Do you believe in Luck?

[Antiquehunter]

Maybe I'm being obtuse...

I interpreted the OP as being a very specific situation, with a very specific testable hypothesis.

- I do not win my 'fair share' of pair vs 2 overs in texas hold'em when all-in preflop. I've tracked 54 hands, and I have won less than 27 of them, indeed, 21 - so that makes me 'unlucky' in showdowns as described.

So - I here, proposed some ways to test that hypothesis, which have been rejected because they're not 'In the game scenario'. I don't understand why that is relevant because the event as described is not influenced by any player skill. It is absolutely purely testing to see whether or not in real life, one realizes the mathematical expectation.

As such, I agree that perhaps this is turning into a test of something 'other' - ie that someone can be imbued with 'luck' (or 'unluck') that would affect them in various ways.

As regards the definition as posted:

Wiki Luck or fortuity is good or bad fortune in life caused by accident or chance, and attributed by some to reasons of faith or superstition, which happens beyond a person's control.

I simply am not part of the 'some' group that attributes this to reasons of faith or superstition. I agree that Luck or fortuity is good or bad fortune in life, caused by accident or chance. (Depending on definition of 'accident' or 'chance')

Its just that in gaming, we can quantify how big that accident or chance may be. We know for example, that on a two zero roulette wheel, the odds of a specific number from hitting on the very next spin to be 1:38. For which I will be paid off 35 to 1, creating a house edge of 5.26%.

If I walk up to a roulette wheel and stick $5 on 32 red (I personally would not) and it just so happens that the little ball falls into the 32 slot, I can take my $175 win, whistle away and have a nice steak & a bottle of wine, feeling 'lucky'. Its a slimy word, because really, you had no business making the bet in the first place, knowing that its a pretty unlikely circumstance, and that you're really just handing 25 cents to the casino management, win or lose. If I lose this example, I don't really have any business to feel 'unlucky' because it was a pretty unlikely outcome anyways. If I sit there and play red 32 100 times in a row at $5 a pop, and lose all 100 throws, I probably will feel very unlucky (and probably kick myself at wasting $500) - but have I? No. It is certainly within the realms of mathematical probability for a number not to show itself over 100 spins on a standard 38 number roulette wheel.

Which is my point on the OP. So he's 6 hands below the expected outcome (which is an estimate at best) over a small sample of 54 attempts. Meaningless. He might be feeling a little beaten up about it, but this is by no means evidence of being 'unlucky' - as defined by 'Gargamel has cursed me that I shall always be just slightly below expectation when playing a very specific type of hand at hold'em'

 

[ynot]

Is it lucky to win Lotto if the excitement of doing so causes you to have a heart attack that kills you?

 

[Antiquehunter]

Because there isn't any disagreement that in such a situation, the expected random probabilities would occur. What we're testing is the hypothesis that when he is playing actual games, his luck in showdown situations is bad. Testing his luck in a simulation isn't going to be convincing.

What specifically is it about the game situation that impedes the idea of a simulation? The fact that multiple hands are dealt out? You can replicate that. That there are chips on the table? That there are either cyber-players competing against him or live players at the table?

I think Beth, we're treading into rather superstitious territory here. If your husband cannot see that the model I have proposed precisely replicates the scenario as described, then perhaps he shouldn't play poker for $. I don't mean that to sound nasty - but I purposely seek out and exploit obviously superstitious players when I play, particularly at cash games.

And unless I'm missing something here, I don't think we're discussing anymore the mathematics of cards, but we're into some sort of... something else.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Is it lucky to win Lotto if the excitement of doing so causes you to have a heart attack that kills you?

Yes... and no.

 

[Beth]

Maybe I'm being obtuse...

I interpreted the OP as being a very specific situation, with a very specific testable hypothesis.

- I do not win my 'fair share' of pair vs 2 overs in texas hold'em when all-in preflop. I've tracked 54 hands, and I have won less than 27 of them, indeed, 21 - so that makes me 'unlucky' in showdowns as described.

