making.

Most people want to cry about dice rather than blame themselves. They need an excuse. And if more people say it was “just luck” then they somehow feel better about losing.

Squirecam

Don’t mistake what I am saying.  I am no tgoing to make huge gambles, but if I am on the fence about a particular action recient luck will factor in.  I avoid any situation that is not recoverable if things go bad.

There hasn’t been any dice crying in this thread, at least not by me.

If you individually make dice a big factor by making risky attacks, then IMO you do lose because of bad strategy/skill/decision making. If you win though it’s because you got lucky.

All I’ve said is that luck is more important between relatively equally matched players than it is between a really good player and a really bad player - that game will be decided by skill 99/100 times.

Thus in a way blaming the dice is a way of saying that “I am equal or better than you, it was luck that lost this game for me”. Sometimes that’s true, but often the player is deluding themselves and they just got outplayed - skill really made the difference.

However, sometimes you have an agressive opponent that is also a good player.  IE:  not afraid to lose units, but plays very good board position.

This type of player can sometimes force you to take higher risk battles that you might not otherwise take.  Usually though, lucky dice plays a major factor in many combat rounds.

Sometimes you have a very conservative player that hoards units.  This type of player requires extreme patience.  Lucky dice plays a major factor in 2/3 battles.

@Wazzup:

However, sometimes you have an agressive opponent that is also a good player.  IE:  not afraid to lose units, but plays very good board position.

**This type of player can sometimes force you to take higher risk battles that you might not otherwise take.**  Usually though, lucky dice plays a major factor in many combat rounds.

Sometimes you have a very conservative player that hoards units.  This type of player requires extreme patience.  Lucky dice plays a major factor in 2/3 battles.

That would be a skill thing again wouldn’t it?

I think everyone acknowledges that sometimes bad players get lucky and sometimes good players get unlucky. It is possible to loose a game because you made a good move and got that <1% chance of catastrophe in a crucial battle that you skillfully set up over multiple turns. In that situation, a good player can lose to a bad player.
So obviously this game is not 100% luck, or 100% skill. not sure that there is any way to resolve the issue, but arguing is always fun i guess.
Luck does, however, make every game unique, and give every player a chance a to win, however small. I believe that is a good thing. And if you want a game that is entirely skill based, than by all means play Crossbows and Catapults, and leave Axis and Allies for the gamblin types.

Or play Diplomacy - no dice in that! I never have but would like to try sometime.

diplomacy is cool, as long as there are no “preset” alliances among friends, and people play it straight, and don’t give up once things start to go down hill. Really screws up the balance of the game. But watch out. You may lose friendships. Personally, for a less luck and more skill base game on a similar note, I recommend the game of thrones, which can actually be completed in a night, and is WAY cooler thematically.

Never trust a Lannister…

@mateooo:

diplomacy is cool, as long as there are no “preset” alliances among friends…

The “playing monopoly with a couple” syndrome. Sure, I’ll trade you my good property for your worthless property so you can win honey…

Squirecam

@Craig:

@squirecam:

@mateooo:

diplomacy is cool, as long as there are no “preset” alliances among friends…

The “playing monopoly with a couple” syndrome. Sure, I’ll trade you my good property for your worthless property so you can win honey…

Squirecam

Not that you ever have to worry about “the couples” thing, Squirecam. :roll: :-D

Craig

True. When you are always surrounded by beautiful women, you can’t really attach yourself to just one…

Squirecam

The degree to which luck affects the game varies with the degree of skill of the players.  The less the degree of skill of the players, the greater the degree luck affects their game.

But in the context above, “degree” is not used to describe a hard and fast direct or inverse relationship.  “Degree” in this context refers to the overall tendency, the general probability.

Why do I say this?

I posit that the less skilled the players involved, the longer it will GENERALLY take for the game to end, because of the ineffectual strategies used by both sides.  Over the course of a longer game, there should naturally be more dice rolls, so the cumulative effect of the luck variable will be considerable.

