Skill vs Luck?

[Shrink Attack]

One observation (of mine, as I can only speak for myself) that seems fairly consistent across most competitive gaming situations (Fantasy Sports, Poker, Blackjack, and even Stock Investing) is that the LESS skilled individual truly believes that all outcomes (good or bad) have a much larger luck factor than truly exists.

It (usually) isn't because the less-skilled player is trying to make excuses for his poor performance. It's typically because he actually doesn't recognize the nuances of the competition, and thus he doesn't know how to take advantage of small edges that over time add up to real competitive advantages for the skilled player. Examples:

Fantasy Football
The skilled player looks at matchup data, weather conditions, historical performances, coaching tendencies, injury status, backup contingencies, etc. to make drafting/waiver wire/lineup decisions. The unskilled player looks at his one pay-site ranking and blindly follows the advice. When the unskilled player gets beaten, he attributes the loss more to "luck" than skill, because he's not even aware of the factors used by the skilled player to beat him.

Poker
The skilled player considers not only his own cards, but he also looks closely at his opponents up-cards and takes into account his opponent's past tendencies, psychology, and "tells". The less skilled player looks almost exclusively at his own cards and makes most of his decisions based on that alone. When the less skilled player loses a hand or is bluffed out, he truly believes that the "luck" factor played a huge role in his loss because he's oblivious of the techniques used by his opponent. The skilled player knows that his own skill played a bigger role in his win than luck, but try convincing the unskilled player about it.

Blackjack
The skilled player may count cards, know the mathematical odds, and only doubles his bets when the advantage over the Dealer is clear. The less-skilled player operates much more on "feel", what's worked in the recent past, and focuses almost exclusively on his own cards rather than what his cards tell him in the context of what the Dealer has. When the less-skilled player invariably busts out, he'll attribute 90% of the blame on the bad luck of "not getting the cards" rather than not knowing the odds and recognizing his own foolish decisions.

Stock Picking
The skilled stock picker uses an endless arsenal of data to make choices, including macro forces, microeconomic numbers, position in the marketplace, valuation, management, cash reserves, market psychology, insider movement, growth potential, etc. before making his picks. The amateur investor reads an outdated magazine and buys a stock through e-trade. When his stock tanks, he concludes it was bad luck (what else could it be?) because he's totally unaware of the real forces that sank his boat.

My real point is this: In all the above examples, luck does play a role. But the impact of arbitrary and unpredictable events (better known as luck) can be minimized by the skilled player. The unskilled player doesn't even recognize how this can be done (poor soul), and then naturally attributes success or failure mostly to luck rather than skill. It actually makes him feel better too, because he's no longer responsible for his failure but instead he can deflect blame to some unfair force over which he has no control.

My intent is not to insult or embarass anyone, but when I hear anyone say that competitive gaming situations are mostly (or even largely) luck, then my initial reaction is that he probably is not a very skilled player.

[BillyWaz]

OUTSTANDING post Paul!!!!! (I see the "Rob Benetti Pulitzer" in your future)

I couldn't agree more with your post, as I wrote something similar on the first post of this thread....

"When people ARE doing well they will often focus more on the "skill" aspect, but when they aren't doing well "luck had more to do with it". That is most likely human nature, and something that will NEVER change."

And I will be honest, that your BLACKJACK reference kinda "hit home", as I totally play that on "feel". I guess I know now why on the rare occasions I do play, why my wife (and everyone else at the the table) kicks my arse!

[Steel Curtain]

Great post Paul. I think in all of those cases, and in others, the more skilled a person is, the less luck becomes a factor AND the less they bemoan on their lack of luck. The less skilled a person is, luck becomes a higher factor and those less skilled players start relying upon luck as part of their recipe for success AND the more they bemoan how unlucky they are.

Take craps for example. I was playing the other day for the first time. I knew absolutely bupkus about the game. Yet, I walked away with $400 of the casino's money. It was all luck as I didn't have a clue about which bets I should make and which I shouldn't. I REALIZED it was all luck. I watched a guy throwing down $500 on every person rolling like he KNEW how to play and watched him walk away down about $3,000. He obviously KNEW the bets, etc., much more than I did but obviously didn't bet it properly. Was it a case of his bad luck versus my good luck? Or, was it a case of him knowing the game but not knowing how to apply it properly? I think in fantasy football, there are lots of folks who know football but don't really know how to apply that knowledge to fantasy football. They think because they know the object (football) they know the game (fantasy). I think there isn't an automatic jump from knowledge of football to knowledge of fantasy football and that's where people get tripped up (myself being a prime example; I know the game well but translating that to success in high stakes fanatsy football is different altogether). That's what I think anyways.

