Do you believe in Luck?

[Almo]

Random events lead humans to think there is luck. One person finds a quarter every time they look in a pay phone. Someone else doesn't. It's random chance, but the humans involved would probably attribute it to luck.

 

[Antiquehunter]

One last chance before I throw my hands up in the air here...

Beth - when I read the OP, I thought you said your husband felt he was unlucky with one particular type of hand. You didn't quantify what 'luck' meant in this context - I assumed that meant win/lose that particular hand. You have some specific data about one type of hand.

As this thread has evolved, I have come to understand that he thinks he is 'unlucky at showdowns' throughout the game. And tracks one type of hand as being indicative of the problem. Well - how is he measuring his unluckiness? I would have to assume that if he thinks he is generally unlucky, that his results (ie his win/loss record) is being affected.

So - if we're going to analyze the overall win/loss record to determine if he's unlucky, then we need to be looking at hands in context throughout the game. You have far too many variables involved here. You're talking about:

- Free money games which I posit are not necessarily a 'true' value because many players aren't playing 'for real'.

- Some informal live action 'garage' games - which may or may not be managed in a casino fashion

- No meaningful data as to overall wins/losses (apart from some anecdotal results)

- An active reluctance to apply any of the suggestions made by me and by others to do a better job at data capture so we could examine what is a genuinely interesting question.

- A refusal to do any sort of work in a 'lab' setting - which at the very least could confirm an understanding on his part of the mathematical basics. Considering what he alleges (that he is somehow 'unluckier' than what math dictates) suggests some sort of 'force' of luck that exists, establishing at minimum a baseline would be a very useful starting point. I still think that the whole question could be resolved this way, but I'll humour your notion that we need some sort of 'game setting' to make it a 'real' test. (Is a 'free money' game REALLY a legit 'game setting'? What is a valid 'game setting'?)

While it may be interesting to look at 54 specific hands (all of one type) and see how those results measure up, without looking at the big picture, we cannot correlate this to an overall sense of 'luckiness'. So far, what we know, is that his results on those hands are slightly below expected results, but not remarkably so, and the sample size is not necessarily large enough to verify. To put this in perspective, if playing baccarat (where the win/loss of player/bank is about 49/51) and disregard the house 'commission' for a moment. If betting $100 a hand for 54 hands, and winning 21 of them, he'd have $4800 left from a $5400 starting stake - anyone who has played Baccarat (or blackjack, or pass line at craps) realizes that this sort of result is far from atypical - no more atypical than being at $6000 after 54 attempts.

We don't know enough about the rest of the game to determine whether, all things being equal, 'luckiness' is the issue with your husband's game.

Maybe he is a 'little' unlucky at these 54 situations. I think it is too soon to make that statement with any validity, but its interesting to examine.
Maybe he also happens to be flopping sets to pocket pairs on average every 6 times vs the expected 8 times.
Maybe he also isn't hitting his flush draws about 33% of the time.
Maybe he is getting dealt aces more than the expected 1:220 times.

If he is winning 10 big bets an hour at no-limit hold'em, then who really cares if his returns on these pre-flop hands are bit below normal? His overall results (which we cannot quantify) show that his game is successful in other areas - therefore, maybe the strategy is to avoid these pre-flop contests, and keep on doing everything else the same.

But - WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA. Nor does it sound like any more is going to be forthcoming.

 

[Finsend]

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
- Aaron Levenstein

 

[Finsend]

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.

I had the same thing I guess, it indeed became very quick like working to me, probably as it did for you. And since I have some trouble focusing sometimes and paying attention I thought it best to quit playing for money. Sometimes I play for fun though, with other people's money and/or with fishes eh fiches! (them round things, not sure it this is the Eng word) which have no value but honor.

But it sure is and stays (most of the time, it can go bad of course) a funny and interesting game, just like this thread stays interesting and fun!

cheers
finsend

This very fine chicken sure produces a lot of eggs btw.
Interesting eggs!

