You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Open debate on the subject of Luck.
Couldnt quite think of right thread title for this so bare with me.
Question surrounds the notion of running good, running bad, notion of variance etc.
I play live mostly, with a variety of player types/formats. Some games run pretty standard, some are just plain insane.
Poker has become the church of EV purists in many ways. Most advice given is towards hands in isolation, rather than an overall strategy/philosophy. We all know that sometimes we have to do the perceived wrong thing to achieve the desired effect.
So without going into the fact that over large sample, insane thoughtless wreckless players will defeat themselves: Do we believe in the notion of luck in the long term in poker? That individuals can in fact run perma bad (or good), certain people being bink artists, others not being able to dodge their slim beats.
Again, not looking for the simple answer of notion of long term play variance balancing "luck". Well maybe I am infact, if that is what a person definatively believes. But from individuals own experience, do we believe certain players are inclined to run better than others (or worse) over the long term? Or do we believe variance is an all balancing force? (Particularly when skill level is reasonably similar.)
Question surrounds the notion of running good, running bad, notion of variance etc.
I play live mostly, with a variety of player types/formats. Some games run pretty standard, some are just plain insane.
Poker has become the church of EV purists in many ways. Most advice given is towards hands in isolation, rather than an overall strategy/philosophy. We all know that sometimes we have to do the perceived wrong thing to achieve the desired effect.
So without going into the fact that over large sample, insane thoughtless wreckless players will defeat themselves: Do we believe in the notion of luck in the long term in poker? That individuals can in fact run perma bad (or good), certain people being bink artists, others not being able to dodge their slim beats.
Again, not looking for the simple answer of notion of long term play variance balancing "luck". Well maybe I am infact, if that is what a person definatively believes. But from individuals own experience, do we believe certain players are inclined to run better than others (or worse) over the long term? Or do we believe variance is an all balancing force? (Particularly when skill level is reasonably similar.)
Comments
That is if you believe in Luck - positive or negative - to begin with.
There IS a differance xx
Mainly trying to look at peoples belief/perception of Luck/variance on short - longterm play.
At a table where skill levels are equal, do we believe certain players will run better than others, should players who perceive that they run bad be more fearful of the bink etc. This is live or online. General question in regard to the game and its players, rather than the format that it is played in. Just thought would get best views here
Next ya gonna be sayin that ya dont see far too many action hands aint ya
Meanwhile, back on the subject.............................
Felt like this was fairly straight forward tho JJ
Do you believe that variance balances all in a field of evenly matched players over a significant sample?
Or do you believe that - outside of variance - some players will run better, or worse, to a significant degree,
Do you believe that individuals may run mainly norm along a spectrum of variance, but be luckier, or less lucky in critical spots?
If you build a pot with two black A's, get one caller. Flop comes a flushing or straighting board who would you rather be up against. Cody or JR Bellande? (Comical example)
It goes back to what I say in an early post in this thread. Online poker has created an extremely focused, accurate EV purist type of player, leaving little out of the box experience in some ways.
Do people believe than an EV+ approach over a significant sample, amongst relatively evenly mached players, will balance variance in the main (or that variance will balance its self by its nature within this criteria). Or do people believe individuals can consistently perform above or below accepted variance perpetually. Phew, clear enough?
(obv the accepted pov is that it does balance within that criteria. I was interested in a wider view)
Not claiming to know, or that there is an answer. Just interested in peoples thoughts as to whether (as you put it) "People run the same" (obv over long enough timescale with balanced skill)
In respect to poker, it would be how much (on average) our results differ (albeit, favorable or infavourable) to what is expected (the mean).
High Variance would mean on average over a set range of hands, that the actual results are differing hugely from the expected results. Crucially, neither adversely or favourably.
Low Variance therefore shows that actual results are not deviating much, thus portraying predicted outcomes.
Variance is not a measure of luck!
Also variance is never a negative value
Semantics aside, the question is clear.
Red wine ftw
Some of what Im going to here I'm kinda extrapolating from the little bit I know about math. It may not all hold up, and Im not saying any of this is definitely true
I beleive luck in general is a factor in life. In poker luck will be a factor. If we play enough hands theoretically we should win/ lose whatever the math says our expected value should. However this would also be extremely unlikely. If you toss a coin 1000 times the chances you get heads exactly 500 times is going to be very unlikely( it will be the most likely outcome though). However as the sample gets bigger results in general get closer to the expected values.
However there are almost certainly outliers, and some tiny percentage of poker players most likely run hugely good or hugely bad over large samples imo. In general though you should get pretty close to your expected win/loss over a large sample
Also poker luck is not all about running above EV. If you run KK into AA pre you lose 80% at neutral EV but you prob are playing well. Talon also had a thread in gpc about timing of your luck which can also be important, esp if you play a wide range of games or get tilted
As far as I understand, the significant bulk of the playing spectrum will have moderately balanced variance over time. With minority curves on either end of the spectrum.
But there are alot of factors that come into the mix.
simpleeeee