Blog
The Person Who Always Goes First
Fixed turn order compounds. Over a season it is worth more than most people assume.
Every group has one. In board games it is whoever is nearest the box; in standups it is whoever unmutes fastest; in presentations it is whoever is early in the alphabet.
The advantage is small per occurrence and it compounds, and over a season it is worth more than most people assume.
The board game version, which is measured
First-player advantage in board games is not folklore — it is published for a great many titles, and it varies from statistically undetectable to large enough that competitive play uses a compensation rule as standard.
For a game where the first seat carries a couple of extra percentage points of win rate, a group playing weekly for a year gives one player roughly fifty extra opportunities at that edge. That is a meaningful accumulated difference from a rule nobody ever decided.
The fix is cheap: snake ordering across a session, or the game's own compensation rule where one exists. The tool prints how many first turns each player received, which converts the argument into a column of numbers.
The meeting version, which is not measured and is worse
In a standup with a fixed order, the last speaker absorbs every overrun that accumulated before them. They speak to a room whose attention has already been spent, and they are the first thing cut when the meeting is running late.
Nobody measures that and everybody experiences it. Over a year of daily standups, the person who always goes last has given several hundred compressed updates while the person who goes first has given none.
Randomising the order each day distributes the cost rather than removing it, which is the most an ordering can do — and it is a considerable improvement on concentrating it on one person indefinitely.
Presentations, where the effect is largest
A late slot in a long session is genuinely worse: attention has declined, questions have dried up, and the comparison set has already formed in whoever is judging.
An alphabetical or sign-up order is not neutral. It hands a systematic advantage to whoever is early in the alphabet or fastest to sign up, repeated at every session run the same way.
Where judging is involved the problem is sharper still, because a single shared order means every judge experiences the same position effect. Only re-randomising per judge cancels it.
The three orderings, and what each buys
Fixed order concentrates the whole advantage on one person. It is what most groups do by default and it is the worst of the three.
Snake order — reverse on alternate rounds — splits the advantage exactly between the two ends of the draw. The middle positions get none, which is even across the ends rather than across everyone, and it is the standard solution in draft formats for exactly that reason.
Reshuffling each round distributes it evenly on average and guarantees nothing in a short series. Over four rounds with four players, all four going first exactly once requires 24 of the 256 possible sequences — so someone takes two or more first turns about 91% of the time.
Why nobody fixes it
Because the cost per occurrence is small enough to feel not worth raising, and the accumulated cost is only visible to the person paying it. Complaining about a two percent edge sounds petty; complaining after a year sounds like a grievance.
The practical answer is to fix it before anyone has a reason to complain. Deciding the ordering rule at the start of a season or a project costs nothing and removes a whole category of low-grade resentment.
And print the tally. A column showing how many first turns each person got is worth more than any amount of arguing about whether the effect is real.
The version in written processes
The same problem exists in every process where things are reviewed in an order, and it is invisible because there is no room to look at.
Applications reviewed alphabetically, submissions read in the order they arrived, code reviews worked from the top of a queue: in each case the position in the order has an effect and nobody is watching it. The reviewer is fresher at the start and has a comparison set by the end, which are two different reading conditions applied to different people.
The fix here is cheaper than in a live setting, because there is no audience and no ceremony. Shuffling a list before reviewing it costs one action and removes a systematic effect nobody was measuring, which is about the best return available on a single click.
Frequently asked questions
How large is first-player advantage in board games?
It varies from undetectable to large enough that competitive play requires a compensation rule. It is published for many titles.
What is the cost in a standup?
The last speaker absorbs every overrun and is first to be cut. Over a year of daily standups that is several hundred compressed updates.
Is alphabetical order neutral?
No. It systematically favours whoever is early in the alphabet, repeated at every session run the same way.
What is snake ordering?
Reverse the order on alternate rounds. It splits the advantage exactly between the two ends of the draw, which is why drafts use it.
Does reshuffling each round work?
On average only. Over four rounds with four players, someone takes two or more first turns about 91% of the time — an even one-each split needs 24 of the 256 possible sequences.
Why does nobody fix it?
Because the per-occurrence cost feels too small to raise, and the accumulated cost is only visible to the person paying it.