It seems I have enough to read, since I became a member here at:



And it seems I am a sucker for them
I guess I goto the test page NOW!
YES!! It's THAT TIME!

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I believe in good luck not bad. But your luck chooses you, not you it and it usually works invisibly. Your husband lost at poker leaving early and missing the plane that would have crashed into his car if he had sayed late. I suppose it could be chance however romote the possibility of it being chance given the odds.

 

[Finsend]

Just for fun.

Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember it didn't work for the rabbit.
- R. E. Shay

More Quotes about LUCK:
http://www.famous-quotes.com/topic.php?tid=725

Hmm it seems I have this weak-spot for quotes as well.

 

[cesarz]

Surely some people are more lucky then the others. Is it just random or is there something more - well we can cant say for sure dont we?

 

[Antiquehunter]

Surely some people are more lucky then the others. Is it just random or is there something more - well we can cant say for sure dont we?

Can you please define what you mean by 'more lucky'?

 

[Beth]

One last chance before I throw my hands up in the air here...

I'm sorry you are so frustrated.

Beth - when I read the OP, I thought you said your husband felt he was unlucky with one particular type of hand. You didn't quantify what 'luck' meant in this context - I assumed that meant win/lose that particular hand. You have some specific data about one type of hand.

As this thread has evolved, I have come to understand that he thinks he is 'unlucky at showdowns' throughout the game. And tracks one type of hand as being indicative of the problem. Well - how is he measuring his unluckiness? I would have to assume that if he thinks he is generally unlucky, that his results (ie his win/loss record) is being affected.

His overall win/loss record would be a combination of both luck and skill.

So - if we're going to analyze the overall win/loss record to determine if he's unlucky, then we need to be looking at hands in context throughout the game.

But we're NOT going to analyze the overall win/lost record to determine if he's unlucky BECAUSE it would be combination of both luck and skill. To evaluate luck, we need to separate out hands that are won/loss as a result of luck from those that are won/lost as a result of both.

You have far too many variables involved here. You're talking about:

- Free money games which I posit are not necessarily a 'true' value because many players aren't playing 'for real'.

- Some informal live action 'garage' games - which may or may not be managed in a casino fashion

Yes. These are the only situations in which he plays poker. Why would we test the hypothesis in a setting other than that he is usually participating in? And frankly, I don't see that including data from both the settings he plays in as a problem for this analysis. I see no reason that it would result in bias in the sample nor have you given any reason why it would do so.

- No meaningful data as to overall wins/losses (apart from some anecdotal results)

Once he started collecting data in a systematic fashion, it's no longer just anecdotal. I agree that he does not yet have sufficient data to come to firm conclusion, but he is continuing to collect that data and will eventually have enough.

- An active reluctance to apply any of the suggestions made by me and by others to do a better job at data capture so we could examine what is a genuinely interesting question.

I've made the suggestion to expand data collection. I'm not going to insist if he isn't interested as this project is being done for him, not for me.

- A refusal to do any sort of work in a 'lab' setting - which at the very least could confirm an understanding on his part of the mathematical basics.

There isn't any disagreement on his part regarding the mathematical basics. He agrees with what the expectations according to random chance should be. What is the purpose of the 'lab' setting if he is already in agreement with that and does not expect the results to be different from random chance?

While it may be interesting to look at 54 specific hands (all of one type) and see how those results measure up, without looking at the big picture, we cannot correlate this to an overall sense of 'luckiness'.

Why not? Why should this sample of hands not be considered representative of his 'luck'?

What is it that you feel that he should be collecting data on and how do you propose that data be analyzed to determine 'luck'?

You've made a number of suggestions on collecting data, but they seem to be about skill and finding 'leaks' in his game. I'm sure they would be helpful for that purpose, but that isn't the purpose I have asked for suggestions on which is why they haven't been acted on.

We don't know enough about the rest of the game to determine whether, all things being equal, 'luckiness' is the issue with your husband's game.