So - I here, proposed some ways to test that hypothesis, which have been rejected because they're not 'In the game scenario'. I don't understand why that is relevant because the event as described is not influenced by any player skill. It is absolutely purely testing to see whether or not in real life, one realizes the mathematical expectation.
Which is my point on the OP. So he's 6 hands below the expected outcome (which is an estimate at best) over a small sample of 54 attempts. Meaningless. He might be feeling a little beaten up about it, but this is by no means evidence of being 'unlucky' - as defined by 'Gargamel has cursed me that I shall always be just slightly below expectation when playing a very specific type of hand at hold'em'

It's not just that specific hand, but showdowns in general. He tends to feel more 'beat up' about losses when he was over 90% to win, but as the probabilities for the hands vary, it becomes harder to assess whether he's above or below expection without keeping track of a lot of information for those hands and making some rather complicated computations. So, to keep things simple, he chose to collect data on that specific hand because it has convenient and easily computable probabilities and all he had to note was whether it was a win or a loss. I have convinced him to include the cards, but so far I haven't convinced him to track all his showdowns.

And unless I'm missing something here, I don't think we're discussing anymore the mathematics of cards, but we're into some sort of... something else.

I was discussing the mathematics to make sure that I understood the probabilities and was computing them correctly. It's always possible that there is an error in the way I set up my computations.

We are not interested in testing whether simulated games would properly correspond to the probabilities as computed by random chance. There isn't any disagreement over that so there is no reason to test it.

ETA: I'm sorry you don't understand why I don't want to do a study with a simulation. Perhaps this old saying will help: In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

 

[Finsend]

Some people wonder what luck actually is, what it means or what it's definition could be. Other people - like Roy - do not.
They are just stubbornly lucky.

Roy Cleveland Sullivan (February 7, 1912 – September 28, 1983) was a U.S. park ranger in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. Between 1942 and 1977, Sullivan was hit by lightning on seven different occasions and survived all of them. For this reason, he gained a nickname "Human Lightning Conductor" or "Human Lightning Rod". Sullivan is recognized by Guinness World Records as the person struck by lightning more recorded times than any other human being. He died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the age of 71 over an unrequited love.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Sullivan

 

[Antiquehunter]

It's not just that specific hand, but showdowns in general. He tends to feel more 'beat up' about losses when he was over 90% to win, but as the probabilities for the hands vary, it becomes harder to assess whether he's above or below expection without keeping track of a lot of information for those hands and making some rather complicated computations. So, to keep things simple, he chose to collect data on that specific hand because it has convenient and easily computable probabilities and all he had to note was whether it was a win or a loss. I have convinced him to include the cards, but so far I haven't convinced him to track all his showdowns.

OK - well I then would have to say that your methodology is flawed, if you're looking at his overall 'luck'. Now, we're looking at ALL showdowns, not merely pre-flop all-in action. Some of these showdowns take place pre-flop, post-flop, turn, river. The decision-making thread one uses to get to the place of an all-in move on the turn, for example, will cloud the result.

For example. Lets say I make a meaningful raise pre-flop holding 99. Someone calls me holding Q T suited - a somewhat loose, but not totally unreasonable move with that holding, especially if his read on me is that my preflop holdings are not necessarily strong, particularly if he is in 'position' and will act last (as he is in this case), and if both players have enough chips to make a large payday potential (the money must be pretty deep). The flop comes J - 9 - 2, with the J and 9 suited in the opponents' suit. He has an open-ended straight flush draw. An absolute monster for both players. I bet out about the size of the pot because I'm an aggressive player, and I get raised by the huge draw. I decide to smooth call at this point, because it is most likely I have the best hand. With the raise, I am most likely facing an overpair or MAYBE an AJ. JJ or 22 are possibilities, but remote - and I'm dead to only one, going to win a monster on the other. A flush draw may raise in this situation of course, but I'm still way ahead, with redraws to a fullhouse, so I can't be too scared of this raise. A straight draw is pretty unlikely, with the flush potential, although you need to assign it some probability, especially against weak opposition. So I see if the next card causes me any trouble, and just call, thereby 'setting the trap'. The turn comes an offsuit 8, a rather 'scary & unscary' card on the turn to my set of 9's. I can't think its likely that someone would be chasing a straight with the flush potential on the board. I still have outs to a fullhouse (a 'redraw') even if I'm wrong. At this point, lets say there is $200 in the pot, and $100 in my chipstack. I decide that the best move at this point is to push 'all in' to try to make drawing hands either pay for the privilege to draw against me, or to run away and take down a nice pot. My all-in move also makes sure that I will punish those players who can't get away from weaker hands like 2 pair or top pair, top kicker. I can't be too worried about the straight potential out there - the only legitimate hand that could have hit the straight is the QT suited (We've already decided that an offsuit QT is unlikely from a logical player, and not many players will call a preflop raise holding T7 suited or otherwise). If I run into JJ - well, I was dead already, and probably going to take a beating. My opponent has $200 in front of him, so he will have to take my bet seriously. (If he only had $50 in front of him, he is more likely to just toss it in, considering the size of the pot.) Assume he calls the bet. Now lets look at the way the odds fluctuated throughout this hand.

