The way you and others have described "tsuki" it makes absolutely no sense to me, it seems to be pure superstition.
However, in a sense there is such a thing as a stream of good or bad luck, beyond pure statistics, and I believe this has to do with focus and concentration. Most people get frustrated to some degree if they lose, and for most people this frustration is hard to shake off and it affects how you play. You lose focus and make decisions that are not optimal. Vice versa, if you have a couple of good hands you start feeling good about the game, and reach a higher level of focus, seeing more options, making better decisions and being more capable of taking a few losses without frustration beginning to appear.
Mahjong is a mind sport, so your state of mind and your concentration is important and will influence the outcome of your game. For many it might just feel like good luck or bad luck, but I believe the effect of your concentration works in concert with your luck.
Tina
Digital vs. Occult
- Details
- Created on Saturday, 08 May 2010 07:05
- Last Updated on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 18:00
- Written by Björn Schulz
- Hits: 2954
What kind of mahjong player are you? German player Björn Schulz about tide in mahjong. 'What makes the older Japanese players believe in “tsuki”? Is it a lack of appreciation of statistics and probabilities or a weakness for the unknown?'
In Riichi Mahjong there are two types of styles. Digital is the mathematic one, playing with statistics and probabilities. Occult means believing in luck or the flow of the game, in Japanese called “nagare” or “tsuki”. There is one translation I really like: tide. The tide is rising and ebbing, like a game of mahjong. Sometimes you have luck and everything is going in your favour, but sometimes you have bad luck and nothing works the way it should. Which leads me to the question, what kind of player are you?
We can´t deny the fact luck is involved in mahjong. But how does it affect your kind of play?
First let’s get back to the Japanese players. Older pros often tend to be occult players, which means, taking decisions pending on their current state of luck. So when they have a winning streak, they use “nagare” to base their following strategy on it. They riichi with bad waits, like 4+6 for the 5, because they are lucky and believe this 5 will come now!
On the other hand there are the young guns playing with probabilities, laughing about the elder ones, because of their “nagare” decisions. Luck is involved in mahjong but over the long term it generally evens out.
So what makes the older Japanese players believe in “tsuki”? Is it a lack of appreciation of statistics and probabilities or a weakness for the unknown?
Maybe we should have a short look at poker. Strong players use probability and mathematics to base their decisions on, because like said before, luck evens out. Does that mean, digital is better then occult? Professional poker players earn a lot of money, so they have to be right, haven’t they? Logically everybody has to admit that, but why is there a concept of “nagare” with so many followers?
Let’s see an example:
You are in luck-mode, everything you do works fine. You are in the lead, now you make a small mistake and another player benefits from that. You're saying to yourself: Oh, just a small mistake, no problem with giving away those 2,000 points. I am still in a comfortable lead. But now IT happens. While trying to win the next hand it is getting even worse. The downward slide begins.
In this example, I guess everybody knows, IT is “tsuki”. Because you made the mistake, you lost “tsuki”. So we can consider there is something like special luck in mahjong. Does that mean you used up all your luck and you are destined to lose?
So when you are making decisions based on this, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. So what to do? Playing with probabilities! Okay, the higher the probability, the higher the chance to get that needed tile. Then you discard a certain tile and draw this one two times in a row. What are the probabilities for that??? It happens…
I personally think I’m neither digital nor occult. Maybe I should call myself a “digicult” player. If I’m lucky I try to use “nagare” to my vantage. But when it is gone I don’t force myself to get it back. So I return to good old probabilities and try to finish the game as good as I can.
My conclusion is: Listen to the flow of the game, but don’t forget to listen to your head!!!
So what kind of player are you???
Björn Schulz is a riichi mahjong player and lives in Germany. He is one of the organizers of the second European Riichi Mahjong Championship, coming summer in Hanover, Germany.
Comments (3)
1Monday, 31 May 2010 15:14
Tina Christensen
2Wednesday, 02 June 2010 15:08
Bunta
I cant agree to what Tina says. If i play a tournament im always focused and concentrated even if i lose, because i want to minimize my loses. You never had a game where you didnt make any mistakes but lost (you counldnt win a hand and had to pay tsumo)? Although you are focused you can lose!!!
Of course its easier to play when you are in first place then in last, but it has nothing to do with your level of concentration!
The question is how would you define luck?
Its really hard to answer that question (at least i cant).
The problem is the differentiation of luck and randomness. You get a good starting hand; no luck. You get 10 good starting in a row; luck. But between 1 and 10, where ends the randomness and where starts the luck? And which hand was won by skill and which by luck?
Its a mind game, thats totally true but it has luck involved and this luck is not part of concentration, its just luck!!!
In the end i have to say nagare/tsuki dont make sense and its okay if you call it pure superstition but do you believe in god? He cant be seen and for many it doesnt make sense to believe, but why are there so many religious people out there??????????
Not everything can be explained with mathematics!
Of course its easier to play when you are in first place then in last, but it has nothing to do with your level of concentration!
The question is how would you define luck?
Its really hard to answer that question (at least i cant).
The problem is the differentiation of luck and randomness. You get a good starting hand; no luck. You get 10 good starting in a row; luck. But between 1 and 10, where ends the randomness and where starts the luck? And which hand was won by skill and which by luck?
Its a mind game, thats totally true but it has luck involved and this luck is not part of concentration, its just luck!!!
In the end i have to say nagare/tsuki dont make sense and its okay if you call it pure superstition but do you believe in god? He cant be seen and for many it doesnt make sense to believe, but why are there so many religious people out there??????????
Not everything can be explained with mathematics!
3Thursday, 03 June 2010 15:03
Tina Christensen
> Although you are focused you can lose!!!
