Gamemaster8888 wrote:
Paul for example, picked Craig off quickly as the mole. He focused on him, theorized how he could be the mole and who was on his trail, and was fairly quick with his quizzes. He was the best player in the game.
Perhaps. I would say that having a nose for the Mole > not having a nose for the Mole.
So basically, luck is a small part of it, but really has no bearing to the skill of the player, and therefore the best player, who has the skills needed for the game, may not always win. Or simply put, skill will trump luck in the long run, because skill is what brings a person far into a game like this.
Yep. Exactly what I've been saying.

And no, I'm not saying "winner = luckiest player" in all cases. Just drawing the poker analogy to a one-time game like The Mole. For example, playing one poker game, amateur versus Phil Ivey, and amateur wins, we all admit the "best player" didn't win. The amateur won by luck, and therefore, the winner was the luckiest player. Of course, if Phil Ivey won, we'd say the "best player" won, not the "luckiest", but only because he has a body of work behind in that empirically shows he has the skills to repeatedly progress further in tournaments than the majority of poker enthusiasts, amateur and pro. We have "more data" on him.

Also, in order to get the statistic that the amateur had only a 5/50 chance of beating Phil Ivey, that again comes from having "more data", like the amateur's record, or even a past session of 50 games between the two. Two unknowns out of the box would start evenly, neither "better" than the other, with the ultimate determination of which was the better player by having them play multiple games. One game just doesn't prove anything.