Many people who are "alpha-gamers", i.e. the people who buy and teach and suggest games will recognise the following phenomenon: because you're assumed to be good at games, people pick on you and you hardly ever win. Certainly when I play with my family I'm regarded as the biggest threat, and that's probably true in that group. As a consequence, a lot of ganging-up happens and if the game has elimination it will often happen to me. Is it any wonder I choose games that don't have elimination? When was the last time I played Bang! with the family?
Even with the various game groups I play in I'm assumed to be a threat. To be fair to CyberKev, he knows that if he doesn't deal with me as a threat then I will be dealing with him (as will everybody else). That is unless the Evil Count von Walduck doesn't come up with some plan that defeats both of us. The evil count has complained that he isn't as cunning as we make out, spending rather more time being confused than plotting, but there's just something about the man that worries me... and for that he must die early in the game.
The advantage of this form of positive discrimination is that people who wouldn't normally be able to win a game do have their chances enhanced - kids and stupid people, for example. But I wonder whether the people who are regarded as threats in different game groups are regarded as such for any good reason, or just due to superstition and/or respect. Feedback is welcomed.