3 ms·

Backgammon is a game of chance: at each move you roll the dice. But while you can't control the dice, you can choose among the several moves allowed by the dice

Backgammon is a game of chance: at each move you roll the dice. But while you can't control the dice, you can choose among the several moves allowed by the dice. Play against a professional backgammon player, and you will win exactly zero matches. The luck averages out over the long run, but the better play accumulates with each move. In real life, the better play is sometimes hard work, but many times it can be something else: making friends, doing them favors, and getting favors in return, knowing when to take a calculated risk, and knowing when to call it quits, drinking and having fun at parties, but knowing to keep the alcohol away otherwise, saying no do drugs, reading books instead of watching TikTok.

LeifCarrotson 4y ago
That's because backgammon is a reasonably well-balanced game. There's exactly zero guarantee that our society or life in general is similarly well-balanced. It seems to be a lot more like "Candy Land" or "Chutes and Ladders" for many people.
- mistermann 4y ago
  Another noteworthy difference is that while both backgamnon and The Game of Life have rules, in backgammon all players are generally obligated to follow the rules.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > There's exactly zero guarantee that our society or life in general is similarly well-balanced. How come? Take Zuckerberg. He's the son of a dentist and a psychiatrist. Upper-middle class for sure. He will have better dice rolls in life than the son of a window cleaner from Queens, but he'll have about the same rolls as the sons of millions of other dentists and doctors and lawyers and senior software engineers. Still, he became a billionaire by the time he was 30, while most of his peers were lucky if they became millionaires by the same time. But I know a lot of people who claim that Zuckerberg was just a lucky guy.
  - rhino369 4y ago
    >But I know a lot of people who claim that Zuckerberg was just a lucky guy. He isn't *just* lucky. But if theFacebook (a literal face book for harvard students) didn't go viral (which requires a great deal of luck), Mark Zuckerberg might be a middle manager at Google. Of course there are a lot of people who couldn't execute if given that opportunity. Maybe very few who could. But there are huge butterfly effects for these types of outlier outcomes in life.
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      > might be a middle manager at Google. He would not have been only a "middle manager" at Google. Mark was (maybe still is) a 100x developer. He would have had a meteoric career at Google. By now, he would have $100 million in the bank.
  - ktpecot 4y ago
    I wouldn’t claim that he was lucky but upper middle class? The guy went to Phillips Exeter for high school and was captain of the fencing team. Not exactly middle class.
  - harimau777 4y ago
    There are numerous other hard working people from similar backgrounds who didn't become billionaires by the time he was 30. That suggests that he was lucky.
MrJohz 4y ago
While it's true that in backgammon, skill largely trumps luck, that's not true for, say, Ludo. Sure, you still have decisions (which piece do I move, do I start a new piece or not), but the ultimate decider of the game will be luck. You might possibly see some value in strategy if you reran the game hundreds of times, but at the individual level, the dice decide the outcome. Because the real issue here is not whether our lives are predictable or random (they are obviously both), but to what extent. Your analogy demonstrates a case where randomness can be controlled, mine a case where it can't. So which applies best to our actual lives? Another analogy from the world of board games: one annoying habit of bad board gamers that gets brought up often in forums and hobby discussion boards is the habit of ascribing good outcomes to skill, and bad outcomes to luck. In my experience, that's true in other aspects of our lives as well. It's very difficult to see the luck involved when you do something successfully, even though it's usually there.

LeifCarrotson 4y ago

That's because backgammon is a reasonably well-balanced game. There's exactly zero guarantee that our society or life in general is similarly well-balanced. It seems to be a lot more like "Candy Land" or "Chutes and Ladders" for many people.

mistermann 4y ago
Another noteworthy difference is that while both backgamnon and The Game of Life have rules, in backgammon all players are generally obligated to follow the rules.
credit_guy 4y ago
> There's exactly zero guarantee that our society or life in general is similarly well-balanced. How come? Take Zuckerberg. He's the son of a dentist and a psychiatrist. Upper-middle class for sure. He will have better dice rolls in life than the son of a window cleaner from Queens, but he'll have about the same rolls as the sons of millions of other dentists and doctors and lawyers and senior software engineers. Still, he became a billionaire by the time he was 30, while most of his peers were lucky if they became millionaires by the same time. But I know a lot of people who claim that Zuckerberg was just a lucky guy.
- rhino369 4y ago
  >But I know a lot of people who claim that Zuckerberg was just a lucky guy. He isn't *just* lucky. But if theFacebook (a literal face book for harvard students) didn't go viral (which requires a great deal of luck), Mark Zuckerberg might be a middle manager at Google. Of course there are a lot of people who couldn't execute if given that opportunity. Maybe very few who could. But there are huge butterfly effects for these types of outlier outcomes in life.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    > might be a middle manager at Google. He would not have been only a "middle manager" at Google. Mark was (maybe still is) a 100x developer. He would have had a meteoric career at Google. By now, he would have $100 million in the bank.
- ktpecot 4y ago
  I wouldn’t claim that he was lucky but upper middle class? The guy went to Phillips Exeter for high school and was captain of the fencing team. Not exactly middle class.
- harimau777 4y ago
  There are numerous other hard working people from similar backgrounds who didn't become billionaires by the time he was 30. That suggests that he was lucky.

MrJohz 4y ago

While it's true that in backgammon, skill largely trumps luck, that's not true for, say, Ludo. Sure, you still have decisions (which piece do I move, do I start a new piece or not), but the ultimate decider of the game will be luck. You might possibly see some value in strategy if you reran the game hundreds of times, but at the individual level, the dice decide the outcome. Because the real issue here is not whether our lives are predictable or random (they are obviously both), but to what extent. Your analogy demonstrates a case where randomness can be controlled, mine a case where it can't. So which applies best to our actual lives? Another analogy from the world of board games: one annoying habit of bad board gamers that gets brought up often in forums and hobby discussion boards is the habit of ascribing good outcomes to skill, and bad outcomes to luck. In my experience, that's true in other aspects of our lives as well. It's very difficult to see the luck involved when you do something successfully, even though it's usually there.