Ok, put all this way: what is your opinion on nowadays status of backgammon and its (low) popularity? Don't you think it's stange that there are few (if any) full time pro payer? No thoughts about the edge and the results that top player (<3PR) has on strong player (3<PR<5) even in 17 point matches?

It will follow a boring rant, don't read obv

???!?!?

How precise art thou mister!! I meant: against people that have the same rank as I have, I Usually score 60% because they usually play the same Go every day while i constantly improve studying and inderstanding my errors.

But thanks, one has to be precise!!

I agree wholeheartedly with Fllecha. (By the way, I am again confused: is it he or she).The winning odds for an expert against a beginner are 3 : 1, whereas these should be the odds for an expert against an intermediate imo. The time that I played tournaments at my own place with the best players of the country, the general belief was that of the 15 players anyone could win, because the skill levels were pretty close, though they had 10 times more experience than me on average. There was one veteran player among them, whose zeal for the game was contrariwise his talent, and he was often successful against all odds. As mr. Robertie says, backgammon has almost an ideal balance of skill and luck. And if even mr. Robertie uses the word -almost-, I could as well put it in bold.

I am studying chess myself at the moment, and it can be an incredibly complex game. High regards for Robertie, who has been a U.S. chess champion, but I think that there is little connection between his chess success, and the fact that he has won the worldbackgammon title twice. To be honest, I think that the latter is mainly because of a mixture of being used to perform when the stakes are high, and because of coincidence.

OK Fllecha. You don't like backgammon because the variance is too high for your taste. You prefer more skill-oriented games with more predictable results. Go, chess, etc.

Hey, that's perfectly ok. I get it. I like those games too. Backgammon is definitely a very different experience. Play what you enjoy!

Another point: you seem to think that backgammon's lower popularity relative to chess, is proof of some kind that your view is more correct. That is not valid reasoning. There are many games of mostly skill, that do not have a big popular following (hex, puerto rico, etc). And also games with a substantial luck factor that are very popular (poker, fantasy sports). Much of this is cultural.

This is EXACTLY what I meant. I would correct it as "strong intermediate" but it's a nuance.

This is pretty evident in backgammon once you start playing, and I think this is a little shocking if you think about it. Peachpie says that bg is a "different experience" (I agree on that) but the main problems still stands: you can't lightly accept that.

I think we are pretty similar in games approach: we like studying a game, and mainly we try to understand it. We have an analytical approach and we want maybe early results. You posted tons of pretty interesting positions but eventually you (I guess) have lost some interest in the game (i.e. not totally abandoned, but also not the only one) because it's a frustrating game. Few players play for the glory and strong player plays among themselves and if you aren't at least a 1700-1750 elo on GG you basically are invisible. And 1700 means a lot of work and a lot of playing time.

In chess and go you almost immediately reach your deserved elo/rank and tons of players plays that game. And if you improve you will see your elo/rank increase very quickly. An above all they are more social games, because of countless discussion on patterns and whole game plans.

That's the only flaw in your post. Robertie knows that you need luck to win montecarlo WC, but you need to be a very strong player to win two time the WC in a row. One time means NOTHING, but "two times" make at least a "deserved win" and a real "WC", no doubt on that. Like in poker: stu ungar was really strong because he won the main event WSOP three times. Ok, other times and other number of players, but he was the best indeed. The same for Doyle Brunson.

Didn't understand that. Can you elaborate?

I can accept it just fine. Most BG players can. Are you addressing yogi individually?

Disagree. Sure, I have been in many friendly post-mortems over chess and go games. I do enjoy that. But few things in gaming are as social as a chouette.

I was saying that the relative popularity of certain games has more to do with the culture than with the specifics of the games themselves. For example in the west, chess is widely perceived as a valued intellectual pursuit. But in the middle east or China, things may be different. Even just within custom board gaming, there is a distinction between "euro" style games versus "american" style.

I don't say you don't need to be a very strong player to in order to win twice.
This is what Stu Ungar says after his 2nd WSOP win: fragment 3:55 to 4:05.And here is the commentary after his third WSOP win: fragment 2:25 to 2:40

As a matter of fact and as I told before, the very rare occasions that I play, I am pretty successful. However, I am also realistic, I just could have gotten lucky. So it is not born out of frustration. I think the game can even be made more exciting than it already is.
I stopped the thread because of complications in my private sphere, and because I don't like to be a slave of my ego. I really intended to distance myself from intellectual pursuits for some time, but then I was challenged by a friend who is looking down upon backgammon, and now I like to defeat him in chess (though I have to start from scratch). I just am eager to shut his big mouth, and I think I am going to succeed in short time.

