How "swingy" is backgammon?

[gergery]

Picked up backgammon recently, and have noticed that it seems to tilt me more than poker does. So I was wondering if backgammon is more "swingy" than poker, meaning more bad beats , your opponent comes from behind more, etc?

or maybe i just don't understand equities in various positions enough to realize i'm not as big a fav as i thought.

Thoughts?

-g

[Wolf44]

Like with any heads up game with luck involved your BR is always on a rollercoaster ride. When I played BG for a living, I always wanted to make the play with the highest equity according to snowie, that made it a lot easier for me to accept the swings and keep me from steaming. I kinda imagined I was a bot with no emotions... (may sound stupid to you, but it helps)

just my two cents...

[BigBrother]

Backgammon is a tremendously swingy game.

There are many rolls per game, and many of those rolls contain a 17:1 or even 8:1 'joker' that will turn the position around significantly. Taken individually,, each roll is unlikely, but over the course of a game of 30 or 40 rolls you can see that those swings are certainly going to hit sometime.

In general, we tend to think of backgammon equities in terms of how close we are to a proper double, and how close that double is to a proper pass.

Since a proper double/pass occurs at about 80% wins without gammons, and as low as around 65% wins in a very gammonish position, many of the games where we 'feel' we are the commanding favorite will be turned around.

Additionally, players who are too timid with the cube (waiting until a position is essentially gin to double) actually give their opponet many 'free rolls' to get a lucky joker and turn the game around. Or else they don't get the opportunities to win the gammons they deserve, which makes their score lower than it should be at the end of the session.

For an example of maximum swing, consider bearing off against a well-timed acepoint game. You are about a 90% favorite to leave at least a single shot sometime during your bearoff, which if hit could cause you to lose the game. On the other hand, your opponent, by staying back for that shot, stands to lose as much as a backgammon. Thats a swing of anywhere from 4-10 points over the luck of 3 or 4 rolls.

[bobhalford]

I definitely tilt worse in backgammon than poker. Backgammon really pisses me off. I lost half my bankroll the other day in a few hours. It sucked. Sometimes I make bad cube takes and it drives me crazy.

[WhiskeyFish]

I think players are reporting backgammon to be more swingy and tilt-prone because they've played less BG than poker. When you're learning a new game, it's hard to tell bad luck from bad plays, so it's easy to get emotional.

I've played a lot of backgammon (i'm 1850ish on party), and a lot of poker. In my experience, the swings in backgammon feel smaller than in limit holdem, but I haven't quantified it. Then again, I like to play players at least 300 points below me in backgammon despite the rake, so that lowers my variance.

I hope that backgammon makes a comeback. It's a really great game, especially live. There's something about tossing dice that's just fun.

[solucky]

Backgammon in my opinion have lesser variance and is the more social fun game. And you can play it without money if you want. The edge from a pro-BG player against a beginner is much larger than in poker.

[Al Mirpuri]

Backgammon makes poker look like chess.

It is because in poker you do not have to play every hand you are dealt but in backgammon you have to play any dice roll you throw.

[gergery]

Thanks everyone, great replies.

Just played a few more sessions, ended up down 9-1 and 10-0. My opponents spontaneously started apologizing for rolling so well. That bad beats were THIS bad (holds arms wide apart), lol. I couldn't play poker for hours after I was so tilted.

I think its the fact that you have to play all your rolls even your bad ones, whereas in poker i have more control (i can fold). And even big winning positions are only 2:1 or 3:1 so just playing a few games I'm going to lose one of those.

I think backgammon is not the game for me.

-g

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Backgammon makes poker look like chess.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. The advantage of a stronger player can be large in both backgammon and poker, and typical ratios of edge to standard deviation are similar. In an hour, playing 10 money games, a backgammon expert may expect to win 1 point with a standard deviation of 10 points. In an hour, playing 30 LHE hands, a poker expert may expect to win 1 BB with a standard deviation of 10 BB.

Actually, the backgammon expert will have a much easier time finding opponents who will lose more than 0.1 ppg than the limit expert will have finding tables worth more than 1 BB/hour. It's not shocking for me to find that I had a 0.3 ppg advantage after a session. In fact, I count on that to beat the 0.1+ ppg online rake.

Backgammon and poker are games of skill and chance. The chance is part of what makes them great gambling games. Who plays chess for substantial stakes?

[ QUOTE ]

It is because in poker you do not have to play every hand you are dealt but in backgammon you have to play any dice roll you throw.

[/ QUOTE ]
That means there are more decisions where you can apply a skill advantage, or where your opponent can mess up. There is a lot of skill involved in playing bad positions, and bad rolls, in part because the game can turn around.

The OP is used to the hideous swings of poker, but is not used to similar or lesser streaks in backgammon. He has unrealistic expectations. I used to get much more frustrated playing blackjack when I naively thought the dealer was supposed to bust out most of the time with a 6 showing, and when I thought doubling down had more of an advantage. Now, it takes a much worse streak for me to get annoyed. Similarly, it is helpful not to overestimate the strength of a backgammon position, and it helps to realize that even if you are a 70-30 favorite, it is more likely that the game will equalize than that you will proceed to victory without looking back.