Preflop, my 99 was a 51.69 to 47.95 favorite. (Odds calc courtesty of www.pokerstars.com)

On the flop, my 99 went UP to 57.88 vs 42.12

On the turn, my 99 went DOWN to 20.45 vs 79.55

So - how does my play match up? I would argue that the right decisions were reached. My play, while incorrect knowing the cards as they were laid, was as good as I could derive based on the information I had. Perhaps a live game player could pickup some sort of tell that I was walking into a trap on the turn - assume we're playing online. I defy anyone holding a set, to play differently. If I had checked and the other player had bet $100, people would... fold their set? I don't think so - and I'd say you're playing WAY too tight if you honestly say you would fold your set. If I had checked the turn and faced a $100 bet, at that stage I'm getting 3:1 for my last $100, and I'm 20% to win. If I assume that my opponent could have bet the turn as a semi-bluff, or with some hand I can beat only 13% of the time, then I'm making the right decision to call anyway - so I might as well be the bettor and get some fold equity.

Incidentally, if I check and he bets LESS than my full chipstack, then HE is making a mistake. If he bets only $50 into the pot, then I'm now getting the true mathematical odds to call the bet (call $50 to win $250) and that leaves me with such a small chipstack left that its all going to go in the middle anyways on the river.

Long story short - if I consider this 'unlucky' to not hit my fullhouse on the river (and lose the pot) then I am mistaken. I was a dog when I got my money in the middle, and had I been able to see the cards, I would have played differently. If I had shoved the money pre-flop, or on the flop, while I was ahead, thereby getting my money in the middle with the best of it, I could feel a little 'unlucky' if I ended up losing. (But not terribly so - the lead throughout the hand, even after hitting a good set, was not that large.)

If you record this hand simply as a test of 99 VS QTs, then you are not making a contextually accurate calculation. You need to do a very detailled hand analysis.

I'll go further to add, that no-limit hold'em play involves a lot of situations like this where you can make the 'right' decisions and still end up a loser. You can't feel 'unlucky' - No Limit Hold'em is not for the faint of heart. Many people who have played poker for years only played Limit poker in the 'good old' days. We only played no limit in tournaments. Then when NL took off, the money was so juicy floating around out there, that we all started to play it. The pendulum is swinging back - the really bad players have gone bust / taken up slot machines. The mediocre players are tougher nits, and a whole generation of really good & aggresive players has evolved. That's why there is now a lot of interest in other forms of poker / mixed games.

If you want to test 'unluckiness', I would say you need to start looking at situations where a hand develops like this one, where you are going to get trapped and probably can't get away from it. Like the AA vs KK situation, holding the KK. Like flopping set over set. It isn't so much about getting lucky, its about not getting those hands where you simply are doomed to lose your stack no matter what happens.

And - I disagree that you have to analyze this in a 'game' situation. You can craft scenarios like the one I wrote up here, and test them either by dealing cards or by using computer simulators. If you only glean the data from live / online games, there are too many external forces. Was your husband on 'tilt' (ie - had taken a bad beat or someone had gotten under his skin). Was he drinking? Was he overtired / playing a marathon session? Was he trying to play 6 tables at once online? Did the cat jump on the keyboard and shove him all-in by accident? A lab environment is the only effective way to test this 'luck' element - by eliminating all these outside interferences.

May I suggest reading David Sklansky 'The Theory of Poker' for a very lucid presentation of important poker concepts. He's a mathematician to boot.

I was discussing the mathematics to make sure that I understood the probabilities and was computing them correctly. It's always possible that there is an error in the way I set up my computations.

