[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Bug-gnubg Digest, Vol 80, Issue 7

From: Massimiliano Maini
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Bug-gnubg Digest, Vol 80, Issue 7
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:46:39 +0200

A bunch of replies on the luck thread:

Christian wtrote:

> This argument pops up from time to time, and I'm off the unfortunate
> opinion that both views are equally bad. The reason that we report
> luck and skill in EMG is that it helps on the report and comparison of
> games and matches.
> Suppose you are at 17-17 away or 1-1 away. Loosing 5% matchequity by
> bad luck would require a very unlucky game at the first score and
> hardly any bad luck at the second score. Using EMG puts luck and skill
> on a foundation that is independent of score and matchlength.
> Unfortunately the foundation isn't very good.
> Every argument about EMG or MWC you want to make about luck may be
> made for skill as well. For skill our decision is firmly for EMG. For
> luck the argument for MWC is stronger, but it isn't 100% convincing. I
> like to have luck and skill reported the same way, and if somebody
> took the time to make the code changes to report both EMG and MWC for
> both luck and skill in a concise way I wouldn't mind at all.
> Christian.

Well, actually at 17-17 away you could lose 5% due to luck easily,
e.g. a last roll double that takes you from a simple loss to a win.
Even more if the cube goes at 3 or 4.

Anyway, I do think that total luck and luck rate are reported OK
as they are (the fact that in the luck panel I would put the EMG
in brackets and not the MWC/Points is totally minor, forget it).
Only minor thing is that luck rate is in mEMG for match and Points
for money, probably it make sense to have it in mEMG and mPoints.

I'm only concerned about the "Luck rating": it is supposed to
summarize in a single word/_expression_ how lucky a player has been
in a match/session. I think it should use MWC/points and not EMG.

Maybe we can just have 2 lines: "Normalized luck rating (from EMG)"
and "Raw luck rating (from MWC/Points)". It would be consistent
with the fact that for luck and skill we show both.

Robert-Jan wrote:

> The total amount of luck (in MWC) should be used to tell how
> lucky you were. Luck per move makes no sense, as it will
> approach zero as the number of moves goes to inifinity. Ergo,
> in long matches GnuBG will nearly always try to tell us neither
> side was lucky, even when one player received f.i. +40% MWC luck.

I think that captures the whole thing.
Imagine a 5pt match where both players roll exactly thweir average
rolls (i.e no locuk) up to the bearoff od the last game (at DMP).
Now player A rolls a joker and wins.

Luck per move would be different if the match was a 15pt one.
To me and Robert-Jan, that's not correct. Others may argue that
statistically there's more chance to gat a joker in 1000 rolls
than in 600, hence you have less luck if you get it in a 15pt
match than if you get it in a 5pt match, but that's not the point.

It seems to me that EMG luck per move is trying to count the
lucky rolls, no matter their value, and then say something like
"you got 5 lucky rolls in 46 rolls, that's good".


I would change "Go to bed" with "Go to Lourdes" to be more
consistent with the dual "Go to Las Vegas" :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]