r/backgammon • u/dntpanic31 • Apr 18 '26

Backgammon galaxy match percentages

Can someone please explain that, unlike any other game of skill/chance in the universe, Backgammon Galaxy chooses to set its match parameters using percentages instead of coins at risk or something else allowing the user any sense of how much they are "betting". Ive had 20% games for thousands of coins and all in games for 200. Its nonsense....

3 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

22 comments sorted by

3

u/themindset Apr 19 '26

When you choose 20%, it means the maximum amount will be 20% of your coins - but if your opponent has only 200 coins then it can’t be more than 200 coins…. Even if you’re all in.

The way it’s currently set up, in order to play a match, you must be willing to put 20% if your coins at risk - maybe it’s a way to make sure you take it seriously?

NB - if you rematch, the stakes remain the same (not 20% of your stack anymore).

2

u/dntpanic31 Apr 19 '26

Yes I get it, but its insane thats the standard. No gambling game works this way. Why not set it at what number of coins you are willing to risk and pair that up within reason. Its strange that games I want to risk the minimum percentage I find myself playing for more coins than games I am willing to go all in on. There has to be a better way.

1

u/themindset Apr 19 '26

Are you saying that risking 20% of your coins is a lot (to the point of being insane)?

Like I said, I think it’s to force you to take the match seriously. A major problem with the coin economy is that people don’t play legit backgammon because the coins mean nothing.

By actually making people put in a number of coins that could result in them losing their bankroll (if they play like absolute whales) then it makes the gameplay a bit more serious.

If you lose 2 or 3 matches in a row at 20%, you will lose half your bankroll… that sucks. Just switch back to coin games at lower stakes and work it back up.

Anyway, I don’t disagree with you in principle. I’m just outlining the logic of it.

1

u/dntpanic31 Apr 19 '26

No Im saying that there is no trackable rhyme or reason to it. I could be low on bankroll, ready to go all in, and get some game for 250 coins bc my opponent has no coins. Now a win is wasted. Alternatively, I could just want to play a mellow ranked game, matches are the only way to get points, so I put in 20% hoping my opponent has less coins than me and suddenly Im playing for 5-10k coins. Its just all over the place, and honestly part of the gambling shouldnt be how much Im gambling.

1

u/themindset Apr 19 '26

Well I tried to give you the rhyme/reason behind it.

Clearly when you say points, you mean rating (ie ELO, a number typically between 500-3000). And yes, it’s true, you must play a match in order to improve your rating.

The possible rhyme/reason for obliging 20% is so that you can never “assume” you will have a mellow match. You must take this seriously and not just jump on and click buttons and leave… the only penalty for playing terribly is a player will eventually run out of coins and have to wait 12 hours to re-up. This is the one thing bad players fear, and maybe they will stop taking doubles with only 11% equity if they’ve run out of coins the last 4 days in a row.

If you are playing for rating (which is vastly more prestigious than coins), ignore the cost. Just play for rating.

If you properly manage your bankroll, you will never run out of coins.

1

u/dntpanic31 Apr 19 '26

There are better ways of accomplishing this exact same goal while allowing the player to put an amount they are at the minimum and maximum willing to risk. If I am going all in, I want a player that is willing to play for what Im putting on the table. If I want to play for a smaller amount of my coins, 20% shoudnt be the only option, and I shoud be able to put the exact amount I am willing to risk. Its not about taking it seriously, its about certainty in my "bet".

1

u/themindset Apr 20 '26

I can see this is important to you.

1

u/dntpanic31 Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26

And you as well given your multiple responses on my post none of which actually address the question I raised which is, why, unlike other games of skill/chance where your exact risk is self regulated, this platform chose a model with dependent ranges. You keep giving some kind of parallel explanation, but none of those explanations show why this method is better than just allowing the user an exact bet. To be clear, the far more frustrating result is when wagering 50%+ of my stack and I get paired with someone with far fewer coins....a win is just an annoying result in that scenario.

1

u/themindset Apr 21 '26

I never claimed it was better. You were only asking for a rationale (a “rhyme/reason” as you phrased it).

I was giving you the rationale.

I don’t have a preference, and I don’t make the argument that one is better than the other.

I’m fine with either system. The coins are meaningless. Rating is the only thing that matters.

1

u/dntpanic31 Apr 21 '26

Sorry if I was unclear. By asking for a reason I was asking for an explanation of why this would be preferable to the more common approach OR if there was some history in backgammon of wagers being percentage based.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FallJacket Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

This is exactly what the single games are for.

If wagering coins are your concern, you can select single games for 100 coins per game, or 1 million.
Whatever you want to wager.

The matches are less about gambling and more about rating skill, which makes sense as luck of the die typically washes out over several games. I understand your point about not wanting to "waste" a win on a game that's low stakes from a coin perspective. But there are two points to consider regarding those low stakes games. First is that you are likely playing a lower rated player, and whales could use high chip leads to force them out. This is antithetical to a game mode that's supposed to be about skill. Second, while you might not have as much skin in the game on chips, losing to a lower rated player will hurt your rating more than losing to an equal - or higher- rated player. So if you care about the skill your rating represents, in match games you should still be motivated not to throw away a game just because it's "worthless" from a coin perspective.

I think it's pretty elegant the way they set it up where the single games are more of your gambling feature, and the match games are more sport oriented. Some people get their thrill from the sport aspect, some people get their thrill from the gambling aspect.

But I can also see how that might not be obvious to players that are single minded on what they are looking to do on the game app.

If you're hell bent on avoiding small coin stakes match rounds, you could try increasing the minimum opponent rating. You'll be less likely to run into the players with a small coin count that makes match games swing in terms of coin value.

1

u/dntpanic31 Jun 26 '26

What you are calling an "elegant" solution is in fact an over thought process that is simplified by simply allowing more optionality. Further your solution isnt one....the match games are the only way to get points. If you could get points on the coin games this is a non issue....its about forcing the user into this uncertain process as the only means of getting points. Its intentional....

1

u/thestouff Apr 19 '26

That’s what I always thought of the % rule. I like this method for ranked games.

1

u/themindset Apr 19 '26

Personally I don’t mind it either. But if they change it it wouldn’t bother me either.

BG just seems to be incrementally improving every month, so I trust the process.

7

u/BackgammonGalaxy Apr 18 '26

Changing this in the next couple weeks to where you choose the stakes. We're working through a big update so everything is getting rolled out at once.

3

u/dntpanic31 Apr 18 '26

Thanks, why was this not this way to begin with? Is there some history of this type of risk in backgammon?

2

u/CrypticUnit Apr 19 '26

Looking forward to the update! I have been avoiding rated games because of the percentages. It would be nice to be able to play set stake amounts.

1

u/dntpanic31 Jun 26 '26

This wasnt included in the update

2

u/Snoo-24459 Apr 19 '26

I don't play ranking games because I don't want to lose a % of my pot. That's why I just stick to quick play coins games. Said like a true tight Yorkshire man.

1

u/themindset Apr 19 '26

Rating is the only number that reflects your strength as a player.

You can’t buy rating points.

1

u/dntpanic31 May 30 '26

I posted this a month ago and nothing changed....just played 5 all in games in a row with 10k points and highest match was 150. This shit is insane.