We are not interested in testing whether simulated games would properly correspond to the probabilities as computed by random chance. There isn't any disagreement over that so there is no reason to test it.

ETA: I'm sorry you don't understand why I don't want to do a study with a simulation. Perhaps this old saying will help: In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

Well - I STILL disagree. You can definitely use a model to test your 'luckiness' - you just need to design the right model. As I mentioned there are simply too many external factors involved in the complexities of hold'em hands to rely solely on live play, unless you're going to sit there and record every hand in exhaustive detail (since he apparently is interested but not THAT interested in the results.)

The old saying, while cute, is a bit silly - we test medications and a variety of scientific principles in the lab, before we release them on the world. And I believe that if we really define what it is you're calling 'luck' we could also figure out the right model to show what I suspect isn't really 'bad luck' but leaks in his game. And don't worry - we all have leaks.

 

[Beth]

OK - well I then would have to say that your methodology is flawed, if you're looking at his overall 'luck'. Now, we're looking at ALL showdowns, not merely pre-flop all-in action. Some of these showdowns take place pre-flop, post-flop, turn, river. The decision-making thread one uses to get to the place of an all-in move on the turn, for example, will cloud the result.

Yes, that's why he was only collecting data on the one type of hand.

If you record this hand simply as a test of 99 VS QTs, then you are not making a contextually accurate calculation. You need to do a very detailled hand analysis.

Exactly. That was why he chose only to record the all-in preflop results for the one particular type of hand.

And - I disagree that you have to analyze this in a 'game' situation. You can craft scenarios like the one I wrote up here, and test them either by dealing cards or by using computer simulators.

You're free to disagree on it's usefulness, but since we have no disagreement on what the result of such a simulation would be - i.e. outcomes according to the theory of probability - I don't see the point of running it.

The old saying, while cute, is a bit silly - we test medications and a variety of scientific principles in the lab, before we release them on the world.

The point of the saying is not that theories are wrong or that we shouldn't test things in a lab. The point is that you can't depend on getting the same results outside a lab that you do inside it because there are far more uncontrolled inputs than can affect the results. I was hoping that might help you understand why a simulation isn't particularly well suited for this case.

Thanks for all your contributions to the thread. You have given me quite a bit to think about. Don't take the rejection of the simulation idea too hard. It's a fine approach for many situations, just not this one.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Yes, that's why he was only collecting data on the one type of hand.
Exactly. That was why he chose only to record the all-in preflop results for the one particular type of hand.

BUT THAT IS WHY ITS FLAWED, Beth...

You can't take one isolated hand that occurs relatively infrequently, (all in, heads-up, preflop, pair vs 2 overs) and then correlate those 'luck' results to the overall 'luckiness' of the game.

For starters, I don't think he has used adequate discipline to track if he's overall up or down. He has some anecdotal evidence, but nothing concrete.

Then , we're taking one small subset of results and trying to apply it to an extraordinarily broad range of test subjects.

Its like saying 'I'm testing vaccine X, very loosely and without rigid parameters as to its efficacy vs illness Y. If it works then we will use those results to see if we should deploy it against all illnesses!'

If you seriously want to examine this question, you need to (in my opinion...)

- Stop playing 'free money'. Or at least track those results completely separate from real money.

- Start tracking results. Record date, venue, stakes, length of time played, ideally number of hands played (if online, easy to do) number of players at the table, result (+/-). Leave a large field to record comments and observations such as 'was drinking'. 'Had 2 drunks at the table who donked off all their money', 'Seek out player 'Imadonkey' because he can't play for beans' etc... Track tournament results in a separate table, since they lead to different calculations, and tournament play is vastly different from cash game play.

- Start tracking hands. For online, use one of the tools I and others have implored you to incorporate. For live play, if you're being disciplined and recording your session results, noting significant hands where you think you played well (or unwell) or got lucky (or unlucky) is a start. You obviously can't keep a detailled note of every hand in live play, but it doesn't take long to shorthand note down certain important / memorable live hands.

- Keep notes in live play - on players, on your observations, and how you changed your game to react to those observations.

- Then, after a couple of hundred hours of play, lets talk again.

 

[Beth]

BUT THAT IS WHY ITS FLAWED, Beth...

