The Skill-Luck Continuum
November 1, 2021 8:01 AM Subscribe
Untangling Skill and Luck "For almost two centuries, Spain has hosted an enormously popular Christmas lottery. Based on
payout, it is the biggest lottery in the world and nearly all Spaniards play. In the mid 1970s, a man
sought a ticket with the last two digits ending in 48. He found a ticket, bought it, and then won the
lottery. When asked why he was so intent on finding that number, he replied, “I dreamed of the
number seven for seven straight nights. And 7 times 7 is 48.” "
Outcomes from many activities—including sports, business, and investing—are the combination
of skill and luck. Most people recognize that skill and luck play a role in results, yet they have a
poor sense of the relative contribution of each. The ability to properly untangle skill and luck leads
to much better thinking about most day-to-day outcomes, and allows for sharply improved decision-making."
"There’s a simple and elegant test of whether there is skill in an activity: ask whether you can lose
on purpose. If you can’t lose on purpose, or if it’s really hard, luck likely dominates that activity.
If it’s easy to lose on purpose, skill is more important."
---
"A small sample size is a big problem in domains with a large dose of luck. For example,
in major league baseball the worst team will beat the best team in a best-of-five series
about 15 percent of the time. 11 The winning percentage of weaker teams rapidly moves
toward 50 percent as the disparity of the skill between teams narrows. The World Cup, an
international soccer tournament held every four years, crowns a world champion. But
given the large dose of luck in soccer, it is hard to argue convincingly that the team that
wins the tournament is the best team. The sample size is simply too limited."
---
"Your initial reaction may be that more luck means less
predictable outcomes—which is true. But there is also an important insight that follows
from knowing the relative contribution of skill and luck: the ratio of skill to luck shapes the
rate of reversion to the mean. Specifically, the outcomes of activities laden with luck
revert to the mean faster than activities with little luck. Reversion to the mean is present
in all activities that have even a dash of luck, but the rapidity of the process hinges largely
on how important a role luck plays. In fact, you can infer the relationship between skill
and luck by analyzing past patterns of reversion to the mean"
---
"Sam Arbesman, a computational biologist, and Steve Strogatz, a mathematician, recently did a
fresh analysis of DiMaggio’s streak. 31 They wondered what the probability was of any player in
the history of baseball getting a hit in 56 straight games. Using data from actual results and
simulation techniques, they found that there was somewhere between a 20 and 50 percent
chance that some player would have a DiMaggio-like streak. As surprising, the simulations
suggested that DiMaggio was barely in the top 50 players most likely to achieve the feat. Players
including George Sisler, Ty Cobb, and even Ichiro Suzuki (who currently plays for the Seattle
Mariners) were much more likely to set the record than DiMaggio was."
---
Related: Poker is a game of skill, but how much so?
"There’s a simple and elegant test of whether there is skill in an activity: ask whether you can lose
on purpose. If you can’t lose on purpose, or if it’s really hard, luck likely dominates that activity.
If it’s easy to lose on purpose, skill is more important."
---
"A small sample size is a big problem in domains with a large dose of luck. For example,
in major league baseball the worst team will beat the best team in a best-of-five series
about 15 percent of the time. 11 The winning percentage of weaker teams rapidly moves
toward 50 percent as the disparity of the skill between teams narrows. The World Cup, an
international soccer tournament held every four years, crowns a world champion. But
given the large dose of luck in soccer, it is hard to argue convincingly that the team that
wins the tournament is the best team. The sample size is simply too limited."
---
"Your initial reaction may be that more luck means less
predictable outcomes—which is true. But there is also an important insight that follows
from knowing the relative contribution of skill and luck: the ratio of skill to luck shapes the
rate of reversion to the mean. Specifically, the outcomes of activities laden with luck
revert to the mean faster than activities with little luck. Reversion to the mean is present
in all activities that have even a dash of luck, but the rapidity of the process hinges largely
on how important a role luck plays. In fact, you can infer the relationship between skill
and luck by analyzing past patterns of reversion to the mean"
---
"Sam Arbesman, a computational biologist, and Steve Strogatz, a mathematician, recently did a
fresh analysis of DiMaggio’s streak. 31 They wondered what the probability was of any player in
the history of baseball getting a hit in 56 straight games. Using data from actual results and
simulation techniques, they found that there was somewhere between a 20 and 50 percent
chance that some player would have a DiMaggio-like streak. As surprising, the simulations
suggested that DiMaggio was barely in the top 50 players most likely to achieve the feat. Players
including George Sisler, Ty Cobb, and even Ichiro Suzuki (who currently plays for the Seattle
Mariners) were much more likely to set the record than DiMaggio was."
---
Related: Poker is a game of skill, but how much so?
7 times 7 is 48
Sometimes when you're lucky, you're really lucky.
posted by tclark at 8:08 AM on November 1, 2021 [72 favorites]
Sometimes when you're lucky, you're really lucky.
posted by tclark at 8:08 AM on November 1, 2021 [72 favorites]
"Multiply six by nine? Forty-two? I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe."
posted by metahacker at 8:14 AM on November 1, 2021 [20 favorites]
posted by metahacker at 8:14 AM on November 1, 2021 [20 favorites]
But given the large dose of luck in soccer,
People (actually mostly Americans) keep making this claim about football, but it isn't true. There is nothing in football that is luck, apart from the coin flip to decide who kicks off first. The rest is unpredictable, but that isn't the same as it being a matter of luck. It's a game of skill. Just one with a lot of statistical variance.
posted by Dysk at 8:15 AM on November 1, 2021 [18 favorites]
People (actually mostly Americans) keep making this claim about football, but it isn't true. There is nothing in football that is luck, apart from the coin flip to decide who kicks off first. The rest is unpredictable, but that isn't the same as it being a matter of luck. It's a game of skill. Just one with a lot of statistical variance.
posted by Dysk at 8:15 AM on November 1, 2021 [18 favorites]
7 times 7 is 48...for some values of 7.
posted by jquinby at 8:19 AM on November 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by jquinby at 8:19 AM on November 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
The rest is unpredictable, but that isn't the same as it being a matter of luck. It's a game of skill. Just one with a lot of statistical variance.
What's the line between luck and factors that can't effectively be altered by skill because they're imperceptible to us? On a molecular level, the outcome of a die roll is predestined the instant it leaves your hand.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:29 AM on November 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
What's the line between luck and factors that can't effectively be altered by skill because they're imperceptible to us? On a molecular level, the outcome of a die roll is predestined the instant it leaves your hand.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:29 AM on November 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
7 times 7 is 48...for some values of 7.
I believe there is a bill advancing through the Indiana legislature to that efect.
posted by TedW at 8:38 AM on November 1, 2021 [20 favorites]
I believe there is a bill advancing through the Indiana legislature to that efect.
posted by TedW at 8:38 AM on November 1, 2021 [20 favorites]
When I was about six and my eldest sister was about eleven she figured this out. After that she would only play board games with us like Clue and Stratego, and would no longer play board games like Winnie the Pooh where luck played a significant role. If a game didn't require skill at logical analysis, she wouldn't play it. In practice of course that meant she would only play games we couldn't win.
When I turned about eleven, I too developed some skill at logic, and became able to sometimes hold my own at Stratego with her - after that she wouldn't play at all.
The basic thesis of this article lines up with my lived experience. It's a pretty simple concept, but a very real one. Things like learned helplessness prevent people from either developing skill, or declining to play a rigged game. It is remarkable to me how many people are actually coasting on luck and when asked to explain that patterns that provide predictability in their endeavours end up making vague noises of things "looking right" while not being able to list anything more concrete than superstition.
Myself included, of course.
posted by Jane the Brown at 8:46 AM on November 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
When I turned about eleven, I too developed some skill at logic, and became able to sometimes hold my own at Stratego with her - after that she wouldn't play at all.
