What percentage is luck involved in a games outcome?

Luck is a qualitative factor which can be manipulated quantitively through increasing/decreasing the random probabilty of expected outcomes.

Skill is a qualitative factor which cannot be manipulated.  Strategy is a qualitative factor which cannot be manipulated, except to manipulate luck.

Luck could defined as either good or bad for this example.

Bad luck has the inverse relationship to good luck.  One person’s bad luck is the opponents good luck.  Bad/Good luck occurs when the random outcome of the battle falls outside the range of probable expectations.  When the expected random outcome occurs, we consider this normal.

However, luck as defined above can be manipulated through increasing or decreasing the probability of a normal and expected outcome.  Adding one additional attacking unit can make a big differnce.  Same with leaving one extra defensive unit.  These are options are a part of strategy.  These options in themselves, have nothing to do with luck.  However, should an attack occur, they increase/decrease the probability of the outcome of an attack.

Therefore, these options have nothing to do with luck in themselves, but they can influence the probability of bad/good luck occuring, and hence, no game is 100% luck.

Reading the poll question again, it does say “All things being as equal as possible regarding player skill”. I read this to mean that skill is being defined out of the question. In that case, unless there are other factors present, luck by definition will determine 100% of the outcome.

So the question really is, assuming that skill is not different between two players, what else makes the difference? Is luck the only other factor? The question really is worded as eliminating skill as a factor (even if admittedly this is only possible in theory), so what’s left?

Here are some things that have been put forward:

1. Who makes MORE mistakes?

This really is part of skill. If you have one player making more mistakes, then within that current game they are playing less skillfully, and then you are not discussing the hypothetical raised in the poll.

2. Who makes the earlier mistake?
   Again, within an individual game, this can either be considered part of skill, in which case again you are not answering the poll question. Alternatively, if you look at mistakes as random events that happen regardless of skill, then the timing of mistakes really falls under luck, although not under “dice” luck.

So the question then might be "If skill is equal, what percentage impact do bad DICE have in comparison to other luck-based factors such as timing of mistakes?

3. Who manages their risk better?
   Again, you are simply asking which player has more skill, which is counter to the premise in the question, which is that skill is as equal as possible.

So here is the question that really needs to be answered first:

“Aside from good/bad strategy and good/bad dice, what else contributes to the outcome of an Axis and Allies game?”

If there is nothing other than skill and dice, then by definition if you take skill out of the equation, as the poll question here does, then dice are all that is left.

But is there anything that does not fall under skill or dice? I can’t think of anything other than if mistakes can be considered to have an element of chance.

Maybe it’s purely a semantic debate about whether mistakes are determined by luck or by skill. I’d say that the frequency of mistakes is a function of luck, but the distribution of mistakes is determined by luck. And then of course your level of skill is determined by your good luck in being born with a good brain.

I would simply echo Darth’s comments on this one.

He and I appear to see eye to eye on this front.

The poll question was @froodster:

“All things being as equal as possible regarding player skill”.

I do NOT read this as excluding skill.  Hypothetically two players could be equal skill, or Frood could play vs. Frood, but these are just hypotheticals, not “All things being as equal as possible regarding player skill”.

There is also the interesting issue of the team imbalance built into the game itself.  Playing Axis is extremely different from playing Allies.  You could be much better at playing one side than the other.

Imagine that we have two players, and also that we can accurately quantify each player’s skill on a scale of one to ten.  Let’s say both players have the same levels of skill for all nations.

Example:

Russia 8
Germany 6
UK 9
Japan 5
USA 8

Now, looking at their statistics, it is plain that the players are equally skilled.  Both of them are better at playing Allies than Axis nations by a good few notches.  Thus, when they play each other, the Axis player is at a serious disadvantage.  Equal yet unequal.  Another facet of the game that is part of the equation.

~Josh

Yeah that all makes sense.

Now, does anyone disagree with this though:

“The more similar two sides are in all other respects, the more important dice become in determining the winner of the game.”

In other words, as other differences decrease, the importance of luck increases. Conversely, the greater the other disparities between players, the less critical dice become.

Does anyone disagree with that idea of a “sliding scale” for the importance of luck in different games?

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

@froodster:

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

Yes

Except in the RAREST of cirsumstances.

@jsp4563:

@froodster:

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

Yes

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

That’s all I’m saying.

@axis_roll:

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

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

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

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

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

@Wazzup:

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

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

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

@froodster:

@Wazzup:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squirecam

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

@froodster:

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

Yes, but here is what happens.

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

What does “B” say???

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

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

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

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

Squirecam