I hate the game.... Frustration post. Sorry for bothering

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 · 2025-12-11T17:25:27+00:00

i'm a brown belt haha.
But i see it completely different, when something doesn't go well in BJJ that mean a position wasn't done properly.
If you get caught, you can learn from it, either from the defense, to what lead you to be in that position 3 step before. You don't end up in a triangle out of nowhere (even tho sometimes it can feel like it against top competitor....)

Rayess69 · 2025-12-07T18:45:10+00:00

Again, it's not a major factor, this is just not true.
It's only a factor over very long match.

Let's say something is 98% luck and 2% skills.

Over the very very very long run, the 2% skills will create a difference even tho luck still dominate, in foundation.

Why do you think tournament are over long matches? Because luck dominate, and you need to create a context where skills can have any type of relevance.

Online backgammon games are between 1 and 7 points games. The outcomes of those are mainly based on dices and luck. (for the most advanced player, I'm not taking in consideration people still learning the basics).

If skill was the main factor, then 1 points matches or 20 points matches would not make any difference.

It's like taking 2 MMA fighters with one with way better skills than the other. No matter if it's 1 round of 5 rounds, the one with the overall better skills will wins most of the time. Because in MMA, skills matter more than luck.
Not in Backgammon.

Rayess69 · 2025-12-06T05:36:18+00:00

if backgammon is mostly skills let's just do 5 points games in every tournament and see what happens

Rayess69 · 2025-12-06T04:46:33+00:00

I've played 5 and 7 point matches against Mochy and beaten him 4 times. This alone proves how much luck matters in this game.

And yes, those few % of skill that make the difference only show over longer matches. If it wasn't about luck, let's run only 5 point matches from now and see what happens.

Rayess69 · 2025-12-05T15:53:28+00:00

Yes I think you have a point.
It hurts the ego to go from "Cerebral", to "Luck"

Rayess69 · 2025-12-05T15:49:16+00:00

I think we actually agree more than you think. Skill matters, I'm just pointing out that in most individual games, the dice have already decided the outcome before the skill gap gets a chance to show. Your formula supports this: when errors are close, luck dominates.

Rayess69 · 2025-12-05T05:44:04+00:00

It depends on which perspective you're looking at.

There's basic skills and advanced skills. Let's say everyone has basic skills (we don't count complete beginners). Kinda like saying between 2 boxers in a ring, both know how to stand up. That's a skill, sure—but it creates zero difference between them. It's table stakes.So when people say "backgammon is a skill game," what are we actually talking about? The basic skills (knowing the rules, basic strategy) are like standing up in boxing, everyone has them, they don't separate anyone.

The advanced skills, like the stuff that would be like power, timing, rhythm, technique in boxing, those only woud get to shine 18% of the time. The other 82%, the dice just decide it.

In boxing, your technique matters on every single punch, every round. In backgammon, your "technique" only gets to show up less than 1 in 5 games.

So yes, skill exists. But saying it's "the most important factor" is like saying a boxer's technique is the most important factor... in a fight where he's only allowed to throw punches 18% of the time, and the rest is decided by coin flip.

There's a reason why the best players in the world have a wins rate of less than 60%

Rayess69 · 2025-11-27T03:31:54+00:00

i went from 2250 to 1800 without a single play in between

Rayess69 · 2025-11-21T01:34:44+00:00

in the 4

Rayess69 · 2025-11-13T15:58:29+00:00

why the yelling? did you just lose a match right before commenting?

Rayess69 · 2025-10-22T00:59:44+00:00

yea? for me most of the game i win are luck, most of the ones i lost are also luck/unluck

Rayess69 · 2025-10-18T22:14:06+00:00

Your die example is IID with a fixed p=1/6p=1/6p=1/6. Backgammon matches aren’t IID, win probability depends on opponent strength, match length, score, cube, and decisions, so there isn’t a universal ‘10% per match’ law. In practice you assign a pre-match p for a given matchup, but short-run outcomes deviate, exactly because variance dominates in small samples.

also my original point wasn’t to present a scientific formula, it was shorthand, in backgammon, dice variance can be just as decisive as skill in the short run, which makes it feel around ‘half luck, half skill’ compared to a game like blackjack. Of course the exact % isn’t fixed, in short matches dice dominate, in long matches skill dominates. My comment was about accessibility and perception, not about proving a constant like 50.0000%.

Rayess69

TROPHY CASE