Go learn to play bank pool and call me in 10 years and see if you like it. aint no luck there. unless your gifted 1 in 10K players you will need 10 years to learn to play good enough to beat me and i'm not a champion, just a good player.

.....but that's a Sport...........this is about a game.

I dismiss this offer. Suppose that after 10 years I make up my mind that I don't like it, then I have wasted one third of the life that is still ahead of me.

This has been a really interesting thread. Myself and my chouette mates have had remarkably similar conversations involving the element of luck. When I look at XG, I am 202 games down over 2467 games, which is mind boggling, considering I'm playing at a 10 against a 0. I thought about this a bit, and I realise that I'm skewing my results by closing some games early when it looks gloomy, so I've stopped doing that, but I'd expect a much greater difference in score overall. I've had a couple of beaver situations go my way though, which have been huge.

When we meet for a chouette, there are 3 of us who hover around 10, and we tend to pass money between us. The rest of the guys are donators, so very clearly there is a difference. It is pronounced enough so that the donators have almost ceased playing. Saying that, we have had nights where they seem unbeatable.

I play for the enjoyment, and the hope of eventually being a competent player. The $2 per point we play for are icing on the cake at this level.

The winning odds of expert vs beginner are established as 3 to 1. Bleep, you are no beginner. XG on it's top will be somewhat better than expert, so something is not okay here.

Yogi, I think it's short-term variance, coupled with my early habit of closing XG and moving on to other affairs if the game was against me and it was time to stop playing.. On the odd occasion where XG beavers me, I tend to raccoon him, despite knowing it's clearly wrong. 2 of those have been huge games, and both have gone my way. That's nearly 300 points, so the real truth would probably be a 500 point difference or thereabouts.

When playing at a ten there are so many errors being made that it is hard to think of the game as much different than simple chance no matter how much worse your opponent is. When you play well under 5 and your opponent plays essentially randomly (ala 10) there seems to be a more compelling argument for skill vs luck.

This is what I was talking about upthread. Backgammon loses players for being more skill oriented than people expect or want.

It could very well be that the rules as they stand since the 18th century are exactly what the universe has meant them to be. On the other hand we have to bear in mind that there are heaps of players who have spent their free time studying cube reference positions, a lot of players who are very proud of their backgammon trophee, creators of software who don't like further fuss, and important players who vote for the Republican party. I recommend to open our minds, and present this case before the court.

I wasted a lot more than 1/3 of my life, your right

Glad to hear that, I wasted about half of my life, and that without having fun.

Zen, to answer your original question, this information might be of some interest to you. It's the prize amounts for the 2015 Las Vegas Open, being held at the Flamingo, which ends tomorrow.

Championship (93 players not counting 35 re-entries)
---------------------------------------------------
Main Flight: $14,920, $7,460 $3,730 $3,730
Consolation: $7,460 $3,730 $1,865 $1,865
Last Chance: $3,330, $1,640


Intermediate (73 players not counting 27 re-entries)
--------------------------------------------------
Main Flight: $4,195, $2,095, $1,050, $1,050
Consolation: $2,095, $1,050, $525, $525
Last Chance: $935, $460


Other Side Events
------------------
Super Jackpot: $15,200, $7,600, $3,600, $3,600
Limited Jackpot: $7,200, $3,600, $1,800, $1,800
Seniors: $3,260, $1,630, $815, $815

yea, txs......from a Poker Player perspective, I was just surprised at how little is published about prize pools from tournament Backgammon, especially compared to Poker Tournaments.

I am just getting into Backgammon, and enjoying it so far....

The other problem is that most sites give you a ranking. The better you get the higher your ranking. I played online for money and did ok at it but when my ranking got high the number of players willing to play me went down. They do not do this in poker so why do it in Backgammon?

The joke in our house, is that when I retire from full time work I will play poker to earn money and Backgammon as my hobby. I only play Backgammon as it is my passion but for a while played poker and did really well at it, but it just was so boring compared to Backgammon.

Fortunately I enjoy my work, but it would be nice to earn a living at backgammon but I live in New Zealand and there just is not the market here.