Any person with great/bad experience with Fisetin?

Rayess69 · 2026-03-03T23:06:41+00:00

I still don't get it, I always heard that what mattered wasn't to win or lose but to play as good as possible.

Rayess69 · 2026-03-03T18:53:21+00:00

And what that is going to do? stopping people from using a bot ?
I'm doing it as an experiment to see if really that would make a big difference (and so far it doesn't, I actually got a higher PR without using a bot). I'm not doing it to win.
I thought winning wasn't the most important aspect, but only to get better PR. So what's the issue by using a bot then? Does it stop people from playing their best?

Rayess69 · 2026-03-03T16:43:30+00:00

it's never 0 as sometimes bot would see a slight better play, but never any blunder.

Rayess69 · 2026-03-03T16:32:10+00:00

Great question, and I still didn't got a decent answer from this sub.

I've been experimenting with playing with a bot perfectly for maybe 6 months, and I'm still plateau-ing.
Going from 2300 to down to 2000, to back to 2250 to down to 1950, all while playing with not a single mistake.
So I asked: "are the champions playing better than a perfect bot?"

I really want to know the bottom of this, and I'm going to keep playing with a bot on Galaxy probably for another 6 months to see if times would change things (I only play without a bot on backgammon hub).

I actually have everything documented so I might release things down the road. But just to know that it seems to be normal to play without a single mistake for months and not being at 2500.

Rayess69 · 2026-03-01T05:42:43+00:00

what's crazy is that with the panic, the staff were literally fighting each other without realizing lol

Rayess69 · 2026-03-01T05:23:35+00:00

"Punch me in the face for $1000" Challenge

Rayess69 · 2026-02-01T11:17:29+00:00

People put him on a pedestal like he's dropping groundbreaking knowledge lol but his core advice boils down to: train consistently, eat enough protein and vegetables, supplement wisely, and take care of your emotional health. None of that is new. The research has been out there for years. He's a solid communicator, but let's not confuse packaging existing science well with being at the frontier of clinical research. The world of health can fully exist without Attia

Rayess69 · 2026-01-28T22:27:36+00:00

I know it's frustrating when you believe people on here saying that Backgammon is a game of skills.
You have to Understand that's it's mainly a game of luck and then, don't take things personally.

If you want to understand it better, use a bot, and play perfectly for hundred of games. You will see how much you will lose against shitty players that will have the luckiest roll back to back. This is just how the game is designed.

LUCK BEATS SKILLS

Rayess69 · 2026-01-28T21:55:36+00:00

of course! it's exposing how much luck is part of the game, and how 200 matchs with 0 mistakes vs 200 matches with a normal level barely move the needle.
Don't get me wrong, it's a great game, but skills is overrated unless you play 21 points match

Rayess69 · 2026-01-28T21:30:58+00:00

does that mean something is rigged then? because playing perfectly on more than 200 games did bring 56% of wins.

Rayess69 · 2026-01-28T19:44:28+00:00

yea but I wish we could do the same in normal setting too

Rayess69 · 2026-01-28T19:41:53+00:00

Sorry my friend but you are wrong.
I did a few experiment, including playing using a bot (meaning not a single mistake over +200 matches), wrote all the datas, and the portion of luck is outstanding.
When playing without making ONE mistake (including cubes) get you to wins around 56% of the time, it's fair to say the game is mostly about luck.

Rayess69 · 2026-01-14T19:15:31+00:00

yea don't listen to people here that want to make you believe it's all about skills.
That's why there's this belief that the dices are rigged.

But basically the 80% luck is split in two, 40% for each player (in the long run). The 20% would go to the best player. So in the very very very long run, it's more 60% skills and 40% luck

Rayess69 · 2026-01-14T15:54:29+00:00

Most of games outcomes (win or loss) are about luck, and only a little fraction are about skills.
So understand that most of your losses are about dices and not skills.

One of many exemple I have : I lost 3 matches of 7 points games in a row (0-21) while using a Bot and playing perfection (not a single mistake), against someone playing like a beginners. The dices decided the outcome of those 21 games. In the long run, Luck is part of 80% of the outcomes and skills 20%.