I think this may be the point at which you are going astray. We aren't trying to find out about any 'issues' with my husband's game. We're trying to determine if his complaints about being 'unlucky' at showdowns are just confirmation bias on his part or if he actually is suffering more losses on showdowns than would be expected by random chance.

Maybe he is a 'little' unlucky at these 54 situations. I think it is too soon to make that statement with any validity, but its interesting to examine.

It's 55 situations now, but I agree. The data is insufficient to come to firm conclusion at this point. Data is still being collected.

His overall results (which we cannot quantify) show that his game is successful in other areas - therefore, maybe the strategy is to avoid these pre-flop contests, and keep on doing everything else the same.

But - WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA. Nor does it sound like any more is going to be forthcoming.

Again, looking at his overall results is not going to tell us about his 'luck'. It could be, if after enough data collection we can establish that his 'luck' is nothing other than random chance, he will be interested in pursuing a statistical analysis to work on finding weaknesses in his game. But at this point, that isn't the purpose of his data collection or my analysis. I think your frustration may be coming from a disconnect between our purposes in collecting this data and the purpose you feel we should be pursuing instead.

 

[Antiquehunter]

One more try...

To evaluate luck, we need to separate out hands that are won/loss as a result of luck from those that are won/lost as a result of both.

So - you have selected heads-up all in pair vs two overs as a sample hand. In the lengthy hand analysis I typed earlier in this thread, would you agree, that if we took the example of 99 vs QTs from that hand analysis AT THE POINT OF THE ALL-IN (after the turn) - this would be another hand one could examine for 'luck'. (Except the odds at that point are not 52/48 but rather 20/80. He could not start to feel 'unlucky' about that hand unless he won that showdown significantly less than 20% of the time).

If you agree with this, then ANY hand where an all-in confrontation is involved, can be analyzed for 'luckiness' - one simply has to look at the odds at the time the all-in bets were made, and then determine if the results deviate significantly from the mathematically expected results.

To extend one step further, your premise appears to be:

- My husband thinks he obtains results that differ significantly from the mathematical expectation, when playing 'free' poker online and in his informal 'live' games.

The only commonality between these two environments is... him. ie - 'HE' is somehow causing himself to be 'Unlucky'. Only one of these two environments involve live players he can see. Only one of these two environments involve physical chips / cash. So the two of you dealing hands (fairly & randomly) out at the kitchen table, playing for matchsticks or pennies is JUST as 'real' an environment as the two described. As such it should only take you guys a matter of a couple of hours to deal out & record enough data in a 'real' environment to see if there is anything to this hypothesis.

And then, once convinced he isn't 'unlucky' if he wants to improve his game, I have tons of suggestions.

 

[Finsend]

only collecting data on one particular type of hand.
'a Race' = A showdown situations where he and one other player are All In before the flop. In addition, he's only looking at a the outcome when one of the two sets of two cards is a pair and other person had two over cards.

The probability of winning is approximately 50/50. (It's actually more like 48/52 but so far, I've just been computing the odds at 50/50).

Current nr of races done = 55 here.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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 abstained from voting until I considered the context of the question, and even got the clarification that the null hypothesis is that the outcome is due to random chance. Based on that, I concluded that the poll is definitely using luck as an explanation for outcomes (that is an alternative to random chance). Then I voted "No".

But I think this confusion will consider since the word is ambiguous. I think we've even seen two meanings that are very nearly the opposite of each other (either a synonym for "chance" or an alternative to "chance" [that is "not chance"]) being conflated.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Anyway, if you want to determine overall "luck" (presumably if you can extrapolate one hand into the rest of the game, you can extrapolate other things) wouldn't it be easier to have him play a really simple dice game with one of his friends? Odd means he gets a dollar, even means the friend gets a dollar. Do it 500 times (say). See how he fares.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Anyway, if you want to determine overall "luck" (presumably if you can extrapolate one hand into the rest of the game, you can extrapolate other things) wouldn't it be easier to have him play a really simple dice game with one of his friends? Odd means he gets a dollar, even means the friend gets a dollar. Do it 500 times (say). See how he fares.

