Backgammon and luck

Bodhi · #1 07-09-2005, 05:47 PM

Some poker friends of mine have gotten into Backgammon recently and play for quarters. I find this game to be have much more variance than poker, is my impression correct? My first game was chess, so you can guess that I'm not a fan of luck. When I play poker, I try to minimize luck and to always have an edge. Backgammon drives me insane. I don't feel like I can have much control over the odds, and when you play for double or quadruple stakes because you began by rolling doubles, there's (relatively) too many points at stake over what will likely be decided by the dice. I understand that some people are very good at Backgammon and would no doubt clean the clocks of everyone I know, but for the laymen, is it a game for suckers or what?

magiluke · #2 07-09-2005, 05:59 PM

I don't play that much, and I'm certainly not that good. But with Backgammon, the skill comes from knowing what to do with the rolls, and setting yourself up to be able to handle any pips that the dice show.

Poker involves a lot of luck in that same sense, but there is a whole lot of skill in knowing what to do when you are given any set of cards.

Komodo · #3 07-09-2005, 06:04 PM

Why do you use that crappy "automatic double" rule? Its like playing poker with big blinds

Swede · #4 07-09-2005, 06:13 PM

Lots of luck, yes. Against equally strong players you moves will be punished or praised. The cube is a very powerful instrument in cash games though. Especially in the multi-player, all against one, game.

Robertie · #5 07-09-2005, 06:19 PM

There's much less variance in backgammon than in a poker session of the same length. Skill manifests itself very quickly. When beginners play each other, the game seems high variance because the players are making pretty random moves, but if you watch an expert play a beginner for a few hours, it won't seem like there's much of any luck at all. A top player will average 6-10 points per hour against a weak player.

In the 1970s, when backgammon was a craze of its own, many chess masters and experts gave up chess and moved to backgammon. Not all were successful, but those who adapted made up most of the world's best players a few years later.

Bodhi · #6 07-09-2005, 06:33 PM

I ask the same question to my friends all of the time. They insist on it, but i agree that it is a stupid rule.

Robertie · #7 07-09-2005, 08:32 PM

It's an excellent rule if you're the better player. It lets you increase the stakes without being obvious about it. It also adds excitement and keeps the weaker players happy, which is one of the main ideas after all. You have to give action to get action.

Bodhi · #8 07-10-2005, 02:35 PM

That's funny, because i'm probably a "weaker player" and I hate the rule. Why would weaker players be made happy by it?

Nottom · #9 07-11-2005, 05:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That's funny, because i'm probably a "weaker player" and I hate the rule. Why would weaker players be made happy by it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Becasue the weaker player is usally just looking to gamble.

Cyrus · #10 07-11-2005, 08:15 AM

There is one crucial difference between poker and backgammon: In the latter there is no hidden information. In addition to this, the number of strategic situations in backgammon is relatively much smaller than in poker.

Therefore, deducing the proper strategy is achieved more easily in backgammon.

Which should be lowering variance for the bg AP.

(The throwing of the dice confuses some people into believing there is more "luck" in playing backgammon than in poker. That's because, in the latter, the "dice" are invisible.)