The basic thesis of this article lines up with my lived experience. It's a pretty simple concept, but a very real one. Things like learned helplessness prevent people from either developing skill, or declining to play a rigged game. It is remarkable to me how many people are actually coasting on luck and when asked to explain that patterns that provide predictability in their endeavours end up making vague noises of things "looking right" while not being able to list anything more concrete than superstition.
Myself included, of course.
posted by Jane the Brown at 8:46 AM on November 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
Fantastic 99% Invisible piece on the lottery - strong recommend.
posted by mmascolino at 9:02 AM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by mmascolino at 9:02 AM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
But given the large dose of luck in soccer, it is hard to argue convincingly that the team that wins the tournament is the best team. The sample size is simply too limited."
If luck plays such a huge factor, then what's the difference between 'best' and 'luckiest'? There is none. 'Luck' in sports is a star-player injured or hindered for the game at the game-level. Individual bounces (even scores) can be lucky, but not enough to impact the outcome of the game because in order to make a lucky play, you have to have the skill to capitalize on it.
Also, professional sports leagues are kind of a different subset because the variance in talent between the worst and best teams is pretty small. The NCAA college basketball has much wider variance in talent, and here is a list of #15 seeds (2nd lowest rank) who have won a game, not the entire tournament.
Think of it this way: if you believe that 'luck' is such a strong factor in sport, then most bro-dudes are correct that they can eventually score a point off Serena Williams, where 'luck' includes her getting bored or tired or not caring nearly as much.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:05 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
If luck plays such a huge factor, then what's the difference between 'best' and 'luckiest'? There is none. 'Luck' in sports is a star-player injured or hindered for the game at the game-level. Individual bounces (even scores) can be lucky, but not enough to impact the outcome of the game because in order to make a lucky play, you have to have the skill to capitalize on it.
Also, professional sports leagues are kind of a different subset because the variance in talent between the worst and best teams is pretty small. The NCAA college basketball has much wider variance in talent, and here is a list of #15 seeds (2nd lowest rank) who have won a game, not the entire tournament.
Think of it this way: if you believe that 'luck' is such a strong factor in sport, then most bro-dudes are correct that they can eventually score a point off Serena Williams, where 'luck' includes her getting bored or tired or not caring nearly as much.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:05 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
and then there's that time I was seven or eight and mucking around in a locker room. I only knew one combination at that point in my life (my dad's locker), which I randomly tried on a friend's dad's locker.
It worked.
posted by philip-random at 9:16 AM on November 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
It worked.
posted by philip-random at 9:16 AM on November 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
There’s a simple and elegant test of whether there is skill in an activity: ask whether you can lose on purpose
I bet you I can lose the lottery on purpose an arbitrary number of times
posted by echo target at 9:22 AM on November 1, 2021 [16 favorites]
I bet you I can lose the lottery on purpose an arbitrary number of times
posted by echo target at 9:22 AM on November 1, 2021 [16 favorites]
What's the line between luck and factors that can't effectively be altered by skill because they're imperceptible to us?
I don't know that football involves many factors that can't be influenced by us? It's literally all factors that can be influenced by the players. It's skill. Because players are matched against each other in teams, the outcomes are not predictable, but there's still no luck involved.
I guess if you're heavily invested in any perspective beyond your own nose being a waste of time, the outcome of a football match is effectively luck for you, the spectator. But for the participants, it's purely a game of skill.
posted by Dysk at 9:27 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
I don't know that football involves many factors that can't be influenced by us? It's literally all factors that can be influenced by the players. It's skill. Because players are matched against each other in teams, the outcomes are not predictable, but there's still no luck involved.
I guess if you're heavily invested in any perspective beyond your own nose being a waste of time, the outcome of a football match is effectively luck for you, the spectator. But for the participants, it's purely a game of skill.
posted by Dysk at 9:27 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
After that she would only play board games with us like Clue and Stratego, and would no longer play board games like Winnie the Pooh where luck played a significant role.
And for the young Calvinist, there is always the pre-2013 version of Candyland, which substituted predestination for chance!
posted by TedW at 9:27 AM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
And for the young Calvinist, there is always the pre-2013 version of Candyland, which substituted predestination for chance!
posted by TedW at 9:27 AM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
can lose the lottery on purpose an arbitrary number of times
That's the logically same as saying you can roll snake eyes on purpose, an arbitrary number of times.
It's true of course arbitrarily long runs of snake eyes can occur, but that's not the same as doing it by means of skill.
posted by SaltySalticid at 9:28 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
That's the logically same as saying you can roll snake eyes on purpose, an arbitrary number of times.
It's true of course arbitrarily long runs of snake eyes can occur, but that's not the same as doing it by means of skill.
posted by SaltySalticid at 9:28 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
I don't know that football involves many factors that can't be influenced by us? It's literally all factors that can be influenced by the players.
Are you saying that the trajectory of a ball in flight can't be measurably altered by an errant gust of wind or a collision with an insect, or are you saying that a player can predict these factors and accurately correct for them?
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:34 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Are you saying that the trajectory of a ball in flight can't be measurably altered by an errant gust of wind or a collision with an insect, or are you saying that a player can predict these factors and accurately correct for them?
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:34 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Are you saying that the trajectory of a ball in flight can't be measurably altered by an errant gust of wind or a collision with an insect, or are you saying that a player can predict these factors and accurately correct for them?
I would say that for professional players, it doesn't happen often enough to be notable. But also yes, if the ball wobbles for whatever reason, the player can adjust for them.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:39 AM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
I would say that for professional players, it doesn't happen often enough to be notable. But also yes, if the ball wobbles for whatever reason, the player can adjust for them.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:39 AM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
I guess if you're heavily invested in any perspective beyond your own nose being a waste of time, the outcome of a football match is effectively luck for you, the spectator. But for the participants, it's purely a game of skill.
Just because something is a high variance game doesn't mean skill doesn't matter. Skill is equally important in Soccer/Football as it is in Basketball, but given the greater scoring opportunities in Basketball the more skillful basketball team is more likely to win relative to the more skillful football team.
That's also why the optimal strategy for the less skilled team is to slow the pace of the game down to limit opportunities.
posted by JPD at 9:40 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Just because something is a high variance game doesn't mean skill doesn't matter. Skill is equally important in Soccer/Football as it is in Basketball, but given the greater scoring opportunities in Basketball the more skillful basketball team is more likely to win relative to the more skillful football team.
That's also why the optimal strategy for the less skilled team is to slow the pace of the game down to limit opportunities.
posted by JPD at 9:40 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
If what you're interested in doing is predicting outcomes, it's not terribly meaningful that a game or whatever is 99% skill-based unless there's enough variation in skill to make that important. In your neighborhood pickup game of soccer/football, there are probably a bunch of decent players, a few terrible ones, and maybe a few geniuses. In that context, it's a game of skill, and the skilled players almost always win. In a professional context, where you've selected the top 0.001% of skilled players, there may not be enough difference in skill level to outweigh the random, unpredictable factors, so the outcomes you see are mostly based on luck.
posted by echo target at 9:42 AM on November 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by echo target at 9:42 AM on November 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
If what you're interested in doing is predicting outcomes
I think the carrying variable is that there is no reason to determine the skill/luck interval on a per-event basis because the stakes of each event are pretty low. If the outcome was more severe (death, entire fortune) than the research and ultimate gambling strategy would probably be very different.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:57 AM on November 1, 2021
I think the carrying variable is that there is no reason to determine the skill/luck interval on a per-event basis because the stakes of each event are pretty low. If the outcome was more severe (death, entire fortune) than the research and ultimate gambling strategy would probably be very different.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:57 AM on November 1, 2021
People (actually mostly Americans) keep making this claim about football, but it isn't true. There is nothing in football that is luck, apart from the coin flip to decide who kicks off first. The rest is unpredictable, but that isn't the same as it being a matter of luck. It's a game of skill. Just one with a lot of statistical variance.