You can't take one isolated hand that occurs relatively infrequently, (all in, heads-up, preflop, pair vs 2 overs) and then correlate those 'luck' results to the overall 'luckiness' of the game.

Why not? Any particular reason the 'luck' of those results should be different than the overall 'luckiness'? I can't think of one and no one else has suggested any reason why 'luck' would be different for those hands as opposed to all of his 'show down' hands.

Then , we're taking one small subset of results and trying to apply it to an extraordinarily broad range of test subjects.

It's called sampling theory. The results of a relatively small number of representative subjects can be extended to the entire population.

If you seriously want to examine this question, you need to (in my opinion...)
- Stop playing 'free money'. Or at least track those results completely separate from real money.

You may not be aware of it, but U.S. on-line poker players are no longer legally allowed play for real money and it is no longer accessible to us. In our state, it's not even legal to do so in garage games, people just do so anyway as policing such games is unfeasible.

- Start tracking results.

- Start tracking hands.

- Keep notes in live play

Thanks for all your advice. I'm sure those suggestions would be useful for improving my poker game if that was my goal. But I'm not the player and that isn't my goal. I'm just trying to analyze the data and show that he isn't suffering from unusually bad luck - i.e. that if he should win 50% of the hands he's collecting data on and his average should approach 50% over time.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Because the results from those few hands may or may not have an overall bearing on a session (or total number of session) results.

Maybe he is doing just fine with those rare all-in pre-flop hands, but his leak is that he doesn't know how to play a flush draw mathematically properly. Maybe he enters too many pre-flop all-in hands and should be trying to outplay opponents later in the hand. Maybe he's actually playing within expected norms of 'luck' on those pre-flop all-ins, but for some reason isn't flopping the 'right' number of sets when he starts with a pocket pair.

The game is far too complex to assess one paticular subset of hands and then draw meaningful results from that subset.

Analogy:

- I think I may be 'unlucky' at playing video poker. (A game that involves skill/basic strategy as well as 'luck') I base this observation that whenever I play 'Jacks or better' VP machines that have a 97% payback, they seem to hoover all my money.

- I'll test this theory by playing 54 sessions of 'Jacks or Better' slot machines. I get results that may or many not indicate I'm getting slightly 'below' average returns - because I only keep anecdotal results and can't be bothered to keep detailled stats even when the tools exist to do so. I just feel unlucky.

- Based on this lax result, I will posit that I am unlucky at ALL forms of Video Poker (even though the basic strategies for video poker differ game to game, as do the expected rates of return)

 

[Finsend]

You may not be aware of it, but U.S. on-line poker players are no longer legally allowed play for real money and it is no longer accessible to us. In our state, it's not even legal to do so in garage games, people just do so anyway as policing such games is unfeasible.

Although I have some understanding why some people would take these 'measures' (protecting kids, drink and drive gamblers, etc) and did so, in (some states) in the US, so I read. It still seems like some kind of breach of freedom to me. Especially playing poker in your garage?! I mean you have this placed called Las Vegas in your country as well, I understand. Anyway another topic I guess

I'm just trying to analyze the data and show that he isn't suffering from unusually bad luck - i.e. that if he should win 50% of the hands he's collecting data on and his average should approach 50% over time.

I think I agree with Antiquehunter that it is very hard to actually 'prove' whether or not he is suffering from 'unusually bad luck' or not, especially with this poker game. As long as he follows the rules of statistics and calls bluffs correctly, does not give away any signals himself, and 'plays poker generally well', you might be able to (dis)prove it up to some degree, maybe - or at least find out what is going on a bit more and whether he had a bad night/day or a good one - so just got lots of bad cards, etc. So SKILL seems to me very very important in this game, the skill of your husband as well as the skills of other players, etc - all that has been said about it.

This 50% would rise up when 2 (exactly the same) computer programs play each other, I think/hope? - measured on some type of hands for example - in the (very) long run. And since humans differ a lot and are not copies of one-another this complicates matters very much imho.

Just my thoughts. And thanx for creating this thread, I find it very interesting and I like several games myself and even played some poker some years ago. Because every body started to do it, I guess At tables and on the net for a very short time, I did not have enough discipline and/or interest, I guess - and thus money of course It is a fun game with many many nuances in it. So I can imagine why this became such a hype, it did here in Holland - we had these tournaments on TV here in Holland, mostly after midnight and I still like watching them sometimes. The hype is getting a bit less so it seems, and these TV programs are being a bit less broadcasted nowadays.