[Route Collectors]

I think the more randomness there is in a game the more luck is involved. This doesn't discount the ability used by those who more effectively win in games of chance....it only recognizes the presence of luck.

Whenever there is guessing/prognosticating/forcasting...etc..there is a chance of being right and a chance of being wrong. Does anyone disagree with that statement? If you do then you should be winning in ALL of the above gaming situations.

Maybe the words skill and luck should be replaced by chance and fortune. If you're watching a bb game with a buddy and you say "check this out..I'll bet the point guard uses the crossover and blows by his guy for a dunk on this play" and you're right what is that?

You made a prediction based on your knowledge of the player. You took a chance. You could've been right or maybe he dribbles it off his foot and you're wrong. Either way you were guessing. No skill involved.

Now when the guy makes the play....whether you called it or not....he still has skill!

I like the card comparison but try the same thing with a game that isn't so random...like chess. H2H at it's finest.

Side note: It's been really nice having a discussion with varying opinions and viewpoints without the name calling and such!

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:
[QUOTE]You are correct about the "Quiet Bullshit Machine" that is the magazine and website writers than more often than not know less ans pay less attention to the NFL than you or I do.

~Lance Lance, that's not nice to say about my profession. In fact, a certain editor of a "Quiet Bullshit Machine" magazine is 331 points ahead of you in the NFFC Auction League, yet you have a better record than me!! How does that happen?!!

Just having fun with ya and I hope your team loses this week!! But honestly, it's interesting to see several posts recently about magazine rankings and online ADPs and mock drafts throwing folks off on draft day. Magazine editors obviously use results from the previous seasons to do their rankings well before training camps open and camp battles take place, but later issues and online rankings are usually formed from looking at many mock and league drafts and forming conclusions. In the end, the rankings/ADPs are nothing more than a composite of results with some analysis mixed in, and Lance, I do believe they are done by smart folks who watch as much NFL action as the fantasy players themselves.

The key for astute fantasy players, however, is to take all of this information (and there are 30+ fantasy football magazines out there and countless ff web sites with rankings) in and separate the b.s. from your own knowledge. Smart players take this info in and then create their own rankings based on what they've seen and heard through the years. That's how some folks took Tom Brady 27th overall this year and how some folks took Randy Moss early in the third round.

So take it easy on us poor fantasy writers, Lance. We're just trying to do our job, make a living out of it and even beat some of you folks in these "industry leagues" we like to host. Here's hoping that sportsbettingman loses in that NFFC Magazine Auction League in Week 13!!

Oh, and GO PACK tonight!!

[3INTBOY]

I think this discussion has been good, but reached a point of repetative, so let me ask the group.

Are injuries a "unlucky" break. (No pun)

I've been in the NFFC as a partricipant 3 years.

In each of the 3 years I have lost no less than 2 out of 3 1st 3 round picks each season to injury/attempted suicide .

Is that unlucky? Is there skill involved in selecting "non injured players".

No excuses please, just what do you think of that?

3'

[kjduke]

Originally posted by 3INT/BFDFANTASYfootball.com:
I think this discussion has been good, but reached a point of repetative, so let me ask the group.

Are injuries a "unlucky" break. (No pun)

I've been in the NFFC as a partricipant 3 years.

In each of the 3 years I have lost no less than 2 out of 3 1st 3 round picks each season to injury/attempted suicide .

Is that unlucky? Is there skill involved in selecting "non injured players".

No excuses please, just what do you think of that?

3' Injuries are 65% luck and 35% skill.

[Steel Curtain]

I think injuries are more of a forecasting type of skill. For example, let's look at Rudi Johnson.....he's been a workhorse for a couple of years and no real injuries to speak of. One person can look at him and decide that with his track record, he'd be good for the entire season again and draft him based on his past track record. Another owner looks at him and decides since this is a violent sport, he is due for an injury. Who is right and who is wrong can't be decided on draft day but those who "bet" the odds would be against Rudi staying healthy for the entire season won. Is that skill or luck? Me, I think it's an educated guess. How much skill and how much luck is probably decided by the calibre of owner. However, whether it was an educated guess or a lucky guess, both ended up being correct and in the end, that's all that really matters. Where skill comes in is drafting to ensure that that injury to Rudi doesn't kill your season.