I don't know that football involves many factors that can't be influenced by us? It's literally all factors that can be influenced by the players. It's skill. Because players are matched against each other in teams, the outcomes are not predictable, but there's still no luck involved.
Do the same teams win every single time they play each other? I see this past weekend that Crystal Palace beat Manchester City. If those two teams played against each other again, would Crystal Palace win again? If they had their schedules changed so all they did was play each other for the next 20 games, would Crystal Palace win all 20 games?
If not, why not? One reason might be player availability due to injuries, suspensions, internationals, etc. So if Crystal Palace and Man City had the exact same set of players available and played 20 games, would Crystal Palace win all of them? If there is a small chance that Man City might win one of the 20 games, then what does that say?
It's the same players playing each other, so if there's a range of different outcomes but no luck involved then the players must have their skill level changing significantly from week to week. Which doesn't make sense -- the premise of skill is that it's a relatively fixed quantity. Players may gain and lose some amount of skill over the decade-plus arc of their careers, but not between Wednesday and Sunday. If you zoom out and say that goals result from combinations of players making plays, passes, getting in position, that should still be skill - just in combinations of skilled plays. If it's tactics and lineups and matchups, that's managerial skill. There should be no reason in a pure-skill view of a sport that the same two teams could get different outcomes; one team has more skill, and there is no luck involved. Even if it's an infinitesimal amount of additional skill, if there's no luck involved, that tiny fraction must carry the day.
If soccer -- and note this applies to all other sports, I'm talking soccer because that's what you're talking about -- was entirely skill based, then the league table at the end of each year would have one team undefeated, one team in second having lost only to the top team, one team in third having lost only to the two above them and so on to one team that never won a single game. Draws would be exceedingly rare -- the odds that two teams of eleven different people with different managerial staff somehow have the exact same level of skill should be astronomical, like two gunfighters shooting at each other and having their bullets collide in mid-air. But it isn't that way.
If two teams with given levels of skill can play each other and not have the more skilled team win every single time, then there must be something else beyond skill involved. Something called statistical variance, or in less formal terms, 'luck'.
posted by Superilla at 10:02 AM on November 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
I don't know that football involves many factors that can't be influenced by us? It's literally all factors that can be influenced by the players. It's skill. Because players are matched against each other in teams, the outcomes are not predictable, but there's still no luck involved.
Do the same teams win every single time they play each other? I see this past weekend that Crystal Palace beat Manchester City. If those two teams played against each other again, would Crystal Palace win again? If they had their schedules changed so all they did was play each other for the next 20 games, would Crystal Palace win all 20 games?
If not, why not? One reason might be player availability due to injuries, suspensions, internationals, etc. So if Crystal Palace and Man City had the exact same set of players available and played 20 games, would Crystal Palace win all of them? If there is a small chance that Man City might win one of the 20 games, then what does that say?
It's the same players playing each other, so if there's a range of different outcomes but no luck involved then the players must have their skill level changing significantly from week to week. Which doesn't make sense -- the premise of skill is that it's a relatively fixed quantity. Players may gain and lose some amount of skill over the decade-plus arc of their careers, but not between Wednesday and Sunday. If you zoom out and say that goals result from combinations of players making plays, passes, getting in position, that should still be skill - just in combinations of skilled plays. If it's tactics and lineups and matchups, that's managerial skill. There should be no reason in a pure-skill view of a sport that the same two teams could get different outcomes; one team has more skill, and there is no luck involved. Even if it's an infinitesimal amount of additional skill, if there's no luck involved, that tiny fraction must carry the day.
If soccer -- and note this applies to all other sports, I'm talking soccer because that's what you're talking about -- was entirely skill based, then the league table at the end of each year would have one team undefeated, one team in second having lost only to the top team, one team in third having lost only to the two above them and so on to one team that never won a single game. Draws would be exceedingly rare -- the odds that two teams of eleven different people with different managerial staff somehow have the exact same level of skill should be astronomical, like two gunfighters shooting at each other and having their bullets collide in mid-air. But it isn't that way.
If two teams with given levels of skill can play each other and not have the more skilled team win every single time, then there must be something else beyond skill involved. Something called statistical variance, or in less formal terms, 'luck'.
posted by Superilla at 10:02 AM on November 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
I adore this 20 minute video on the topic, which does a sort of reductio ad absurdum of all the triumphalist tech business narratives by recounting a story of a (fictional) start up that picked lottery numbers. You might laugh at the strategy but they hit it big, so obviously that makes them smarter than you.
After getting the easy laughs this way (it was a conference presentation) some more substantive points and real examples get offered.
posted by mark k at 10:18 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
After getting the easy laughs this way (it was a conference presentation) some more substantive points and real examples get offered.
posted by mark k at 10:18 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
If they had their schedules changed so all they did was play each other for the next 20 games, would Crystal Palace win all 20 games?
Notre Dame vs Navy is a pretty good test case of luck vs skill, with the game played yearly since 1923. Notre Dame leads 77-13-1, and had a 43 game winning streak.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:21 AM on November 1, 2021
Notre Dame vs Navy is a pretty good test case of luck vs skill, with the game played yearly since 1923. Notre Dame leads 77-13-1, and had a 43 game winning streak.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:21 AM on November 1, 2021
If it’s easy to lose on purpose, skill is more important.
Dating & relationships?
I’m pretty sure I know behaviors and words that can trash a relationship beyond recovery on purpose. I’d bet I know how to make a cold approach to make a new connection fail spectacularly.
Knowing those things doesn’t seem to confer upon me the skills to make opposite success the common case.
posted by wildblueyonder at 10:25 AM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Dating & relationships?
I’m pretty sure I know behaviors and words that can trash a relationship beyond recovery on purpose. I’d bet I know how to make a cold approach to make a new connection fail spectacularly.
Knowing those things doesn’t seem to confer upon me the skills to make opposite success the common case.
posted by wildblueyonder at 10:25 AM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
That's not a superpower (sl_deadpool)
(obligatory)
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 10:27 AM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
(obligatory)
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 10:27 AM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
On a molecular level, the outcome of a die roll is predestined the instant it leaves your hand.
Maybe for you, but I happen to have a particularly powerful electric fan.
If a game didn't require skill at logical analysis, she wouldn't play it. In practice of course that meant she would only play games we couldn't win.
Well, the thing about luck in games is also, how much of it is you actually playing, and how much is just chaotic factors beyond your control playing the game for you? If you want to run an experiment involving 100 coin flips sure, but, do you really need me around for that?
That's the logically same as saying you can roll snake eyes on purpose, an arbitrary number of times.
Logically maybe, but not practically, it's not a great analogy because it's much easier to lose the lottery than roll snake eyes, enough so that it breaks intuition. Winning the lottery is such a profoundly rare thing for a specific individual to do that it doesn't honestly fit into the category.
Anyway, one can purposely lose the lottery by filling out the form wrong; if the person accepting the form takes your money without realizing the slip isn't valid, then you've suffered the cost of playing, practically have played, without having a chance to win. By that way of thinking, playing the lottery tests the basic skills of literacy and form-filling. This isn't very useful to the discussion, but it's technically correct. ("The best kind of correct!")
I think about the role of luck a fair bit regarding roguelike computer games: a powerful item found early in a run can greatly help you play, but if your strategy revolves around finding one of these early, then part of "playing the game" for you is just starting games over and over until you find a good early item, aka "start scumming?" But looked at another way, if the game is hard enough that finding one of these items is essentially required to win, then aren't you just cutting to the chase, ensuring that one of these items is found, rather than embarking on a hopeless quest where something required is never generated for you?
In these cases, why not just ensure one such item get generated every game anyway? But then, what if people begin restarting in preference of getting a particular good early item?
posted by JHarris at 10:41 AM on November 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Maybe for you, but I happen to have a particularly powerful electric fan.