On the other hand, the more skilled the players involved, the sooner the game will find a crucial point or points beyond which victory may be decided.  On that single or multiple battle will the outcome of the game be largely decided.  So although the eventual outcome of that battle will be decided by chance, and thus the game could be said to be decided by chance, it is likely that the side that had the superior probability of winning will actually win.

Of course, that in turn asks the question of how it is that if both sides were equally balanced, how it could be that one side could have a superior probability of winning the crucial battle.  The correct answer, given a starting bid option that is empirically fair, is that the side that has the superior position will have that superior position through chance.

Of course, if the starting bid is not empirically proven fair, it could simply be that both players are of insufficient skill to determine the game primarily based on skill, but must rely on luck to determine the victor.

––

All in all, I would say that given the complexity of the game, it is unfair to say that the “better” player should always win, because the element of chance will make it so that the player that would win MOST of the games will lose SOME of the games, against a player of near equal skill.

So - short version.  The worse the players are, the greater the element chance will play in determining the winner.  However, even the best players will find that luck plays a considerable role in determining the victor.

If you want to determine a real percentage, I recommend taking down game results.

Hi folks, new poster here  :-)
I’m normally on the Avalon Hill site, but axis_roll asked for my opinion on this luck vs. skill debate…

Just a couple clarifications first…

1. I assume we are talking just one single game here.  Certainly over an infinite number of games, you would expect 2 players of equal skill to win a similar number of games.  Luck wll eventually equal out.  In a single game though, how much of a role does luck play in a game between players of equal skill?

2. By saying players of equal skill, that’s not necessarily saying two players who play exactly the same way, or are mirror clones of each other.  Rather, I would use the statistical interpretation, meaning if you took an infinite number of A&A players, and had them play an infinte number of games against each other, Players A and B would be ranked in the Xth %ile for number of victories.  X could be 50th%ile, 90th %ile, whatever.  So both players don’t necessarily need to play the same way, or know the prefect way to respond to each other’s moves, but rather, they would win a similar number of games vs. a multitude of opponents.

3. Now with that said, the other important consideration, is how much lattitude there is in the game to allow players to overcome bad luck.  Worst case scenario would be game that involved a single coin flip.  Heads… Allies win, Tails… Axis wins.  Then yes, this game would be 100% luck.  On the flip side, say a game involves many small battles that help determine the outcome, with lots of choices and opportunities for a player to get back in the game despite some bad luck early.  In this game, luck gets minimized because it’s dispersed among all these smaller battles, or less crucial dice rolls.

So, to answer your question, the percentage luck is invloved in a games outcome, ultimately depends on the game…

If the game is the original Axis & Allies, I would put the % very high, at least 80%.  Two skilled players would know the best strategy is KGF for Allies, and Infantry Push to Russia for Axis.  The game is partiall decided by who gets the early economic edge, but ultimately by how Japan and Germany do in the final assault against Russia.

If the game is Axis & Allies Revised, I would put the % at about 50%.  The way they designed this game, the optimal playout is still the same, KGF Allies, March to Russia for Axis.  Very unfortunate they goofed on this again.  The 3 key battles here are what happens Round 1 in Eastern Europe, AES, and SE Asia.  If the Axis fare poorly in 2 of these battles, Allies should win.  Beyond that, the deciding factor then becomes what happens with the final battle in Russia.

Now, if anyone has played Axis & Allies Enhanced, I would have to put the % more around 20%.  This game is all about choices, which as stated above, minimizes the impact of luck.  Every unit is strategically viable.  The game expands to 15VCs, making the Russia battle far less crucial.  By including Pacific VCs in Haw and Aus, battles get spread out further.  Tech is also more strategicically implemented, and if used correctly, can help overcome some bad dice early.  Because there are so many individual choices in the game, and ways to play it out, this particular game makes luck much less of a factor.

Anyways, my AAR: Enhanced shout-out aside  :-D, the answer to the question is, it depends on the game.  For AAR particularly, the choices are so limited in how to win the game, that luck plays a significant factor… I would have to approximate that at least 50% of the time, the dice are too bad for either side to overcome no matter what they do.