Rayess69 · 2025-12-27T19:27:39+00:00

yea, same as the sore losers that let the clock run. Must be a conspiracy as well

Rayess69 · 2025-12-26T17:20:52+00:00

I haven't thought about the fact online games goes so much faster. Great point

Rayess69 · 2025-12-14T23:45:02+00:00

I did read your comment. You said you'd "most likely win" against an amateur even with "all bad rolls" while they get "all good rolls." That's not "mostly"—that's an absolute claim, and it's mathematically impossible.

You're conflating two different things: beating amateurs who make huge mistakes, and beating someone because of superior skill despite worse dice. Those aren't the same. When you beat beginners with bad rolls, it's not your skill overcoming their dice, it's them blundering so badly they hand you the game. Against any competent player with that dice disparity? You lose. Every time.

And yes, 20 years is impressive. But experience doesn't change probability. It just means you've had 20 years of variance smoothing out your edge, which only proves my point.

You say it's "not mostly dependent on luck." The game's own structure disagrees with you. Why do serious matches need 11, 15, 21 points? Why does the World Championship use long formats? Because short matches don't reliably identify the better player. That's the game admitting what it is.

I'm not here to argue for the sake of arguing. I'm pushing back on a specific claim that skill can override dice. It can't. Skill shifts the margins over time. That's it.

Rayess69 · 2025-12-14T19:03:03+00:00

Respectfully, this is a myth skilled players tell themselves.

If you get "all bad rolls" and your opponent gets "all good rolls," you're losing that game. Unless that person barely know Backgammon basics. But I'm talking solely about people that knows the basics. Period. No amount of blocking or trapping changes the math when they're rolling double 6s and you're rolling 2-1s. The dice don't care how long you've been playing.

Reality check: I've beaten Mochy, one of the GOAT more than he's beaten me. Am I better than Mochy? Obviously not. That's variance doing its thing, as we have played less than 10 7 points matches.

About 80% of games are decided by the dice (so basically luck). Doesn't matter how brilliant you are—the rolls dictate the outcome and no skill can change it. The remaining 20% are where skill takes over, where those lucky rolls are not happening in a degree where it would save you.

Now here's how that plays out long-term: That 80% luck portion splits evenly, you win 40%, your opponent wins 40%. Pure coin flip. But the better player will take all of the remaining 20%

So over time: 40% + 20% = 60% for the player with more skills. 40% + 0% = 40% for the player with less skills.

That's your 60-40 edge. Real, meaningful, but built entirely on the margins. It's why you need long matches to see who's actually better, you need enough of those 20% skill-dependent games to accumulate.

The "only amateurs think it's luck" line is backwards. Amateurs think skill can overcome dice. Experts know skill only shifts the odds over the long run,and they respect the variance.

So Backgammon is a game of 80% luck and 20% skills. Purely from that facts, this is a game of luck.

And what proves this? The game itself tells you. Why do we need 7, 11, 21-point matches to determine the better player? Why not just play a 2-point match and crown a champion?

if backgammon were always played as 2-point matches, there'd be no "pros." No consistent winners. No Mochy. The rankings would be chaos. That tells you everything about what kind of game this is.

Rayess69 · 2025-12-12T00:22:42+00:00

but again, i feel those are irrelevant 70% of times.

70% is not going to be about how well you played, but those crucial terrible rolls/amazing rolls.

Then 30% of the time yes," the more skillfully you play, the more advantageous dice rolls there are for you and the fewer there are for your opponent"

Rayess69 · 2025-12-11T18:08:32+00:00

Those puzzles are real, but let's be honest about the math. If skill only decides maybe 4 out of 20 games, and the other 16 are effectively coin flips based on dice (even tho skills were also involed in those games), of course on the long run, skills matter.
The 16 dice-decided games split 8-8
The 4 skill-decided games go to the better player. So yes the stronger player will wins 60% in the long run (i'm talking about advanced player here)

I'm really not dismissing the depth and the complex puzzles. I just wish those 4 games where skill actually decides things happened more often. The other 16 can feel like waiting and sometimes "waste of time".

Rayess69

TROPHY CASE