All the best,
Finsend

 

[Rasmus]

Because the results from those few hands may or may not have an overall bearing on a session (or total number of session) results.

Maybe he is doing just fine with those rare all-in pre-flop hands, but his leak is that he doesn't know how to play a flush draw mathematically properly. Maybe he enters too many pre-flop all-in hands and should be trying to outplay opponents later in the hand. Maybe he's actually playing within expected norms of 'luck' on those pre-flop all-ins, but for some reason isn't flopping the 'right' number of sets when he starts with a pocket pair.

The game is far too complex to assess one paticular subset of hands and then draw meaningful results from that subset.

I think the test is supposed to tell us whether there is any woo-type-luck involved, as opposed to chance-type-luck. I am not sure if a reasonable test is possible - one could always claim exceptions based in the mere existence of the test.

Everything you suggest above would be great for play analysis and improvement of one's game - but it naturally targets skills rather than chance or luck.

Even for determining the players chance-type-luck it wouldn't help to look at his skills. If he's doing everything right he might still be unlucky, and if he is making mistakes he could still be unlucky on top of it.

He might be seeing too many situation where he risks all his chips being just a slight favorite - but even then he should be winning just over half of them, and he might not be. (And that might happen a significant amount of time, or it might not.)

 

[Fredrik]

If the hypothesis is "the cards that are dealt after all the money goes in favor my opponents more than me", there's obviously nothing wrong with using all-in hands to test the hypothesis. In fact, it's the only way to do it.

There's also nothing wrong with the general idea of looking at a small percentage of the hands played to try to determine how lucky you've been overall. It's only a mistake if there's a good reason to think that you would be more or less lucky in the hands that belong to the sample than in the hands that don't. To put this another way: It's OK to try to determine how people will vote in an election by asking 0.3% of the population, as long as you don't do something stupid like asking the richest 0.3% of the population.

The fact that the hands you're looking at have bigger pots than the average is a problem, but it's a relatively minor one. The real problem is sample size. It would be a bad idea to ask three people if they have cancer and assume that the result represents the whole population. It's pretty hard to guess how big a sample you need to accurately determine his overall luck from his luck in all-ins, but I'll try. I know from experience that after 20000 hands played, the difference between my long term win rate and the win rate for the sample is often greater than the win rate for the sample. So 20000 hands isn't even close to enough for results to start looking like the statistical expectation. As noted above, only 0.6% of my hands are all-ins before all the cards are dealt. If I play a million hands, I still only get 6000 hands of the kind I think you should be sampling (all-ins before all the cards are dealt), and only 3000 hands of the kind you are sampling (preflop all-ins). This suggests that even ten million hands played would be too small a sample. So I suspect that you should be looking at something like a hundred million hands played to get an accurate result with your method.

 

[Fredrik]

How can 80% of people on a skeptic-scientific forum vote for "No, there's no such thing as luck."

Evidence for the existence of luck: Pick any lottery millionaire.

It is not a force, and it is not a predictable or foreseeable phenomenon either, but it is a retrospectively observable statistical fact.

Because of the way the question was asked. Beth appears to be asking if we believe in luck as an explanation for results, which would make it something like a "force". The ones who voted no are saying that they don't believe there's anything like that. I didn't vote because that's not what the word "luck" means to me.

 

[Finsend]

So I suspect that you should be looking at something like a hundred million hands played to get an accurate result with your method.

Oh NOooo...!
This would raise lots of other problems like this one:
Will there be enough whiskey and sigars?

Because of the way the question was asked. Beth appears to be asking if we believe in luck as an explanation for results, which would make it something like a "force". The ones who voted no are saying that they don't believe there's anything like that. I didn't vote because that's not what the word "luck" means to me.

I voted YES doubting very very much the PlanetX option.
I guess just to balance things a bit.



AND because I have the opinion that Luck surely means something - when humans use this word. AND I could find it in most dictionaries. So it means something for lots of people, and thus "is" in a way, not really maybe though. "Luck does not exist" seemed a bit 2 bluntly stated imho. AND YES seemed more like a happy and positive answer as well. AND I'm trigger happy, I guess. All these "things", maybe.