If a game didn't require skill at logical analysis, she wouldn't play it. In practice of course that meant she would only play games we couldn't win.
Well, the thing about luck in games is also, how much of it is you actually playing, and how much is just chaotic factors beyond your control playing the game for you? If you want to run an experiment involving 100 coin flips sure, but, do you really need me around for that?
That's the logically same as saying you can roll snake eyes on purpose, an arbitrary number of times.
Logically maybe, but not practically, it's not a great analogy because it's much easier to lose the lottery than roll snake eyes, enough so that it breaks intuition. Winning the lottery is such a profoundly rare thing for a specific individual to do that it doesn't honestly fit into the category.
Anyway, one can purposely lose the lottery by filling out the form wrong; if the person accepting the form takes your money without realizing the slip isn't valid, then you've suffered the cost of playing, practically have played, without having a chance to win. By that way of thinking, playing the lottery tests the basic skills of literacy and form-filling. This isn't very useful to the discussion, but it's technically correct. ("The best kind of correct!")
I think about the role of luck a fair bit regarding roguelike computer games: a powerful item found early in a run can greatly help you play, but if your strategy revolves around finding one of these early, then part of "playing the game" for you is just starting games over and over until you find a good early item, aka "start scumming?" But looked at another way, if the game is hard enough that finding one of these items is essentially required to win, then aren't you just cutting to the chase, ensuring that one of these items is found, rather than embarking on a hopeless quest where something required is never generated for you?
In these cases, why not just ensure one such item get generated every game anyway? But then, what if people begin restarting in preference of getting a particular good early item?
posted by JHarris at 10:41 AM on November 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
On a molecular level, the outcome of a die roll is predestined the instant it leaves your hand.
Maybe for you, but I happen to have a particularly powerful electric fan.
In that case, how skilled are you at chasing after and catching dice that have been blown out of your hand and skittered underneath the furniture?
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:50 AM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Maybe for you, but I happen to have a particularly powerful electric fan.
In that case, how skilled are you at chasing after and catching dice that have been blown out of your hand and skittered underneath the furniture?
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:50 AM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
the outcome of a football match is effectively luck for you, the spectator. But for the participants, it's purely a game of skill.
Sports are rife with superstitions and rituals at all levels, and phrases like "lucky short," "lucky bounce," or "tough break" are in the standard lexicon for reasons.
Notre Dame vs Navy is a pretty good test case of luck vs skill, with the game played yearly since 1923. Notre Dame leads 77-13-1, and had a 43 game winning streak.
It would only be a good test case if anyone were saying "skill doesn't matter at all." I don't think I've seen anyone take anything close to such a maximalist position here.
Also, professional sports leagues are kind of a different subset because the variance in talent between the worst and best teams is pretty small
Exactly.
Luck in sports isn't just stray gusts of wind. A lot of competitive sports involves guesses about other people's mindset: which way the goalie will break, whether the safety will blitz, whether the ref will see me holding.
There are also biological limits to what humans can perceive about objects and how quickly they can react. I would also personally call "luck" any performance aspect you can't control. That's there for everyone. What professional athletes can do is amazing--Tony Gwynn said that when you watch film, elite athletes repeat the same movements identically, even frame-by-frame. But that doesn't lead to the a baseball ending up in the same position to the nearest millimeter.
When there's a big skill gap, luck is essentially zero. Tony Gwynn wouldn't need to guess at whether I was throwing a curve ball or not to hit my next pitch, but for most members of the Astros facing major league pitching that knowledge would be really valuable.
People who see stats like the ones mentioned and say "Oh, sports doesn't involve skill" (which I hope is no one?) are taking the wrong lesson, but factors outside the contributor's control play a huge part in determining outcomes against well matched opponents.
posted by mark k at 10:54 AM on November 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
Sports are rife with superstitions and rituals at all levels, and phrases like "lucky short," "lucky bounce," or "tough break" are in the standard lexicon for reasons.
Notre Dame vs Navy is a pretty good test case of luck vs skill, with the game played yearly since 1923. Notre Dame leads 77-13-1, and had a 43 game winning streak.
It would only be a good test case if anyone were saying "skill doesn't matter at all." I don't think I've seen anyone take anything close to such a maximalist position here.
Also, professional sports leagues are kind of a different subset because the variance in talent between the worst and best teams is pretty small
Exactly.
Luck in sports isn't just stray gusts of wind. A lot of competitive sports involves guesses about other people's mindset: which way the goalie will break, whether the safety will blitz, whether the ref will see me holding.
There are also biological limits to what humans can perceive about objects and how quickly they can react. I would also personally call "luck" any performance aspect you can't control. That's there for everyone. What professional athletes can do is amazing--Tony Gwynn said that when you watch film, elite athletes repeat the same movements identically, even frame-by-frame. But that doesn't lead to the a baseball ending up in the same position to the nearest millimeter.
When there's a big skill gap, luck is essentially zero. Tony Gwynn wouldn't need to guess at whether I was throwing a curve ball or not to hit my next pitch, but for most members of the Astros facing major league pitching that knowledge would be really valuable.
People who see stats like the ones mentioned and say "Oh, sports doesn't involve skill" (which I hope is no one?) are taking the wrong lesson, but factors outside the contributor's control play a huge part in determining outcomes against well matched opponents.
posted by mark k at 10:54 AM on November 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
I’m pretty sure I know behaviors and words that can trash a relationship beyond recovery on purpose. I’d bet I know how to make a cold approach to make a new connection fail spectacularly.
Knowing those things doesn’t seem to confer upon me the skills to make opposite success the common case.
That's not the claim in question, though! The claim was that (intentional failure shows that) relationships are skill-based, not that any particular person has the skill for success.
I can kick the ball the wrong way on a field, that doesn't mean I could make a goal if I tried.
posted by clew at 11:08 AM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Knowing those things doesn’t seem to confer upon me the skills to make opposite success the common case.
That's not the claim in question, though! The claim was that (intentional failure shows that) relationships are skill-based, not that any particular person has the skill for success.
I can kick the ball the wrong way on a field, that doesn't mean I could make a goal if I tried.
posted by clew at 11:08 AM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
I am in charge of designing and updating the promotion process for a company with a few thousand employees.
I know that luck plays a way larger role in whether a company will succeed versus another similar company than CEOs are willing to admit.
Plan A involves clearly defined criteria and metrics for promotion, tools to measure these metrics, coaching and mentoring, and a promotion packet and promotion committee structure designed to reduce bias and be as fair and transparent as possible.
This requires a lot of investment, both from the company and the employees, and may result in people taking shortcuts that defeat the whole purpose of the design, or people just quitting rather than going to the process. I try to balance this by making the process as simple and streamlined as possible while maintaining objectivity and transparency, an impossible balancing act.
Plan B consists or rolling dice twice a year to decide who gets promoted and who does not (Superloaded Plan B consists or rolling dice to randomly assign people to every one of the positions in the company once a year, and some percentage gets fired . A 1/3000 chance of being the CEO for a year does not look too bad). This way the process ensures that only the luckiest make it to the top and the unluckiest get fired, and a company full of lucky people led by the luckiest of them all is guaranteed to succeed.
Plan B was shot down because I was spending too much time reinventing the wheel, this is how promotions have happened for most of juman history.
posted by Dr. Curare at 11:13 AM on November 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
I know that luck plays a way larger role in whether a company will succeed versus another similar company than CEOs are willing to admit.
Plan A involves clearly defined criteria and metrics for promotion, tools to measure these metrics, coaching and mentoring, and a promotion packet and promotion committee structure designed to reduce bias and be as fair and transparent as possible.
This requires a lot of investment, both from the company and the employees, and may result in people taking shortcuts that defeat the whole purpose of the design, or people just quitting rather than going to the process. I try to balance this by making the process as simple and streamlined as possible while maintaining objectivity and transparency, an impossible balancing act.
