I’m not sure about poker, but I think for backgammon it’d be harder to get three levels where C beats B beats A reliably. I’m not a backgammon expert, but I could win games against experts—it’s enough to be competent and lucky. A may also learn too fast—becoming competent is much faster for backgammon than for chess. (needing a larger sample size due to randomness makes A learning more of a problem—this may apply with poker too??)
I have a lot more experience and skill at chess, but it’s still pretty simple to find players who’ll beat me 90% of the time.
[...] the corresponding winning probability of a player who is exactly one standard deviation better than his opponent. We refer to this probability as p^sd . For comparison, we also provide the winning probablities when a 99% percentile player is matched against a 1% percentile player, which we call p99 1 .
Go & Chess (p^sd=83.3,72.9) are notably above Backgammon (p^sd=53.6%)
I’m not sure about poker, but I think for backgammon it’d be harder to get three levels where C beats B beats A reliably. I’m not a backgammon expert, but I could win games against experts—it’s enough to be competent and lucky. A may also learn too fast—becoming competent is much faster for backgammon than for chess. (needing a larger sample size due to randomness makes A learning more of a problem—this may apply with poker too??)
I have a lot more experience and skill at chess, but it’s still pretty simple to find players who’ll beat me 90% of the time.
See Table 2 in https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/skill-vs-luck-in-games for
Go & Chess (p^sd=83.3,72.9) are notably above Backgammon (p^sd=53.6%)
Oh that’s cool—nice that someone’s run the numbers on this.
I’m actually surprised quite how close-to-50% both backgammon and poker are.