To further define luck: "luck" that happens away from where the action is doesn't really matter. When and where the "luck" happens is essential to any discussion of how "luck" influences a game's outcome. Also, if you think my "accumulative luck" is the same as the statistics for members that are called accumulative luck, you are mistaken. I simply call it that because it needs a name. "Attack/defense luck at key moments" could also be its name. The statistics tool's accumulative luck can be misleading: all attacks/defenses are equally measured, regardless of strategic importance, location and number (eg, is good luck on a 4v2 or 2v1 attack equivalent to having good luck on a 20v13 or 6v4 attack? according to the stats it is; in terms of effect on the outcome of the game, they can't be compared).

As for my game with Timi - in my humble opinion the key was that Timi as you said misused the India pick. Furthermore, he failed to play an order delay on turn 6. Had he done that, he would regain at least income balance. I still would have had more standing armies though, but that not necesairly would have to be decisive.

As for picks - I was thinking about that actually quite a lot here, mainly becouse we both had the exact same picks, but in diffrent order. I also assumed the scenario, where I didn't get the first pick and in my opinion that would have worked equaly well, so in general I think my picks were simply superior to Timi's and that combined with Timi's mistake (in my opinion) in SEA was the decisive factor in the game.

best regards.

PS. I did of course have quite a bit luck with capturing Greenland, but I don't consider it to be decisive.

Sorry for double-posting, but I've just thought of a thing concerning this topic.

How about instead of just pointing out the games, where luck was an important (if not decisive) factor, we try to simulate what moves (great skill) could offset that luck. In other words, how could an omnipotent WL player could have won them?

in conclusion, gui/myhand/szew and all those are consistently lucky most of the time, while really SKILLED players like me get unlucky too much

Between 2 top poker players luck decides who is the winner.
I need proofs to say that this statement is bullshit?
All those 3 cathegories of "luck" could enter in a cathegory of skill: 1=being able to pick (when I pick I always consider as a possibilty the situation in wich my opponent does my same picks, f.e.). 2=luck management. 4= being able to make a good attack.

I wouldn't exactly agree that a game between two top poker players is decided by luck, but it is irrelevant as poker is nothing like stratigic 1 v 1 settings. I elaborated on this matter in another topic, so no point reapetin myself.

if the opponent takes the same picks and the picks give one player an advantage then luck is clearly an important factor, since both players were equally skilled at the start, there's no argument about that

And how often does that happen? Same picks meaning also same order of picks obviously.

Id say no more then once in 100 games. That's hardly a statistically signifcant amount. You can't make a generalisation based on something that's less propoable then error margain.

Warlight, what Artham and Trollussa are saying is that you need to craft a strategy that works in worst-case scenario as well.

- turn 11 (defense luck): Timi gets nice defense luck that saves 1-2 armies from dying on unknown's 28v23 attack. This enables Timi to hit Scand 5v3 instead of 4v3 or 3v3. Thus, instead of unknown gaining parity in income and have more armies in Scand/Russia, Timi ends the game.

28 kill in average 28*0,6=16,8 and unknown killed 17, nothing irregular. Good defense-Luck only matters about the troops the attacker loses, not about the troops that survive (that would be negative attackers luck!)



About my game against Artham, i agree about my mistake in picks, i realised it when i saw what i received, but that was too late

melan, if it's all about skill and calculation why are you pouty in circumstances that are obviously based on luck? If it is all based on reason you should remain calm and cool at all times and recognize and appreciate superior skill when beaten. but you often pout as if the result of a turn/game were unexpected due to the influence of luck. why?

in my games I see things for what they are. if skill beats me i might say good game. if luck beats me i might say nice luck. if i beat myself with poor play i might not say much of anything.

Timi, if that's true about defense luck then unknown was just chasing shadows.

warflow, you read only half of ideas and respond in kind. I think luck determines the winner of the majority of games played by MORE OR LESS EQUALLY SKILLED PLAYERS (in the context of ladder 1v1s). the idea is that if both players make equally good picks/moves all game, luck usually deterrmines who gets the advantages and thus wins.

melan's skill categories: picks: are there always worst case scenario options? what if the opponent is your equal and gets lucky enough in picks to cut you off from your worst case scenario? and instead of a worst case scenario you just get worse picks? attack-defense luck and management: if the enemy hits you with a 4v3 or 5v4 or 9v6 to win a key territory to gain a decisive advantage and you did all you could to stop it, is your loss due to luck management or just bad luck? if you flip 100 coins simultaneously how do you manage the flips to accurately predict if there are more heads or tails? and if you can't, why even spend the time flipping coins if skill is not involved?

From the top: Sze Vs Niko turn 3 sze missed his bonus. This cost him "a turn of growth" ie 4 income. Which he gets back over the next few turns by having a 4bonus to nikos 3bonus. He chose during picks to make his frst bonus a 4 where niko chose to make his a 3. Niko then pays for that later, with expansion into the horrible US bonuses. By turn 9 everything has settled down again and once again sze is too cool for his reinf card and eliminated some more neutrals. In this game sze loses because he does stupid stuff like attacking finland, moscow and south africa and not using his card on turn 5 and 9. What mistakes did niko make?