Plan B consists or rolling dice twice a year to decide who gets promoted and who does not (Superloaded Plan B consists or rolling dice to randomly assign people to every one of the positions in the company once a year, and some percentage gets fired . A 1/3000 chance of being the CEO for a year does not look too bad). This way the process ensures that only the luckiest make it to the top and the unluckiest get fired, and a company full of lucky people led by the luckiest of them all is guaranteed to succeed.
Plan B was shot down because I was spending too much time reinventing the wheel, this is how promotions have happened for most of juman history.
posted by Dr. Curare at 11:13 AM on November 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
Dr. Curare, are you sure you are "juman", as you put it?
posted by mumimor at 11:18 AM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 11:18 AM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Plan B consists or rolling dice twice a year to decide who gets promoted and who does not
If I had fuck-you, Elon Muskian amounts of money, one of my hobbies would be running these kind of experiments for real, just to satisfy my curiosity. I'd buy two very similar companies, and tell everyone that I was going to manage them entirely using a new super-algorithm that would determine all staffing decisions. Except in reality, one would be managed by a bunch of consultants from BCG, and the other would be managed by somebody pulling bingo balls out of a hopper with employee IDs written on them in Sharpie.
And if the BCG guys couldn't beat the bingo machine, they'd have to fight to the death in a volcano.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:34 AM on November 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
If I had fuck-you, Elon Muskian amounts of money, one of my hobbies would be running these kind of experiments for real, just to satisfy my curiosity. I'd buy two very similar companies, and tell everyone that I was going to manage them entirely using a new super-algorithm that would determine all staffing decisions. Except in reality, one would be managed by a bunch of consultants from BCG, and the other would be managed by somebody pulling bingo balls out of a hopper with employee IDs written on them in Sharpie.
And if the BCG guys couldn't beat the bingo machine, they'd have to fight to the death in a volcano.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:34 AM on November 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
"There’s a simple and elegant test of whether there is skill in an activity: ask whether you can lose on purpose. If you can’t lose on purpose, or if it’s really hard, luck likely dominates that activity. If it’s easy to lose on purpose, skill is more important."I was curious about this quote. Turns out it's from Annie Duke, former World Series of Poker champ turned spokesperson for the company behind the online poker room Ultimate Bet (which was about to dissolve in a massive cheating scandal.)
It comes from her 2007 testimony--representing the Poker Players Alliance--to Congress in defense of online poker. Which contains another curious quote.
I cannot stress this enough: in poker it is better to be skillful than luck. I ask anyone in this hearing room to name for me the top five professional roulette players in the world or the number one lottery picker in America. It is just not possible (my apologies to the obvious candidate, Congressman Sensenbrenner.) We can however have a real discussion about the top five professional poker playersWhy did she single out Congressman Sensenbrenner? He had just won the lottery for the third time!
In conclusion, Ben Affleck should steer clear of online gambling.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:40 AM on November 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
my fabulously wealthy financial sector relative will desribe with one sentence everything you need to know about capitalism: Luck? Luck doesn't exist. I am where I am because I made the right choices - period.
such a simple world view must be very comforting.
posted by j_curiouser at 12:17 PM on November 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
such a simple world view must be very comforting.
posted by j_curiouser at 12:17 PM on November 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
People think they're telling you something biting and pragmatic when they explain how only very foolish people do not realize how poor an investment a lottery ticket is. From where I'm sitting what they are doing is making it clear they cannot imagine a life where hoping for things to get better financially is like praying for a miracle.
Yes, there are some people who really have a gambling problem with lottery tickets, scratchers, etc. But your average person who plays isn't devoting a chunk of money into it as an "investment," they're paying a handful of dollars to briefly open up the tiny possibility that everything could change for the better for them. And this daydream is what they're paying for, not the 1-in-[astronomical chance] the thing will actually happen.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:30 PM on November 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
Yes, there are some people who really have a gambling problem with lottery tickets, scratchers, etc. But your average person who plays isn't devoting a chunk of money into it as an "investment," they're paying a handful of dollars to briefly open up the tiny possibility that everything could change for the better for them. And this daydream is what they're paying for, not the 1-in-[astronomical chance] the thing will actually happen.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:30 PM on November 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
my fabulously wealthy financial sector relative will desribe with one sentence everything you need to know about capitalism: Luck? Luck doesn't exist. I am where I am because I made the right choices - period.
Either this is a strawman or your relative is actually the luckiest person in the financial services.
posted by JPD at 12:33 PM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Either this is a strawman or your relative is actually the luckiest person in the financial services.
posted by JPD at 12:33 PM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Let’s look at a head-to-head matchup. Both participants—either individuals or teams—draw one number from a skill urn and one number from a luck urn, and then add them togetherLuck and skill are additive? Skill is an apparently Gaussian distribution that is then sampled randomly? What a weirdly specific and non-intuitive example, with useless figures. (That's before we start drawing cards from urns. Maybe it makes sense in another language?) Old fashioned frequentist probability, with noise and a theoretical line in the skill-outcome plane seems like it does the same job with far fewer arbitrary definitions pages of text.
The main challenge with the concept is that change within the system occurs at the same time as no change to the system. Change and no change operate side-by-side, causing a lot of confusion.Ah. It's that kind of document. I'll give the author credit: it took a long time discover that this actually is barking nonsense, not just a poorly executed attempt to describe basic probability. What a lot of words they've written!
posted by eotvos at 12:56 PM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Luck? Luck doesn't exist. I am where I am because I made the right choices - period.
I've long maintained that if we distributed wealth by coin toss, there'd be a group of people insisting they were very good at it.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:13 PM on November 1, 2021 [16 favorites]
I've long maintained that if we distributed wealth by coin toss, there'd be a group of people insisting they were very good at it.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:13 PM on November 1, 2021 [16 favorites]
Either this is a strawman or your relative is actually the luckiest person in the financial services.
You’re discounting the most likely alternative, that they’re young or myopic with some combination of post hoc and just world fallacies rattling around in there. Plenty of those, particularly if they rolled into an analyst program straight out of undergrad. If you never leave the bubble, you’re probably attributing your comp to your insane hours, and perspective is tough to get.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:18 PM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
You’re discounting the most likely alternative, that they’re young or myopic with some combination of post hoc and just world fallacies rattling around in there. Plenty of those, particularly if they rolled into an analyst program straight out of undergrad. If you never leave the bubble, you’re probably attributing your comp to your insane hours, and perspective is tough to get.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:18 PM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
There is a story that Enrico Fermi once asked Gen. Leslie Groves how many generals might be called “great.” Groves said about three out of every 100. Fermi asked how a general qualified for the adjective, and Groves replied that any general who had won five major battles in a row might safely be called great. This was in the middle of World War II. Well, then, said Fermi, considering that the opposing forces in most theaters of operation are roughly equal, the odds are one of two that a general will win a battle, one of four that he will win two battles in a row, one of eight for three, one of sixteen for four, one of thirty-two for five. “So you are right, general, about three out of every 100. Mathematical probability, not genius.”
posted by SPrintF at 1:42 PM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by SPrintF at 1:42 PM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Sometimes when you're lucky, you're really lucky.
Or maybe you don't have to be very good at maths to rig the lottery. Or, for that matter, lucky.
posted by pwnguin at 1:43 PM on November 1, 2021
Or maybe you don't have to be very good at maths to rig the lottery. Or, for that matter, lucky.
posted by pwnguin at 1:43 PM on November 1, 2021
This thread shows that people have a poor sense of the relative contribution of skill and luck.
I almost certainly do.
posted by fnerg at 2:25 PM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
I almost certainly do.
posted by fnerg at 2:25 PM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
This thread shows that people have a poor sense of the relative contribution of skill and luck.