But I also tried not to vote at all, geheh.
I did not succeed.


BTW some people over here seem to be "suffering" as well:

Merriam-webster

Definition of LUCK:
1
a : a force that brings good fortune or adversity
b : the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual
2
: favoring chance; also : success <had great luck growing orchids> < Yes you did, indeed. Giving them some water as well?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luck

 

[freedy]

I do not believe in fate, or that there is a guiding hand that predetermines my future.

However, at times I feel lucky and at others I feel unlucky.

Luck allows me to rationalize an event. When a bird poops on me and not on any of the other 500 people at the beach, I guess I was just unlucky.

It is only my perception of the outcome that makes me believe luck was any party to this outcome.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Luck allows me to rationalize an event. When a bird poops on me and not on any of the other 500 people at the beach, I guess I was just unlucky.

Or lucky.

 

[Beth]

I've quoted some earlier posts to try to pull the train of conversation back. If I'm mistaken about what question you were answering in your post, my apologies.

You can't take one isolated hand that occurs relatively infrequently, (all in, heads-up, preflop, pair vs 2 overs) and then correlate those 'luck' results to the overall 'luckiness' of the game.

Why not? Any particular reason the 'luck' of those results should be different than the overall 'luckiness'? I can't think of one and no one else has suggested any reason why 'luck' would be different for those hands.

Because the results from those few hands may or may not have an overall bearing on a session (or total number of session) results.

Yes, but that doesn't invalidate it as a way of testing whether he is particularly unlucky. The session results should, presumably, reflect both the skill of the player and the luck of the cards. Looking at just those hands limits what we are examining to the luck of the cards. I believe you agreed with that assessment earlier in this thread and suggested that it could be extended to all two-player showdowns after an all-in has been called.

The game is far too complex to assess one paticular subset of hands and then draw meaningful results from that subset.

That really depends on what conclusions we are attempting to draw from the subset of hands. You still haven't given a reason why those particular hands should not be considered representative of his 'luck'.

I agree the game is complex. It's difficult to separate out 'luck' from skill when examining session results. That's why he limited his data collection to one specific type of hand - the pre-flop all-in 2-person showdown of a pair versus two over cards. I agree with your suggestion earlier that we could look at all the showdowns after the money is in, but I don't see it as necessary. While it would provide more hands and faster data collection, I don't see it as crucial to being able to draw a conclusion one way or the other regarding whether his results are in line with random chance outcomes.

Your analogy has some problems in that it is not consistent with the situation I've described. I'll try to fix it up in that regard and see if that helps in clearing up this misunderstanding. Italics indicate my changes.

Analogy:

- I think I may be 'unlucky' at playing 'Jacks or better' VP machines (A game that involves skill/basic strategy as well as 'luck') I base this observation that whenever I play 'Jacks or better' VP machines that have a 97% payback, they seem to hoover all my money.

- I'll test this theory by keeping track of a wins and losses from a representative sample of hands that are dependent only on luck not skill when playing 'Jacks or Better' slot machines. I get results that indicate I'm getting below average returns but I do not yet have sufficient data to make a firm conclusion.

- Based on this result, I cannot refute the hypothesis that I am unlucky at 'Jacks or better' VP machines and continue to collect data on 'Jacks or better' VP machines

 

[Beth]

Although I have some understanding why some people would take these 'measures' (protecting kids, drink and drive gamblers, etc) and did so, in (some states) in the US, so I read. It still seems like some kind of breach of freedom to me. Especially playing poker in your garage?! I mean you have this placed called Las Vegas in your country as well, I understand. Anyway another topic I guess

Yes, I happen to agree with you in regards to those laws. Still, they are the laws of our locale and it means that playing 'real money' games simply isn't much of an option in our area. There are casino's in the next state, but that's about a 90 minute drive away and not of interest to my hubby. He went once with his poker playing buds, but has not been inclined to do so again.

Just my thoughts. And thanx for creating this thread, I find it very interesting and I like several games myself and even played some poker some years ago.

I'm glad you are enjoying it. I play poker some, mainly with hubby, but I find working at winning to be too much like work and not enough like play so I don't bother to work at it and just play for fun.