07-18-2012, 05:48 AM
If the set of all game-relevant factors (ranging from the mental acuity of the players to the humidity of the field, or temperature of the room) can be represented as R, and the set of all game-relevant factors directly attributable to skill can be represented as S, then S would be a subset of R, and what is left would be what is usually meant when one refers to 'luck'. That is, 'luck' (as defined both generally in terms of competitive sports, and within this conversation itself) is a negative definition rather than a positive definition (that is, the set of all game-relevant factors that are not directly attributable to skill).
A mistake in terms of competitive sports carries the connotation of blame, with the implication that the player who makes a mistake (or, say, in the case of baseball, an error) should not have made that mistake, but did so due to some lack of skill. Though there is some fudgery here (even the best make the occasional blunder), mistakes are what would typically be referred to as directly attributable to skill in some form, not in the sense that those players with great skill will never make mistakes, but that those players with great skill are less likely to make mistakes, or that their mistakes may be less costly in some way.
There are, however, game-relevant factors that are indeed ascribable to simple chance. If, for example, you take a risk in American football and commit to an aggressive blitz when the opposing team's outer WR is running a short outer-slant, the blitz will likely fail. This isn't due to any mistake on the defensive side, or any skill on the offensive side, but rather a coincidence that will probably lead to the advantage of the offensive side. Statistics being what they are (and American football being what it is), one game is not sufficient to even out these coincidences to determine who is really the 'better skilled'. Thus, the 'upset'. The idea of the upset does not necessarily imply that the losing team (though favored) played poorly, or that the winning team played well (though this is often the perception).
The third sentence in your first paragraph is irrelevant.
MTG doesn't involve an absurd amount of luck. It does, however, involve some. The proper way to mitigate that element and determine who of two players is the most skilled is not to bastardize the game mechanics into some boring-ass, sterilized shell, but rather to play a series of games (say, best of seven) with a robust side-deck mechanic.
Oh, and tit for tat, your father sucks dickaroni
A mistake in terms of competitive sports carries the connotation of blame, with the implication that the player who makes a mistake (or, say, in the case of baseball, an error) should not have made that mistake, but did so due to some lack of skill. Though there is some fudgery here (even the best make the occasional blunder), mistakes are what would typically be referred to as directly attributable to skill in some form, not in the sense that those players with great skill will never make mistakes, but that those players with great skill are less likely to make mistakes, or that their mistakes may be less costly in some way.
There are, however, game-relevant factors that are indeed ascribable to simple chance. If, for example, you take a risk in American football and commit to an aggressive blitz when the opposing team's outer WR is running a short outer-slant, the blitz will likely fail. This isn't due to any mistake on the defensive side, or any skill on the offensive side, but rather a coincidence that will probably lead to the advantage of the offensive side. Statistics being what they are (and American football being what it is), one game is not sufficient to even out these coincidences to determine who is really the 'better skilled'. Thus, the 'upset'. The idea of the upset does not necessarily imply that the losing team (though favored) played poorly, or that the winning team played well (though this is often the perception).
The third sentence in your first paragraph is irrelevant.
MTG doesn't involve an absurd amount of luck. It does, however, involve some. The proper way to mitigate that element and determine who of two players is the most skilled is not to bastardize the game mechanics into some boring-ass, sterilized shell, but rather to play a series of games (say, best of seven) with a robust side-deck mechanic.
Oh, and tit for tat, your father sucks dickaroni
![[Image: av50fd.png]](http://i55.tinypic.com/av50fd.png)
Mal Nova Wrote:I do apologize for using the word rape. There are four separate definitions for the word rape, two of which describe vegetation...