Not sure the article presents a strong case for that. In terms of 'luck', genetics and specific interests, and initial draft position, playing position, and such are basically luck and was determined way before anyone stepped on to the field to play a game.
The stats presented are all very wrong and IMO aren't useful to determine the breakdowns of batting skill, winning a football game (based on rock paper scissor rules-really?).
Well, then, said Fermi, considering that the opposing forces in most theaters of operation are roughly equal
LOL. You'd say that Gemany and the US (which was not surrounded by warring factions and constant attacks on manufacturing capacity and had 2X the total population) during WWII were roughly equal? I wouldn't. Just because someone declares things doesn't make them true. The Allies had almost 2X the number of troops during the Battle of the Bulge.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:53 PM on November 1, 2021
Not sure the article presents a strong case for that. In terms of 'luck', genetics and specific interests, and initial draft position, playing position, and such are basically luck and was determined way before anyone stepped on to the field to play a game.
The stats presented are all very wrong and IMO aren't useful to determine the breakdowns of batting skill, winning a football game (based on rock paper scissor rules-really?).
Well, then, said Fermi, considering that the opposing forces in most theaters of operation are roughly equal
LOL. You'd say that Gemany and the US (which was not surrounded by warring factions and constant attacks on manufacturing capacity and had 2X the total population) during WWII were roughly equal? I wouldn't. Just because someone declares things doesn't make them true. The Allies had almost 2X the number of troops during the Battle of the Bulge.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:53 PM on November 1, 2021
The_Vegetables: "Not sure the article presents a strong case for that. "
Wait, what? You read the article?!
posted by chavenet at 2:56 PM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Wait, what? You read the article?!
posted by chavenet at 2:56 PM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Speaking of that, my grandfather who fought in WWII always said the Germans had better weapons, better training, better battle plans, etc, especially early on, so sometimes skills can't make up for every gap.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:56 PM on November 1, 2021
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:56 PM on November 1, 2021
Well, those things did help the Germans for many years in WWII, until production took them out.
posted by Windopaene at 2:58 PM on November 1, 2021
posted by Windopaene at 2:58 PM on November 1, 2021
I think y'all are missing Fermi's point: a "great general" may simply be a "lucky general."
posted by SPrintF at 3:26 PM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by SPrintF at 3:26 PM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
But your average person who plays isn't devoting a chunk of money into it as an "investment," they're paying a handful of dollars to briefly open up the tiny possibility that everything could change for the better for them.
This is exactly why I don't gripe about the lottery in general or give anyone any static specifically if they buy lottery tickets and can afford to do so.
The lottery, more than anything else, arguably is dropping a couple dollars on entertaining oneself, for a short moment, by the possibility that a life-changing (to be fair, sometimes for good, sometimes for very bad) amount of money will come their way. That $2, or $20, or whatever, is a ticket to a brief period where that kind of windfall has effectively gone from zero possibility to nonzero possibility.
I know for sure I've wasted more money on bad movies, bad books, and bad dinners than I ever have on lottery tickets which, while none of them have won, have had a 100% success rate in allowing me to enjoy imagining having fuck-you money at a non-zero chance.
posted by tclark at 3:54 PM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
This is exactly why I don't gripe about the lottery in general or give anyone any static specifically if they buy lottery tickets and can afford to do so.
The lottery, more than anything else, arguably is dropping a couple dollars on entertaining oneself, for a short moment, by the possibility that a life-changing (to be fair, sometimes for good, sometimes for very bad) amount of money will come their way. That $2, or $20, or whatever, is a ticket to a brief period where that kind of windfall has effectively gone from zero possibility to nonzero possibility.
I know for sure I've wasted more money on bad movies, bad books, and bad dinners than I ever have on lottery tickets which, while none of them have won, have had a 100% success rate in allowing me to enjoy imagining having fuck-you money at a non-zero chance.
posted by tclark at 3:54 PM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
"There’s a simple and elegant test of whether there is skill in an activity: ask whether you can lose on purpose. If you can’t lose on purpose, or if it’s really hard, luck likely dominates that activity. If it’s easy to lose on purpose, skill is more important."
This makes no sense. As one counterexample, I vaguely recall reading that mathematicians proved that backgammon is mostly luck between two equally competent players. So you can lose backgammon on purpose, quite easily, but the game is effectively random.
posted by polymodus at 4:13 PM on November 1, 2021
This makes no sense. As one counterexample, I vaguely recall reading that mathematicians proved that backgammon is mostly luck between two equally competent players. So you can lose backgammon on purpose, quite easily, but the game is effectively random.
posted by polymodus at 4:13 PM on November 1, 2021
This makes no sense. As one counterexample, I vaguely recall reading that mathematicians proved that backgammon is mostly luck between two equally competent players. So you can lose backgammon on purpose, quite easily, but the game is effectively random.
If we assume the outcome of a game is due to a combination of skill and luck, and the skill is the same -- as you said and I bolded -- then obviously the only thing remaining is luck. But if a good backgammon player can beat a terrible one at least some of the time, then there would be skill involved.
posted by Superilla at 4:54 PM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
If we assume the outcome of a game is due to a combination of skill and luck, and the skill is the same -- as you said and I bolded -- then obviously the only thing remaining is luck. But if a good backgammon player can beat a terrible one at least some of the time, then there would be skill involved.
posted by Superilla at 4:54 PM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Polymodus, you are missing the point of the thought experiment.
Most games are luck between equally competent players--that is, if you hold the variable "skill" constant then the outcome will mostly be determined by "luck." That you can lose on purpose proves that if skill is vastly different, it plays a role too.
It doesn't prove that skill is the dominant factor--in my experience with backgammon I believe it is fairly easy to learn to paly a really solid game and I'm not sure I'd be much worse than an expert. Unlike, say, Scrabble, where luck plays a role in the tile draw and openings you get, but even casual players can be much better than me. But it's still a good way to distinguish skill free games (like the lottery, or War) from others.
posted by mark k at 5:05 PM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Most games are luck between equally competent players--that is, if you hold the variable "skill" constant then the outcome will mostly be determined by "luck." That you can lose on purpose proves that if skill is vastly different, it plays a role too.
It doesn't prove that skill is the dominant factor--in my experience with backgammon I believe it is fairly easy to learn to paly a really solid game and I'm not sure I'd be much worse than an expert. Unlike, say, Scrabble, where luck plays a role in the tile draw and openings you get, but even casual players can be much better than me. But it's still a good way to distinguish skill free games (like the lottery, or War) from others.
posted by mark k at 5:05 PM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Video games with lots of statistics and things like "to-hit" rolls work hard to account for the fact that humans are astoundingly bad at dealing with randomness.
Because players are quick to assume that any given game is "rigged" against them, some games will actually modify their outcomes, but with the goal of to making them conform to a player's expectations about randomness. 85% chance to hit? Under the hood, might be 90 or higher.
Good examples here: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/jake-solomon-explains-the-careful-use-of-randomness-in-i-xcom-2-i-
posted by ®@ at 6:02 PM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Because players are quick to assume that any given game is "rigged" against them, some games will actually modify their outcomes, but with the goal of to making them conform to a player's expectations about randomness. 85% chance to hit? Under the hood, might be 90 or higher.
Good examples here: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/jake-solomon-explains-the-careful-use-of-randomness-in-i-xcom-2-i-
posted by ®@ at 6:02 PM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
LOL. You'd say that Gemany and the US (which was not surrounded by warring factions and constant attacks on manufacturing capacity and had 2X the total population) during WWII were roughly equal?
That of course lowers the bar for mediocre generals to pass the "win five in a row" test. Fermi's quick model was more favorable to Grove on those terms.
Although (despite being a big Fermi fan) the take away from the anecdote is merely that Fermi was better at math than Grove, not that Fermi had some insight into military history. It's classic trolling, nerd style.
posted by mark k at 6:19 PM on November 1, 2021
That of course lowers the bar for mediocre generals to pass the "win five in a row" test. Fermi's quick model was more favorable to Grove on those terms.
