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.
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.
Comments
I believe there are both lucky and unlucky people...
the lucky player will hit his one and two outers and go on a good run for maybe a couple of years,by which time he may of binked enough big tourny's to never actually never have to go in the red with his bankroll.
The unlucky player may be twice as good as the lucky guy but more often than not he loses his 70%-30% pots.
i think luck evens itself out but you would need to play maybe 1m hands to get a good enough sample,so if you get lucky early on in your poker"career"
then you may never get the bad luck to even things out(and vise versa).
Over a broad sample there will likely be miniscule exceptions but variance will balance in the main, where skills are relatively even. Has to right?
Its those fringe elements that interest me
Luck related specifically to poker is the same for everyone over a long period. That doesn't mean that someone who plays for 10 years will get their fair share of good or bad luck. However, it's a reasonable assumption that they will.
Poker can be best described as ''a game of considered wager'' and in any session, moments of both good and bad luck can be expected. The more skilled the player the less influence the bad luck will have, and conversely, the more effect the good luck will have. Because not every hand has a particularly lucky or unlucky outcome the skilled player will have an advantage in most hands, and will over time share in the good or bad outcomes due to luck. This is the difference in a profitable cash player or winning mtt player, and lesser skilled opponents.
Luck would be expected to come in short streaks whether good or bad. Varience is the longer term effect of winning and losing and not neccessarily a result of luck - bad or good. I think that varience is a result of form/ability rather than an accumulation of good or bad luck.
A coin tossed 30 times would be expected to have an approximate 50/50 outcome of heads and tails. A run of 30 tosses resulting in heads would probably not be a result of either luck or varience rather it would most likely be a bias in the coin or method of toss. Streaks can be expected but exceptional streaks are highly unlikely. Poker outcomes are no different and the perception of extended runs of bad luck are more likely to be memory retention combined with bad form.
As to the post: I totally hear what your are saying and fully understand it.
But my question in response would be: based upon what you say, do you then not leave any room for individuals performing perpetually above or below the avg'd mean over large sample? (again where skills are reasonably matched.)
Your post is a very comprehensive textbook answer, one which I mainly agree with.
Having said that, there is evidence to support some individuals who have a heightened sense of anticipation and foresight. This is a natural ability based around fundamental survival instincts from the section of the brain known as the ''hindbrain'' or ''reptilian brain'' (the most ancient section of the brain). The other two main sections of the brain relate to your ability to think/learn and your emotions but the hindbrain controls what you actually do in given situations. The hightened anticipation factor in some individuals may account for the percieved ''lucky outcomes'' to their actions.
Luck, be it bad or good, is totally indiscriminate but repeated actions with favourable outcomes due to superior instinct may be perceived as lucky.
That was pretty much what I was looking for. Luck in a non objective arbitrary way, but i like your words better
So we believe nothing exhists outside of the statistical eventualities, it encompassing all players over volume then?
Correct - for there to be a favoured bias there would have to be a controlling factor that discriminates. To continue to unequally discriminate towards any individual would require intervention by someone or something.
Sorry to go on about this, I know the accepted pov (which really is the most rational commonsense one). Just wondered as to others thoughts on it.
Elsa's choice of words are interesting in his posts. Its right that we use only emperical info. Just was curious if people believed there was room for anything else, the unquantafiable if you like.
going all in against some with AA. KK or pairs against rubbish raggy A and losing 25 times in 2 days
pls just give me one day where the big stack doesnt win on the river with that raggy A to my KK ..
or hit the staright or 1 card flush.
If its so pointless, dont comment on it or read it. I was interested in others opinions on it. Simple. I spelt a word wrong....my apologies...
Really find it funny how people like you go out of your way to be rude on threads just for the sake of it. If anything is ultimately pointless - its that.
People do tend to negate possibility other people are running permabad. This is because(a) its really unlikely (b) its pointless as we cant do anything about it. Therefore, they tend to say stop whinging and improve your game, as even if they are running bad theres not much they can do about it
If by unquantifiable you mean , God/Buddha/Beelzebub/tree spirits/ whoever/whatever etc bestowing one with good/bad fortune in poker, that really moving beyond what I know about. Its possible, but I wouldnt start drinking goats blood to get some rungood just yet
I take responsability for everthing that happens to me, Examine whatever is wrong an try to fix it.
If we blame something/someone else we stay still or even go backwards.
Whatever, just whatever.
When did I say this thread any thing to do with me or running bad?
It was just a conversation topic.
Nodeal, oynutter. Learn what a debate/conversation is. When does this thread blame anything on anything???? On the first page of this thread I make it clear that this thread was going to steer clear of issues relating to blame. Throughout, run good/bad has been balanced evenly. Can people not have a discussion without people like you constantly trolling for no reason? Perceiving an attack, or attacking an individuals game, where there is no cause.