I sort of implied that approach already - but there seems to be something 'mystical' in all this about 'real' poker (whether that poker be in two very different environments is immaterial).

 

[Stray Cat]

I've never believed in luck and will never have to... (touch wood)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

IWhy would we test the hypothesis in a setting other than that he is usually participating in?

I've already said why--to eliminate the possibility of bias influencing data collection.

And frankly, I don't see that including data from both the settings he plays in as a problem for this analysis.

The potential for bias to corrupt the data.

Even you, who I would call a "goat" rather than a "sheep" have been willing to point to analysis of subsets of the data as significant, even though we don't expect the results to be exactly Win-Loss-Win-Loss without any streakiness in the data.

I see no reason that it would result in bias in the sample nor have you given any reason why it would do so.

Some examples of studies that show the sheep/goat effect:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02372.x/abstract

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001966206

http://scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_19_1_storm.pdf

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/PDFs/EJP 1994.pdf

Since the easiest way to eliminate this possibility is a lab-type experiment, what is it about the real-game situation that needs to be reproduced?

Why not? Why should this sample of hands not be considered representative of his 'luck'?

Fair enough. Why shouldn't a sample of hands from a lab setting be representative of his "luck"? (I think the idea of simply analyzing all the hands he is dealt is just to simplify and accelerate things--and to use some objective data collection like the record keeping of the software.)

What is it that you feel that he should be collecting data on and how do you propose that data be analyzed to determine 'luck'?

Personally, I think the biggest flaw is that you seem unwilling to say how many trials you will count and what confidence interval you will use. That's part of the hypothesis. Doing it after the fact isn't legit.

It's 55 situations now, but I agree. The data is insufficient to come to firm conclusion at this point. Data is still being collected.

When will it stop?

Again, looking at his overall results is not going to tell us about his 'luck'.

I agree, but looking at the two cards he is dealt for every hand would. Not results. Not even whether or not he put a penny in the pot for those hands. Just which cards he was dealt. We could analyze whether or not he's getting better or worse cards than we'd expect.

But again, aside from the issue of potential bias in data collection, the issue of defining when the study will start and stop (which trials will count in the dataset to be analyzed and no analyzing subsets of the data), and saying in advance what confidence interval you're using, I think your method is fine, especially for purposes of something not terribly important.

I think the "lab" test simulating the game would be slightly better and have the advantage of something you could do in one afternoon.

ETA: Actually I do see a downside to the lab test. If the purpose of this study is just to disabuse your husband of his hypothesis that he's unlucky, and he would reject the result of a lab test, then obviously it's not going to work. This doesn't mean it's reasonable or there is any real reason why the lab test wouldn't give you a reliable conclusion, though. That's the old canard of trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. It can be done, but it has to be on *their* terms, which can really open a can of worms.

 

[Beth]

One more try...



So - you have selected heads-up all in pair vs two overs as a sample hand. In the lengthy hand analysis I typed earlier in this thread, would you agree, that if we took the example of 99 vs QTs from that hand analysis AT THE POINT OF THE ALL-IN (after the turn) - this would be another hand one could examine for 'luck'. (Except the odds at that point are not 52/48 but rather 20/80. He could not start to feel 'unlucky' about that hand unless he won that showdown significantly less than 20% of the time).

Actually, I think the problem is more that he feels he wins signficantly less than 80% of the time when the odds are in his favor.

If you agree with this, then ANY hand where an all-in confrontation is involved, can be analyzed for 'luckiness' - one simply has to look at the odds at the time the all-in bets were made, and then determine if the results deviate significantly from the mathematically expected results.

Yes, I agree with this and have suggested looking at all such hands. He was not interested in collecting the additional data.

To extend one step further, your premise appears to be:

- My husband thinks he obtains results that differ significantly from the mathematical expectation, when playing showdown hands in 'free' poker online and in his informal 'live' games.