[ November 29, 2007, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Steel Curtain ]

[Ted's Cracked Head]

Personally I think this discussion falls under the "It Is What It Is" category.

It takes some skill and some good fortune to be successful. I personally think the balance swings to skill.

I do not like to try and put a number on it because that is really impossible and a waste of time.

I look at FF the same way I look at handicapping the ponies.

I look at the race and define the parameters and do my homework. Then I make my best guess based on the previous data, race length, weather...etc and make my wager. Sometimes the race pans out like predicted and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes a horse gets a bad trip or doesn't break from the gate, sometimes they are a late scratch and sometimes they break down during the race.

At any rate there are numerous factors in which I have NO CONTROL. They are out of my hands but I cannot let that get me down, I accept it as part of the game and try harder by doing more homework and being better prepared the next race.

That is why this game is a lot like the examples that were so eloquently addressed by Paul.

Blackjack - to have the best chance to win over the long run you need to play the odds based on known data. If you are playing with two decks out of the hand and you identify a time where it is in your best interest to increase your wager or double down, you take your shot. Example: You have 9 and the dealer has a 7 showing. If you have counted 59 non-tens and it is the last hand being dealt prior to the shuffle, your odds are greater that you will get the ten you need to double up so you of course increase your wager. Now when the dealer gives you that last 4 in the deck, turns over a 4 and hits a 10. Is that bad luck or is it just the way the cards fell?

The same can be said for all of the other games we engage in. Good gamblers do not live in the past nor do they make excuses when things do not go there way. They move on to the next hand knowing that more often than not, their prep will allow them to overcome the bad beats or luck more often than not. The same goes for FF.

One last comment is that this discussion goes to the heart of why we keep playing. The fact that injuries happen and we lose our key or core players gives us the drive to try harder the next year. We KNOW we can do better. WE KNOW we are better than our last season. We KNOW we can win this thing if it all comes together and again, I AM LIVING PROOF.

In a sense the folks who host these events are a lot like crack dealers . If we win we feel the need to try harder and repeat our performance to show ourselves that we are as good as we thought. If we lose we try harder to exercise those demons. It is a lose/lose or win/win for the player and the reason that the level of competition is going to get stronger every single year that this and the other challenge are in place. We are hooked and there is nothing we can do about it.

If we have injuries we have an excuse to justify another try the next year and let us not lose sight of how important this excuse can be. It is the best one we use to justify to our wives and sig others that we HAVE to play next year. We tell them that IF so and so had stayed healthy we could have won it all. In this sense, injuries are the a major factor that keep us coming back.

[ November 29, 2007, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Ted's Cracked Head ]

[ultimatefs]

Originally posted by 3INT/BFDFANTASYfootball.com:
I think this discussion has been good, but reached a point of repetative, so let me ask the group.

Are injuries a "unlucky" break. (No pun)

I've been in the NFFC as a partricipant 3 years.

In each of the 3 years I have lost no less than 2 out of 3 1st 3 round picks each season to injury/attempted suicide .

Is that unlucky? Is there skill involved in selecting "non injured players".

No excuses please, just what do you think of that?

3' I don't think there is a concrete answer for this.

I think there is some skill in avoiding injuries at draft day and we each have our own level of tolerances.

From all the teams I've seen drafted over the years, it's OK to take ONE J.Walker type, but the problems occur when you take several of those types. That's a recipe with a high probability of disaster.

Taking Westbrook, J.Walker, A.Green, and V.Davis in the first six rounds is a recipe for disaster IMO. Sorry Snake, but it is, and you proved what I've seen many times, from many owners. It's hard to avoid the avalanche when you choose to throw the grenade into it.

All this said, you can have seasons where you are truly unlucky and did not set yourself up for an "injury trap". I'm sure that has happened dozens and dozens of times in the NFFC this year.

Losing Jacobs, S.Holmes, M.Harrison and M.Lynch would be a decent example of this... Losing all four w/o much prior history would be bad luck.

The skill in all of the above for me is making sure the round 13-18 picks count and serve a purpose at the draft. This is where I'll take a shot on rookies like D.Jarrett and D.Bowe, guys that had an opportunity to earn a spot, and if they hit, make valuable injuries backups.