What are the odds of a top pro beating a novice player? How much % does he lose a match due to bad luck, etc. And how many people make a living by betting on backgammon?

The match length has a lot to do with the answer.

In small local tournaments, matches are typically 5-7 points and take less than an hour. A top pro against a true beginner will win 75% or so at this length.

Weekend regional tournaments (2-3 days in length) will have match lengths in the 11-15 point range. Top pro versus true beginner now looks like 80-85% or so.

Big international tournaments have match lengths in the 17-25 point range. Now the top pro is 90%+ against the true beginner.

Keep in mind, however, that these tournaments are divided into sections roughly grouped by skill level and size of entry fee. Very few "true beginners" enter the top section of tournaments, so in practice these matchups never occur.

Top backgammon players nowadays mostly play the game as a slightly lucrative hobby. Those interested in making serious money supplement their backgammon with poker.

Just a quick addition to the superb post by Robertie, I understand that with the recent addition of the personal computer, the recent additions of Snowie and Jellyfish software, the bar has been raised where novices play like beginners, beginners play like intermediate, intermediate play like advanced, and so on and so forth. It sort of educated the "fish", who either got eaten up by the skillful pro bg players, or elevated their play to the point that it wasn't profitable anymore. And that brings the level of skill and luck that much more closer. Especially playing at a high level with money involved.
I understand that the main reason many backgammon players like Magriel, Gus Hansen, Dan Harrington, etc. went to poker is because that is where the money is. The backgammon well went dry, which is sad, because I think it's a great game worthy of being as popular as poker. Chouettes especially.

Thanks a lot for the responses! I remember playing backgammon at Playsite.com and I clearly had a natural talent for the game because I never studied, just started playing matches, and in a few weeks became one of the top players at the site... Tried to do the same thing with chess and didn't pass the "tier1" of the player rankings

Also I've read about Mike Svobodny (is this his name?) and there was an amazing story where he played for millions against this billionaire during several months just grinding it out and just milking the guy, and I was dreaming on doing something similar because it seems fun to have several different games on gambling repertoir (poker, blackjack, backgammon, golf, etc) so you can just from one to the other and feel like someone like phil ivey

Hi all, I'm new to this forum but not to backgammon. I had to deal with the luck issue as a legal issue for my small Bg club in Ft Collins CO (in the 80s). CO Law has language that prohibits gambling when "luck contributes materially to the out-come". In other states with similiar language the judgement has been "Dice = MaterialContribution, case closed".

I wanted to write a breif making the case that Chess has a material contribution from luck. After reviewing a couple of classic books on chess I found references to luck on every page ...
"His chances are better on the left hand side"
"This is a well known line, so he played e4-e5 to bust open the position and equalize chances (by increasing variance)"

I was tickled by Bill R's quote in another thread, "If you want less luck, play chess" -- YES, less luck!

The issue is (as Bill points out above), has sufficient attention been paid to grouping better players and playing longer matches?

IN ANY GAME chess included, the outcome is 100% luck when players are exactly matched in skill. The issue isn't how much luck -- it is how much luck per skill differential. Chess has MUCH less luck per skill differential. However, the World championship is decided (between last 2 standing challengers) by a 21pt match that can last for days.

I wanted to switch the arguement before the judge from 'existance of material luck' to 'did the club take steps to manage the material luck (that exists in all games)' -- fortunately I never had to argue in court -- unfortunately our problems came from Liquor Commission pressure on the venue and due process does not apply

Most states have gaming laws that spring from 19th century roots. Games are classified into games of skill and games of chance, and a game of chance is one in which the outcome is "materially influenced by luck" or some variation thereof.

Games involving an obvious random element like dice, cards, or the spin of a wheel are usually classified as games of chance, but not always. Duplicate bridge has always been classified as a game of skill. Backgammon wins some court cases and loses others.

The most famous win for backgammon was in Oregon, where Ted Barr (an attorney and BG organizer) got backgammon classified as a game of skill in the 1980s. The most famous loss was New Jersey about the same time, when Lewis Deyong wanted to run a BG tournament at Resorts International in Atlantic City. AC permitted gambling, but only on games specifically named in the statute, like craps, roulette, and blackjack. There was a big court case attempting to have BG ruled a game of skill, and Paul Magriel testified for Resorts, but the judge ruled against him. Hence a bizarre result: in NJ, backgammon is illegal and roulette is legal!

What would make more sense is a statute that evaluates the complexity of the decision-making in a game rather than the presence or absence of a random element. With language like that, chess, backgammon, and poker would all qualify as games of skill, while roulette, craps, and the wheel of fortune would be relegated to games of chance.

Not true there are draw possibilities in many games.

Another point is that I think the estimate for 11 point games the win estimate is on the low side. Nearer 95% in my observations of a pro versus beginner but not total novice. One player I know makes around €100,000 online and has to down his game so that he doesn't get mistaken for a computer.

Also the poker players being mentioned were a long way off being top backgammon players.

Paul Magriel and Gus Hansen were 'a long way off from being top backgammon players'? News to me.

Gus didn't win a lot of tournaments during his time at backgammon (roughly 1995 to 2001 as I recall) but everyone who played on the circuit in those days recognized his great talent. He mostly played cash games and was extremely successful.

Magriel won the World Championship in 1978, won many other tournaments, was considered one of the best players in the world from the time he first showed up on the circuit (he finished 2nd in the first major tournament he played, in 1970), and wrote a book that remains a classic to this day.

If Paul and Gus don't qualify as top players, you have an odd measuring stick.

Although, I probably do have a distorted view about top, I spoke without really thinking.


This clearly would qualify, I didn't recognise the name nor as being a poker player.

I am glad you didn't win your legal brief as I expect this would have had chess requiring a license too!