I added the italics, otherwise that is accurate.

The only commonality between these two environments is... him. ie - 'HE' is somehow causing himself to be 'Unlucky'.

Actually no. He doesn't believe in luck. But he doesn't feel like the actual results he gets are consistent with chance either. So he started collecting data to determine if it was bias (he wasn't paying attention to the wins which is what I suggested) or if he really was getting fewer wins than should reasonably be expected in those situations and his observation was accurate even if inexplicable.

Only one of these two environments involve live players he can see. Only one of these two environments involve physical chips / cash. So the two of you dealing hands (fairly & randomly) out at the kitchen table, playing for matchsticks or pennies is JUST as 'real' an environment as the two described. As such it should only take you guys a matter of a couple of hours to deal out & record enough data in a 'real' environment to see if there is anything to this hypothesis.

No. I don't agree that we can extend the premise this way. If we were to do so and assuming that the results come up consistent with random chance, the fact that we don't agree that the premise can be extended means that this would be a useless exercise for us.

And then, once convinced he isn't 'unlucky' if he wants to improve his game, I have tons of suggestions.

Thanks! I'll let him know.

Anyway, if you want to determine overall "luck" (presumably if you can extrapolate one hand into the rest of the game, you can extrapolate other things) wouldn't it be easier to have him play a really simple dice game with one of his friends? Odd means he gets a dollar, even means the friend gets a dollar. Do it 500 times (say). See how he fares.

I don't know we can extrapolate to other games. He doesn't complain about being unduly unlucky at other games. Of course, he doesn't play very many games where random chance is a factor.

 

[Finsend]

Some pretty quasi-unlucky peoples over here:

http://www.dailycognition.com/index.php/2008/03/05/7-unluckiest-people-in-the-world.html

OK 1 spoilert:

Ann Hodges: The only person (on record) to have been hit by a Meteorite

 

[Antiquehunter]

No. I don't agree that we can extend the premise this way. If we were to do so and assuming that the results come up consistent with random chance, the fact that we don't agree that the premise can be extended means that this would be a useless exercise for us.

OK... maybe getting somewhere now...

Beth - look at these five examples below, and please tell me why any one of them would not be a valid extrapolation / environment for this premise.

1) You and he sit down at the table to play NL Hold'em. You each start with 10 pennies and the blinds are 1-2. You record results of any hand involving an all-in showdown.

2) He plays online poker at a 'free' site for 'points' against random strangers (who may even not be people). He records, using either the site software, or an add-on software tool every hand played. Any hand involving an all-in showdown becomes included for consideration in the experiment.

3) You and he sit down at a table, and deal random hold'em hands to two selected, static hands of his selection. (Say QQ vs AKs) The assumption is that these hands are 'all-in' pre-flop. All hands are recorded for the experiment.

4) He plays poker at a 'garage' game. He records a shorthand hand recap in a notebook for any hand involving an all-in showdown (where HE is inolved). All such hands are recorded for the experiment - we assume that he is sufficiently responsible to not predispose / fudge on the data collection.

5) He and x number of friends sit down around a table. You use appropriate randomness/diligence when dealing. Each person buys 10 matchsticks for a dollar. You play NL texas hold'em and record every hand for which there is an all-in showdown involving your husband.

You stated Beth, that your husband understands the math. Yet he's saying that his observations appear to deviate from expectations. You want to test to see:

- Is there confirmation bias?
- Is there some sort of inherent 'unluckiness' to him, in a very precise, specific situation?
- It could be that the games aren't fair - although the difference between the two environments is so great (to say nothing of the fact that maybe he plays on multiple 'free' sites - and it seems vastly unlikely that all of the free sites are unfair and/or skewed the same way vs him) that this seems to be discardable.

If I am correct that these are the only three possible situations, and your husband isn't disputing the math, then the only plausible answer is #1.

Because #2 is worth a million dollars and would change everything the world 'knows' about gaming.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've never believed in luck and will never have to... (touch wood)

Lucky you added that last bit.