3 ms·

Neither a bridge or poker player, but these games that have both a huge mathematical and psychological component to their strategy seem to be obvious games of s

Neither a bridge or poker player, but these games that have both a huge mathematical and psychological component to their strategy seem to be obvious games of skill. Even blackjack with much stricter (loosing) probabilities IMO is a game of skill because "good" players will lose at a slower rate than bad ones (even without card counting). Rock-paper-scissors just seems too simple to allow for any performance improvements that don't involve luck or cheating. For a judge to highlight "speed of execution" or "the sense of observation" doesn't make sense; this sounds like bridge players using secret signals, or a roulette player trying to squeeze their bet onto the board after the wheel has slowed - skill should be related to performance within the parameters of the game, not waiting for your opponent to throw scissors and changing to rock...

spunker540 7y ago
One theory I have with RPS is if you say right before the game “I’m gonna play rock”, it may change the odds slightly to non-random. I’m not sure any sort of speech is within the bounds of a fair game though.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  The only way I'd play Bridge with anything serious on the line would be to generate a long truly random string of moves beforehand, and then memorize them and play them. Then, you can analyze your performance afterwards and if you're statistically losing more than you should be, you know you're giving tells.
AlisdairO 7y ago
Fwiw when playing my wife at rock paper scissors I once won over 20 times in a row. The odds against this happening randomly are pretty extreme - but I know her very well and can read her well enough that it was possible. I think it's fair enough to say that there might be a psychological element there that could pull the game out of straight random chance.
- frank2 7y ago
  Maybe she sensed that you would tend to be a better provider if you were a little more confident and let you win.
  - Larrikin 7y ago
    How do you let someone won a game of chance?
    - elwell 7y ago
      Forfeit.
  - dmurray 7y ago
    Intentionally losing 20 in a row is just as impressive as winning.
- LargeWu 7y ago
  I will give you 100-1 odds you could not beat me in rock-paper-scissors 20 times in a row.
  - AlisdairO 6y ago
    I would never take that bet, obviously. I haven't known you for 16 years, and I can't read you like a book ;-)

spunker540 7y ago

One theory I have with RPS is if you say right before the game “I’m gonna play rock”, it may change the odds slightly to non-random. I’m not sure any sort of speech is within the bounds of a fair game though.

CydeWeys 7y ago
The only way I'd play Bridge with anything serious on the line would be to generate a long truly random string of moves beforehand, and then memorize them and play them. Then, you can analyze your performance afterwards and if you're statistically losing more than you should be, you know you're giving tells.

AlisdairO 7y ago

Fwiw when playing my wife at rock paper scissors I once won over 20 times in a row. The odds against this happening randomly are pretty extreme - but I know her very well and can read her well enough that it was possible. I think it's fair enough to say that there might be a psychological element there that could pull the game out of straight random chance.

frank2 7y ago
Maybe she sensed that you would tend to be a better provider if you were a little more confident and let you win.
- Larrikin 7y ago
  How do you let someone won a game of chance?
  - elwell 7y ago
    Forfeit.
- dmurray 7y ago
  Intentionally losing 20 in a row is just as impressive as winning.
LargeWu 7y ago
I will give you 100-1 odds you could not beat me in rock-paper-scissors 20 times in a row.
- AlisdairO 6y ago
  I would never take that bet, obviously. I haven't known you for 16 years, and I can't read you like a book ;-)