[jaimehrubiks]

Is competitive gaming winrate much different though? I always thought that in games such as league of legends players tend to have winrate close to 50%, and good players with slightly higher winrate end up in higher ranks by playing many games. Of course winrate is much higher when they are in lower ranks than their skill level, but they'll end up playing most of their games in their corresponding rank anyway in the long term

[fwlr]

From a quick review of the games listed on https://games.skillz.com/popular there are a few that are purely luck-based (Blackout Bingo, Bingo Cash), most that have a very small skill or strategy cap before they’re luck-dominated (multiple Solitaires, Match 3 games, Blackjack, Spades, Bubble popping games, Yahtzee), and a few that seem skill-based (Big Buck Hunter marksman game, Pool, Bowling). Note: without investigating those presumed skill-based games looking for ways they introduce unavoidable randomness, I can’t be sure they really are skill-based.

Conclusion is it seems quite plausible Skillz does offer some partly-skill-based competitive games where you can earn cash by beating other players on your own merits. This isn’t incompatible with their business model - casinos profit on poker despite it being possible to win money at poker because you aren’t playing against the house, you’re playing against each other, and the house is just taking a rake (essentially renting out the dealer and table to the players).

[GlickWick]

On average, yes. However, this is a dishonest comparison imo.

Skill-based matchmaking aims to find a “good” matchup for you by putting you up against an opponent of a similar skill level. Over time you land at 50% due to this, but if you improve you’ll face better opponents and have more complex games.

Skillz is just fake randomness designed to keep you from making money, and you have no control over this.

I guess the birds eye view appears the same, but it’s not really the same concept.

[jsnell]

> Skillz is just fake randomness designed to keep you from making money, and you have no control over this.

How do you know that? Did somebody run experiments to prove it?

[jxf]

Yes. This is covered on the site.

[GlickWick]

Yep. Read the article!

[jsnell]

I have read all ~250 words of the article. It makes about as many assertions as are possible in that word count, but does not present any evidence.

> Analysis of player win/loss ratios clearly shows that all players win roughly 50% of games, regardless of their "skill".

What analysis? What is the methodology? Where are the results?

> That's not an eSport. That's a slot machine.

This is obviously not true, since there's an obvious alternative explanation for ~50% win rates. So the experiment you claim is documented somewhere on this page should obviously be designed in a way that distinguish between dishonest manipulation of the game RNG vs. totally legit skill-based matchmaking.

> You can never win more money than you've paid. If you somehow do, Skillz will suspend your account when you attempt to withdraw.

Ok, that's bad if true. How can we as readers judge if it's true? Not by the evidence presented on this page, because there is literally none.

You've told me to read the article. So where is the proof that the site is a scam? Not just an assertion that an experiment with undocumented methodology was done and produced topline results that can be explained in other ways?

[TylerE]

They don’t need to manipulate results, there’s a substantial vig built into the payout structure in the first place.

[derivagral]

Depends on the game and the distribution. Skill games tend to have major outliers at the tails; sometimes modern matchmaking (DOTA2,others) uses group rating to balance, or sometimes (magic:the gathering) your best players maintain >65% against the rest of the field.

[TylerE]

It’s not supposed to be a balanced pvp game.

It’s loophole lawyering to offer gambling to US customers, much like the Faily Fantasy sites.