Its called a discussion. As always, same people attacking threads they dont take the time to read properly.
Blah blag blah bored.
Was having a discussion or debate on the notion of luck.
There are philosophies around an individuals perspective creating their own experience, their own luck good or bad.
I was simply trying to explore the notion of luck as a subjective concept.
Obviously the commonsense answer is that variance balances all and that "luck" is totally objective.
I just wanted to hear what others thoughts on it were.
It was never meant as anything else. Not an accusation to anything, nor an excuse for anything. I think if the thread is read in context that is clear.
I wanted to simply see if people believed there was any room for anything outside of the statistical eventualities.
I know my answer should be that it all evens out in the long run - just not sure we live long enough for this to work for all of us.
My experience playing live is that of a player who has run COMICALLY badly throughout the 3 or so years we have played together.
I say comical except it's painful to watch the money go in on the flop with his opponent dead to runner, runner , - the turn brings him a ray of hope... and you just know what's gonna get flipped over on the river.
I would rather buy lottery tickets than ever stake this player in our game.
In Response to Re: Open debate on the subject of Luck.:
Well, If your really only discussing luck then why has the thread developed to this extent?granterino hit the nail on the head when he commented on degenerating to drinking goats blood trying to show how futile the examination of such a thing as luck, The only evidence for luck is people who defy the odds but, A mathamatician will tell you and everyone else , What can happen will happen given enough time.
Seems to me that my obvious point was in agreement with granterino, I did say it was yawningly boring the way you try to go into the minutiae regarding what you say is a simple point, but, unless im mistaken there is only one question, Does anyone believe in luck? Its not the same as asking does anyone believe in god because science/maths need a cause to explain an action but luck just simply gets swept away by maths as only a belief with no sound evidence.
Not opening a different discussion by talking about belief in god, Just showing an example of a belief without evidence verse belief with.
Firstly, I know I dont always come across the way I intend to, but ftr, its not intentional. Also, fully acknowledge that I likely do go into the "minutiae" too much as you say. Cant really help it. Am totally OCD.
Much of the Mathematical answers I already know. So if I banged on abit, it was to try and break away from those. I was looking for peoples perspective and thoughts outside of the math, which was kind of what I meant by the purist type of player pov. B ut I didnt want to negate peoples post on the math side as it would have seemed rude.
Was just querying if people felt there was room for anything else, without my OP guiding the responses.
But I just think that if people find something boring, pointless or a waste of time, why waste more time writing a rude response? Maybe I do come off bad some times. Probably comes from spending years writing clinical reports. But you'd never see me go out of my way just to be rude to someone (with 1 exception but as a reaction).
And I agree.
Fully acknowledge that the reason I am a losing online player is plain laughable BRM/Dicipline.
But this thread was sincerely never about my experience. In context, its just a generic question.
If I ever see phi livy rubbing a rabbits foot and then drinking some goats blood by the bar then I believe luck will make a difference to your BR in the long term.
Frankly people that say “I feel lucky, lets go – I have a feeling” just before they make a terrible call on the turn for all there chips/money and then get lucky and then proclaim it’s all because I am lucky are deluding themselves because they have forgotten about the other 95 times they lost and had that same lucky feeling.
It’s like people that gamble on horses, you never hear about the times they have lost. Infact you can apply this “feeling of luck” to any game/sport you bet on where the odds are stacked against you.
If the odds are against you, you have to get lucky ) simplez
But you can’t choose when you get lucky.
Example:
You have QQ – AIPR v AA In two scenrios
On the bubble where you win £100
On the bubble where you win £100,000
When would you like to be lucky ?
There is nothing you can do to influence luck/variance
Best you can do is understand variance,
Little extract from an online source:
The nature of poker variance can be demonstrated with an example. You are playing in a poker tournament you are dealt Ace-King and after a raising war pre-flop manage to get all-in against an opponent holding Ace-Jack.
This is a great result, you have your chips in the middle as a solid 70% favorite. It also means that 3 out of every 10 times you play the hand you will be out of the tournament!
In this example you survive the hand and later in the same tournament get all-in again with a pair of queens against tens. Here you are 80% favorite. Later still you have Ace-king and again get in as a 70% favorite against a lower ace. Your poker skills have enabled you to get in with the best hand 3 times!
Here is where an understanding of variance can help your game. You are actually now less than even-money to be still in the poker tournament. This is how the numbers look:
- First Hand: 70% of the time you win and are still in the game. - Second Hand: 80% of 70% you win and are still in the game (56%) - Third Hand: 70% of 56% you win are still in the game (39.2%)
So even though you got your chips in as a solid favorite each hand played, you are now out of the tournament more than 60% of the time.