Certainly! I never stated otherwise.
Good for you that you are able to focus all the way through a tournament! It's a very important ability in any sport, both mind sport and physical sport! Still, many players aren't able to maintain their focus all the way through, particularly if they are losing. Many players show visible frustration when losing and this certainly affects their concentration.
What is luck? Probably we all use the word a little differently. For me luck is when something of low probability happens. I make tsumo waiting for only one tile, while another player with a three-sided wait, who has been waiting for a longer time than me doesn't get his hand. That's lucky. If the player with the three-sided wait had won, was that then skillful play by optimizing his hand? We can't answer that without analyzing every tile picked and played. Maybe a more skillful player would have played my hand to a better wait? Maybe we both got the optimal from the tiles we picked and one player was just more lucky in getting the tiles needed?
Luck is just luck (probabilities), sure. I agree. Skill is making the most of your tiles when you a not so lucky.
Maybe my subject line was misleading. I believe what I wrote is true, that a player who had some bad luck may become frustrated and lose concentration, which means he makes some bad choices (which he doesn't necessarily notice!), and when he then loses again he feels very unlucky, but this "bad luck" he has brought upon himself by playing less than optimal.
So bad luck can lead to bad focus which can lead to further losses which are easily interpretated as a string of bad luck.
A player who is always able to keep his focus is not subject to this.
Mahjong is about probabilities, skill and focus. Luck is in the probability part.
Certainly! I never stated otherwise.
Good for you that you are able to focus all the way through a tournament! It's a very important ability in any sport, both mind sport and physical sport! Still, many players aren't able to maintain their focus all the way through, particularly if they are losing. Many players show visible frustration when losing and this certainly affects their concentration.
What is luck? Probably we all use the word a little differently. For me luck is when something of low probability happens. I make tsumo waiting for only one tile, while another player with a three-sided wait, who has been waiting for a longer time than me doesn't get his hand. That's lucky. If the player with the three-sided wait had won, was that then skillful play by optimizing his hand? We can't answer that without analyzing every tile picked and played. Maybe a more skillful player would have played my hand to a better wait? Maybe we both got the optimal from the tiles we picked and one player was just more lucky in getting the tiles needed?
Luck is just luck (probabilities), sure. I agree. Skill is making the most of your tiles when you a not so lucky.
Maybe my subject line was misleading. I believe what I wrote is true, that a player who had some bad luck may become frustrated and lose concentration, which means he makes some bad choices (which he doesn't necessarily notice!), and when he then loses again he feels very unlucky, but this "bad luck" he has brought upon himself by playing less than optimal.
So bad luck can lead to bad focus which can lead to further losses which are easily interpretated as a string of bad luck.
A player who is always able to keep his focus is not subject to this.
Mahjong is about probabilities, skill and focus. Luck is in the probability part.
I think what could work is new tournaments styled as 'invitational', where tournament organisers invite the top players (perhaps within the top 100 or so players in the European ranking) for a tournament that has a small field (perhaps 40 to 60 as Adrie had suggested).
At the very least, there is a certain level of difficulty that competitors might relish. True, as noluck as suggested, a paradoxical situation where randomness may favour winners where all players are equally skilled, but even so, the better and worse players will be separated over several sessions. So, the more sessions, the better!
But what is needed is a commitment to have as many players from different countries as possible, to still promote the elements of friendly play. Having lower costs would help attract players put off by expensive tournaments.
Personally I really enjoyed winning the Danish Open, but I enjoyed even more the people I met during the tournament that shared the same passion as I do - mahjong.
So for me it is important that the social aspect takes precedes the paid few. And as already written, why can't we have both? It is a challenge to find the balance between top quality venue and location, and price per individual. Perhaps sometimes the quality of the venue will have to be a bit less, so that the total individual cost of each player doesn't get out of hand.
If yes, it's a pitty...
Oliv'
More over I fear that (even if) only the very best players would meet, this might even increase the luck factor - sounds paradoxical? Let's try to illustrate it this way: In a more heterogeneous table better player should most of the times have an advantage to get a waiting hand before the less skilled manage, so they have more chances to get the last missing tile. If all play perfect and get to wait very early, then it's sheer luck, who's tile will show up first... so we would need even more games to balance out the luck than in a more 'mixed' player field. (on the other hand the influence of drawing a lucky lot would decrease - anyway, I think the other factor prevails)
Regarding sponsors: Why should any company be interested to give money for such a small event? Mah-Jongg is not widely known and the main reason for a sponsor (from outside the limited field of MJ suppliers etc.) would be visibility in an international surrounding - this needs a critical mass. I don't think any German company would give some thousand Euros just to be nice and enable German players to travel to an OEMC with about 50 more folks from abroad. (I also don't think that any TV station would send a team to such a small event - usually size _does_ matter in these settings...)
The members of the national associations should take care then? Even in a bigger association of 300 members this would mean 10 Euros for each of them - only to send the chosen four of the country to the OEMC... and only for MCR! I don't think they will like this idea. And thinking on a "mid-sized" organisation as here in Germany it would really be impossible to stem the sum from the members' contributions...
It is important to try making the OEMC cheaper - but to my mind a smaller competition is not the solution, because it makes the competition less interesting for the outside world. The impact on the quality of the competition is admittedly questionable and would need further analysis.
And definitely the Mah-Jongg community would loose a great happening - whatever we may think about cost and quality and championship in itself: An OEMC is a splendid opportunity to meet and play and talk and celebrate Mah-Jongg! This alone would be a reason for me to plead for a large OEMC/WMC! Smaller events we have enough...
this column by the editor.