Although (despite being a big Fermi fan) the take away from the anecdote is merely that Fermi was better at math than Grove, not that Fermi had some insight into military history. It's classic trolling, nerd style.
posted by mark k at 6:19 PM on November 1, 2021
If we assume the outcome of a game is due to a combination of skill and luck, and the skill is the same -- as you said and I bolded -- then obviously the only thing remaining is luck.
As I said, I vaguely (and I italicize here) recall some sort of mathematical debate about luck vs skill in backgammon versus other games such as chess, but I don't remember the specifics of it and I wouldn't know where to re-find that information. But that's just one counterexample. At any rate, the person who made their claim didn't even explain why that would be logically true. If you read closely, the next two sentences basically restate their claim to make it look more profound without actually explaining what makes such a claim about luck vs skill true.
Another objection is one can trivially lose any game by forfeiting, so by their claim it's trivially true that every game entails skill. Part of that poker representative's argument here is to make subtle assumptions about what "skill" and "losing" means.
posted by polymodus at 8:45 PM on November 1, 2021
As I said, I vaguely (and I italicize here) recall some sort of mathematical debate about luck vs skill in backgammon versus other games such as chess, but I don't remember the specifics of it and I wouldn't know where to re-find that information. But that's just one counterexample. At any rate, the person who made their claim didn't even explain why that would be logically true. If you read closely, the next two sentences basically restate their claim to make it look more profound without actually explaining what makes such a claim about luck vs skill true.
Another objection is one can trivially lose any game by forfeiting, so by their claim it's trivially true that every game entails skill. Part of that poker representative's argument here is to make subtle assumptions about what "skill" and "losing" means.
posted by polymodus at 8:45 PM on November 1, 2021
But it's still a good way to distinguish skill free games (like the lottery, or War) from others.
That's the issue I had with their way when writing my comment. Skill-free games like lottery or roulette are obviously based on luck. So we don't need to use such a profound-sounding test.
posted by polymodus at 8:54 PM on November 1, 2021
That's the issue I had with their way when writing my comment. Skill-free games like lottery or roulette are obviously based on luck. So we don't need to use such a profound-sounding test.
posted by polymodus at 8:54 PM on November 1, 2021
If two teams with given levels of skill can play each other and not have the more skilled team win every single time, then there must be something else beyond skill involved. Something called statistical variance, or in less formal terms, 'luck'.
For this to be true you would have to have the same exact teams with the same knowledge, the same skills, the same pre-match preparation... Essentially you are ignoring everything that happens off the pitch between the games, some of which will be preparation specifically for this game.
It's the same problem with medical trials in all sorts of conditions where the relative improvement of the treatment is predicted to be small - is what you are doing as the treatment more important than what is happening outside the clinic?
posted by fizban at 12:54 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
For this to be true you would have to have the same exact teams with the same knowledge, the same skills, the same pre-match preparation... Essentially you are ignoring everything that happens off the pitch between the games, some of which will be preparation specifically for this game.
It's the same problem with medical trials in all sorts of conditions where the relative improvement of the treatment is predicted to be small - is what you are doing as the treatment more important than what is happening outside the clinic?
posted by fizban at 12:54 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Is it the article's suggestion that there was some element of skill in the 7x7 guy's lottery win? If so, where?
posted by Paul Slade at 1:13 AM on November 2, 2021
posted by Paul Slade at 1:13 AM on November 2, 2021
Order and Chaos dance around and come together, in Chaos there is no skill only luck, in Order there is no luck only skill. Where the two meet becomes the three which blossoms into the ten-thousand things. The only winning move is to not play the game.
posted by zengargoyle at 1:41 AM on November 2, 2021
posted by zengargoyle at 1:41 AM on November 2, 2021
This discussion of Skill and Luck just seems to me to be a discussion about Signal vs. Noise. In this case, the Signal is the Skill of the participant or the Relative Skill of the two opponents. Noise is just Noise, Randomness, Luck.
You try and find the Signal by doing averaging (repeated measurements should vary the Noise but not the Signal) and other Noise reduction activities. Roulette is a noisy communications channel while Chess is much less noisy. Obviously the SNR is better in the latter.
Even in Chess, the Signal (defined as the Relative Skill) may be small and hard to find. Carlsen doesn't beat Anand every time. Sometimes Anand takes a line that Carlsen doesn't see and, despite studying each other's games, had not predicted it. So, Anand gets lucky. But if you play more games, you have a better chance of determining the Signal: That Carlsen is all-around a better player.
posted by vacapinta at 7:22 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
You try and find the Signal by doing averaging (repeated measurements should vary the Noise but not the Signal) and other Noise reduction activities. Roulette is a noisy communications channel while Chess is much less noisy. Obviously the SNR is better in the latter.
Even in Chess, the Signal (defined as the Relative Skill) may be small and hard to find. Carlsen doesn't beat Anand every time. Sometimes Anand takes a line that Carlsen doesn't see and, despite studying each other's games, had not predicted it. So, Anand gets lucky. But if you play more games, you have a better chance of determining the Signal: That Carlsen is all-around a better player.
posted by vacapinta at 7:22 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
The difficulty with the "lose on purpose" test is that it only applies to bottom-tier play, not to middle-tier or top-tier play - and we usually consider games more skill-based or more luck-based depending on how important luck is in middle tier play or top tier play.
posted by Easy problem of consciousness at 7:55 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Easy problem of consciousness at 7:55 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
It appears TFA is a shill to convince investors (see the LMCM letterhead) to believe that their (Legg Mason's, or the investor's in that they chose LM) skill matters even in the face of market random variability. Which might even be true - I could certainly suggest some ways one might come out ahead in the long term - but given that context anything the article claims is suspect.
posted by memetoclast at 9:20 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by memetoclast at 9:20 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
If both sides play to lose which is the most skillful? Still a game.
posted by zengargoyle at 9:22 AM on November 2, 2021
posted by zengargoyle at 9:22 AM on November 2, 2021
It appears TFA is a shill to convince investors (see the LMCM letterhead) to believe that their (Legg Mason's, or the investor's in that they chose LM) skill matters even in the face of market random variability. Which might even be true - I could certainly suggest some ways one might come out ahead in the long term - but given that context anything the article claims is suspect.
Its actually kind of the inverse - don't assume our competitors large outsized returns owning Tesla and Shopify represent skill over luck. And since luck so entirely dominates short term returns you should assess a process over an outcome. (the issue of course is that its basically statistically impossible to show that even Warren Buffett isn't just lucky)
posted by JPD at 10:31 AM on November 2, 2021
Its actually kind of the inverse - don't assume our competitors large outsized returns owning Tesla and Shopify represent skill over luck. And since luck so entirely dominates short term returns you should assess a process over an outcome. (the issue of course is that its basically statistically impossible to show that even Warren Buffett isn't just lucky)
posted by JPD at 10:31 AM on November 2, 2021
Another objection is one can trivially lose any game by forfeiting
Certainly "trying to lose" is not understood to be forfeiting, but rather playing intentionally badly. Come on, now.
posted by axiom at 10:38 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Certainly "trying to lose" is not understood to be forfeiting, but rather playing intentionally badly. Come on, now.
posted by axiom at 10:38 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
So you can lose backgammon on purpose, quite easily, but the game is effectively random.
in my experience with backgammon I believe it is fairly easy to learn to paly a really solid game and I'm not sure I'd be much worse than an expert.
I was wondering when backgammon might come up here. I'm an avid fan and occasional tournament player, and while losing deliberately is trivially easy, I can assure you that the game is not "effectively random," and that you'd be significantly worse than an expert. For each dice roll, there's a correct move (the one that maximizes your game- and/or match-winning chances), and expert players are significantly better than casual ones at knowing and figuring out those plays*. So I promise you that an expert would play measurably better than you would.