But what if bad luck led Sze to make risky moves to catch up? And Niko's lack of bad luck did not force him into any risky moves? Bad luck not only influences the turn/move in question, but can have a cumulative effect on the game, how the player with bad luck views his chances, and how he adjusts his moves in the future to compensate for earlier bad luck or to deal with the disadvantageous situation left behind by the luck.

Game 2 http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3549676

I am surprised that you think that was a good blockade what did it achieve? Sze spending even the 3 income to stop tibet was pretty nooby, when myanmar is just as good short term. Ollies problem was first pick and bad 5th pick, because he spent the first 2 turns scared that ant had been counterpicked. CA was a ton better. Deploying and not attacking in scand was bad for ollie, and then the only luck of the game sze got by guessing scand instead of hong kong.

He wasn't behind. Sze was absolutely fine until he made risky (bad) moves. Surely the lesson is not to make risky (bad) moves even if you think youre losing?

Game 3 http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3485495

Wish I could read the chat in this game. Skill indeed.

game 4 http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3550688

luck indeed, timis moves turn 4 werent great; worse than ollies and won.

game 5 http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3553273

Artham won because his picks were a load better. Timi was worried about europe or russia so didnt 34 around scand, but europe/russia are bad and if he had had the "skill" to see that his picks would have looked more like arthams. Getting gland with 3v2s is 50/50 and either way its a difference of 5 armies which he then plows into central russia for no immediate gain. Do you think it impacted the game significantly? The net effect is not +5 and -4 it is one or the other. Art picked better and then didnt screw up so he won.

game 6 http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3471141

Meh to so many of those points. Ukraine vs scand you think ukraine has an advantage? really? Timi jumps the gun in ukraine because he has nowhere else to go and if he doesnt get finland he is screwed. This is the problem when 2/3 of your picks are counters. Turn 6 guessing luck indeed. After that its gg and the luck is irrelevant. Do you not think player with the most skill won?

I am going to say unknown should have known timi was in CA, because where else would he be? If he is in russia its gg anyway because unknown has safety and nice expansion. unknown should have hit venezuela with as much as he could afford.

I am surprised not see any games decided by guessing luck in picks, where there is a rock paper scissors scenario. Are there games where someone picks worse and plays worse but wins due to luck?

Sze wasn't behind? Armies and Income,

turns 1-9 (beginning to when Niko gets Canada & Sze gets N Africa):

Armies 12-12..15-14..19-14..25-20..30-28..40-31..36-23..44-36..43-30..
Income 5-5......5-5......8-5......8-9......8-9..13-13..13-13..13-13..18-16..

turns 10-11 (game over):

Armies 41-24..56-29
Income 18-16..18-16

What I see: Niko used his good attack luck in CA and the US to maintain parity in Scand and grow more effectively in the US and Canada. Once Niko got Canada he used his income with a fury turn 10. Sze was surprised by losing so many troops and realized the end was near unless he took some risks. Turn 11 he tries to jump Ant thinking the income came from Aust/Ant. If Sze had that slight advantage in his attack luck while growing in Africa, would Sze have been surprised by Niko's fury turn 10? Would Niko have decided to deploy 100% and attack like he did turn 10 if he didn't have such attack luck while growing? Early luck influences later options. Early luck determines later strategic choices. Niko made no mistakes. But didn't the early luck give him more strategic choices, which led to his skillful assault and battery turn 10? And didn't that lead Sze to make the major mistake of hitting a wasteland? If Niko had normal luck in all his attacks in CA, US and Canada, he would have needed to deploy at least 4 more in those areas to take the bonuses at the same speed. 4 less deployed in Scand changes a great deal in how aggressive Niko would've been. And what if Niko couldn't risk having 4 less in Scand and ended up taking Canada one turn later? Then Sze's moves turn 10 would've been safe and not destructive.

Game 6: Based on the moves made, luck decided the game earlier than the moves would have dictated. Equal luck at the key moments and unknown would have kept his bonuses and the game would have been at parity longer. Based on what could have been: unknown could have made better moves to ensure that skill overcomes luck. I was simply analyzing based on what they did, not what they could have done.

Are there games where someone picks worse and plays worse but wins due to luck?

Of course there are. I was just looking at ladder games from #1 and #2. I didn't hunt games. I just clicked on their names and looked at the best 3 games of their most recent games on their list.

I think a larger examination of all such games would be interesting, so there'd be less theory and more fact.

Sze was behind a tiny amount (because he messed about turn 5) but if he had deployed all including his card in scand Niko would have bounced off 34v31. Nikos army and income advantage are so small that he would likely lose more than he killed. Sze could have made a 4v2 after all his other orders and been up a card piece =D. Nikos early luck was minor but youre right it gave him more strategic choices, and as far as i am concerned he made little use of them. He gave all the advantage back by using 4v2s slowly to take 2 inefficient bonuses, he has so many idle armies every single turn of expansion, if he had been hitting sze repeatedly in scand then I would say he was making the most of his luck, but all his luck gets him is a few more armies stood still achieving nothing until the stacks get so high theyre irrelevant. Sze ends up with plenty of leftovers too. Afaik Nikos early deployment really doesnt fit with an ant/aus combo.

Game 6 the guessing luck relating to the blockade was the most definitive of that game. Do you think it was luck? I think Timi wins a lot of games by correctly predicting the other player.

I think a larger examination of all such games would be interesting, so there'd be less theory and more fact.

Yay! Me too. Its nice reading someone elses annotations on a game.