Does that mean you couldn't beat an expert? Absolutely not. Even the best players in the world only win something like 60-70 percent of the time, because luck is still a factor. But over the long term, a better player will always beat a worse one. C.f. Oregon v. Barr, where a judge ruled that backgammon is a game of skill, not luck.
*As one small example, expert players regularly consider how many possible dice rolls play well or poorly on the next play and select the move that reduces their opponent's number of good rolls while maximizing their own.
posted by pwe at 11:14 AM on November 2, 2021
in my experience with backgammon I believe it is fairly easy to learn to paly a really solid game and I'm not sure I'd be much worse than an expert.
I was wondering when backgammon might come up here. I'm an avid fan and occasional tournament player, and while losing deliberately is trivially easy, I can assure you that the game is not "effectively random," and that you'd be significantly worse than an expert. For each dice roll, there's a correct move (the one that maximizes your game- and/or match-winning chances), and expert players are significantly better than casual ones at knowing and figuring out those plays*. So I promise you that an expert would play measurably better than you would.
Does that mean you couldn't beat an expert? Absolutely not. Even the best players in the world only win something like 60-70 percent of the time, because luck is still a factor. But over the long term, a better player will always beat a worse one. C.f. Oregon v. Barr, where a judge ruled that backgammon is a game of skill, not luck.
*As one small example, expert players regularly consider how many possible dice rolls play well or poorly on the next play and select the move that reduces their opponent's number of good rolls while maximizing their own.
posted by pwe at 11:14 AM on November 2, 2021
Except the game theory scientists said that they could prove the randomness of backgammon relative to other kinds of games matters in terms of how much control players have over all possible games so this disproves the profound sounding test that supposedly tells us how much skill is in a game or not.
posted by polymodus at 12:31 PM on November 2, 2021
posted by polymodus at 12:31 PM on November 2, 2021
Certainly "trying to lose" is not understood to be forfeiting, but rather playing intentionally badly. Come on, now.
Sure there's a distinction but don't blame the skeptic for not buying an unjustified scientific claim. The broader point is simply that most games have some way to let you trivially lose. There is so far zero empirical or theoretical justification based on science and game theory offered by that person, that randomness can be measured from ease of losing which is what the assertion amounts to. It's a scientific question. Unless everyone knows why that main claim is obviously true and I am too stupid to figure it out.
posted by polymodus at 12:38 PM on November 2, 2021
Sure there's a distinction but don't blame the skeptic for not buying an unjustified scientific claim. The broader point is simply that most games have some way to let you trivially lose. There is so far zero empirical or theoretical justification based on science and game theory offered by that person, that randomness can be measured from ease of losing which is what the assertion amounts to. It's a scientific question. Unless everyone knows why that main claim is obviously true and I am too stupid to figure it out.
posted by polymodus at 12:38 PM on November 2, 2021
randomness can be measured from ease of losing which is what the assertion amounts to
I think you're imagining a stronger assertion than is being made. All that they're saying is that if skill plays a factor, then you should be able to use a kind of anti-skill and try to lose. Whereas, if luck is dominant, you might try to lose but fail and win fairly easily if you're just lucky (or anti-lucky, if you like). The degree to which luck dominates intuitively should also affect how easily you can lose by playing badly.
Chess, for example, has basically no luck (in the sense of "the ball bounced unexpectedly" not "my opponent happened to miss something") so it's very easy to try to lose (1.e4 e5 2.Ke2 ... 3. Ke3... etc). Soccer has some degree of luck and skill, it's at least imaginable that there exists a series of unfortunate events by which Man City scores an own goal and then fails to equalize despite their opponents utterly failing to defend (in my head there are banana peels involved).
posted by axiom at 12:57 PM on November 2, 2021
I think you're imagining a stronger assertion than is being made. All that they're saying is that if skill plays a factor, then you should be able to use a kind of anti-skill and try to lose. Whereas, if luck is dominant, you might try to lose but fail and win fairly easily if you're just lucky (or anti-lucky, if you like). The degree to which luck dominates intuitively should also affect how easily you can lose by playing badly.
Chess, for example, has basically no luck (in the sense of "the ball bounced unexpectedly" not "my opponent happened to miss something") so it's very easy to try to lose (1.e4 e5 2.Ke2 ... 3. Ke3... etc). Soccer has some degree of luck and skill, it's at least imaginable that there exists a series of unfortunate events by which Man City scores an own goal and then fails to equalize despite their opponents utterly failing to defend (in my head there are banana peels involved).
posted by axiom at 12:57 PM on November 2, 2021
To be clear, I wasn't trying to defend the initial statement, which I agree is probably meant more as a rule of thumb ("if you can't act deliberately to lose, it's probably mostly or all luck"), just objecting to the characterization of backgammon as essentially random -- having elements of chance =/= random.
posted by pwe at 1:13 PM on November 2, 2021
posted by pwe at 1:13 PM on November 2, 2021
There are an increasing number of games that can, in theory, be played "perfectly." That is, that you can always know the best move move for (usually with the aid of a computer.) Tic-tac-toe is something a child can figure out; nim by a smart teenager, checkers by a team of computer scientists with a lot of CPU time. (Although computers have surpassed at Chess and Go they are not "solved" in this sense last I saw.)
If there's no element of chance, then two players playing a perfect game will mean either (1) the first player always wins, (2) the second player always wins or (3) it's always a draw. (Jorden Ellenberg's recent book Shape has a chapter on games that's great at walking through these concepts.)
An odd corollary in the context of this thread is that if there's any element of chance then perfect players will face a game where the outcome is determined completely by luck. It doesn't matter how intellectually intense the effort to play the perfect game is.
Is it still a game of skill? I'd say yes, though it's a bit arbitrary where you draw the line--I'd probably want to see more skill involved than tic-tac-toe for it to count.
posted by mark k at 11:30 PM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
If there's no element of chance, then two players playing a perfect game will mean either (1) the first player always wins, (2) the second player always wins or (3) it's always a draw. (Jorden Ellenberg's recent book Shape has a chapter on games that's great at walking through these concepts.)
An odd corollary in the context of this thread is that if there's any element of chance then perfect players will face a game where the outcome is determined completely by luck. It doesn't matter how intellectually intense the effort to play the perfect game is.
Is it still a game of skill? I'd say yes, though it's a bit arbitrary where you draw the line--I'd probably want to see more skill involved than tic-tac-toe for it to count.
posted by mark k at 11:30 PM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
An odd corollary in the context of this thread is that if there's any element of chance then perfect players will face a game where the outcome is determined completely by luck.
Part of this is the modern tendency to analyze anything that can be analyzed. Some board games get around this by having complex systems whose states are manipulated by players in complex ways. My go-to example for this [disclaimer about questionable content] is Puerto Rico, which has little randomness (only plantation type choices and whatever means the players use to determine start player and player order) but still manages to present different play each time, by multiplying those sources of randomness by the players' reactions to them to make for an unusually deep set of choices. So, while the game has randomness, high-level play is more about reading player reactions to it than the randomness itself.
posted by JHarris at 7:54 AM on November 3, 2021
Part of this is the modern tendency to analyze anything that can be analyzed. Some board games get around this by having complex systems whose states are manipulated by players in complex ways. My go-to example for this [disclaimer about questionable content] is Puerto Rico, which has little randomness (only plantation type choices and whatever means the players use to determine start player and player order) but still manages to present different play each time, by multiplying those sources of randomness by the players' reactions to them to make for an unusually deep set of choices. So, while the game has randomness, high-level play is more about reading player reactions to it than the randomness itself.
posted by JHarris at 7:54 AM on November 3, 2021
« Older "I think I’m going to be fired" - Bird of the Year... | “The things we do for the orange Jesus” Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by introp at 8:07 AM on November 1, 2021 [4 favorites]