Actually, I intended to use the 10k number as the short term in which you can have serious upswings or downswings. In the 2+2 thread a year or two back, they figured the long term was well over a million hands. However, by the time you get to the long term, your skill level, as that of your opponents has changed so much that it is no longer relevant. Yikes!
Cheers
Magi
Oops. My bad. Like I said when I first waded into this debate, I'm a noob and so I certainly haven't wanted to come across as a know-it-all. To be honest, I thought there was at least a zero missing from that figure in order for it to be considered a large number. Next time I'll make sure my brain's in gear before I hit reply.
However, my understanding of why poker is considered one long session is because of the law of large numbers. Meaning, that if I'm an 80% favourite to win a hand, I cannot expect to win 8/10, 80/100, 800/1000, etc ... but eventually after many tens of thousands (or millions of hands ... like I'll live that long) that I should expect to have won about 80% of the time. In the meantime I can expect to win or lose 10/10, 80/100, etc...
Meaning, that if I'm an 80% favourite to win a hand, I cannot expect to win 8/10, 80/100, 800/1000, etc ... but eventually after many tens of thousands (or millions of hands ... like I'll live that long) that I should expect to have won about 80% of the time. In the meantime I can expect to win/lose 10/10, 80/100, etc...
Or am I also completely stunned?
You CAN expect to win 8/10 hands (on average)...that's what it really means to be an 80% favorite to win a hand. Since the hands are independent, we can model the probabilities of winning 'n' out of 10 trials, such that in each trial we are 80% to win. I have printed out a table that indicates 1) the likelihood of winning 'n' trials, 2) the contribution of that event to the total # of hands won. Even though you CAN expect to win 8/10 hands, you WILL win 8/10 hands only 30.2% of the time. You will win <= 4 hands less than 1% of the time and you will win all 10 hands 10.7% of the time.
You CAN expect to win 8/10 hands (on average)...that's what it really means to be an 80% favorite to win a hand. Since the hands are independent, we can model the probabilities of winning 'n' out of 10 trials, such that in each trial we are 80% to win. I have printed out a table that indicates 1) the likelihood of winning 'n' trials, 2) the contribution of that event to the total # of hands won. Even though you CAN expect to win 8/10 hands, you WILL win 8/10 hands only 30.2% of the time. You will win <= 4 hands less than 1% of the time and you will win all 10 hands 10.7% of the time.
P.S. I can't wait to hear what dalini has to say...
You asked, I agree the hands are independent of the hand dealt prior and after each shuffle of the cards. This idea that the cards will find some form of mathematical equilibrium after so many hands is bunk. As for the rest of your wishy washy explanation of you expect to win 8/10 times with that hand 30.2% of the time.
You asked, I agree the hands are independent of the hand dealt prior and after each shuffle of the cards. This idea that the cards will find some form of mathematical equilibrium after so many hands is bunk. As for the rest of your wishy washy explanation of you expect to win 8/10 times with that hand 30.2% of the time.
How can anyone play that way?? WTF.
I think this thread needs a poll question!
Is luck a required factor to win? YES/NO!
You cannot agree that the hands are independent but then fail to accept the mathematical laws of probability (yes, they are laws) that govern independent events.
You ask, "How can anyone play that way??". I respond, "How can anyone NOT play this way??"
That being said, I agree that, to win at poker, you need to have at least an average (or slightly below average) amount of luck.
Overseer55:
Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. In the long run, I'd win 80% of the time but in the short term it won't work out that way.
For example, if I was to flip a coin 10 times, it probably won't come up heads 5 times and tails 5 times. But if I flipped that coin a million times (while it still probably wouldn't come up exactly half of mill of each) it would be statistically close enough. During those million coin flips though, there would be stretches where either heads or tails came up more frequently than the 1:1 odds suggest.
Back to poker ... that means that in the long run if I play against someone who will put even money in the pot when they are a 2:1 dog, eventually I will win money in the long run. Even if in the short term they make their hand 100 times in a row. Of course, I would also have to avoid putting even money in the pot when I was a 2:1 dog in order for that to be profitable.
dalini:
Since I don't believe in luck I'm going to say that is not a factor in winning. To me luck is simply a word used to describe the outcome of an event. So I do use the terms 'that was lucky' or 'what rotten luck' after the outcome is known but luck not is a force that determines the outcome of that event.
dalini:
Since I don't believe in luck I'm going to say that is not a factor in winning. To me luck is simply a word used to describe the outcome of an event. So I do use the terms 'that was lucky' or 'what rotten luck' after the outcome is known but luck not is a force that determines the outcome of that event.
Luck is a very well used and defined word in the language. Everyone knows what it means. Whether you believe in luck or not, it exists as culture has defined it in poker. Whether the people on this thread want to concede that fact or not is irrelevant.
When you are sitting at a table of ten players it is doubtful you will be dealt the absolute best starting hand every time. Even if you were could you recognize you had the best starting hand? Probability 1 in 10 hands dealt you have the best starting hand. Its relative isn't it? After the cards are dealt what is the probability your hand remains the best hand? As you have no way of knowing what the other player was dealt or will call with. Starts to get rather perplexing.
So really any hand you choose to play you run the risk of being beat. Unless you have the miraclous ability to read what the other players are holding you run the risk of falling victim at any given time to 3 of kind, st8s or just being outdrawn which happens so often. Being trapped or outdrawn can be coined as your luck.
Luck is a very well used and defined word in the language. Everyone knows what it means. Whether you believe in luck or not, it exists as culture has defined it in poker. Whether the people on this thread want to concede that fact or not is irrelevant.
When you are sitting at a table of ten players it is doubtful you will be dealt the absolute best starting hand every time. Even if you were could you recognize you had the best starting hand? Probability 1 in 10 hands dealt you have the best starting hand. Its relative isn't it? After the cards are dealt what is the probability your hand remains the best hand? As you have no way of knowing what the other player was dealt or will call with. Starts to get rather perplexing.
So really any hand you choose to play you run the risk of being beat. Unless you have the miraclous ability to read what the other players are holding you run the risk of falling victim at any given time to 3 of kind, st8s or just being outdrawn which happens so often. Being trapped or outdrawn can be coined as your luck.
Ouch, now my head is really hurting... Gotta give him (her) credit, a persistant troll.... lol..
The old question ‘what’s better, luck or skill?’ may apply more closely to poker than anything else. If you were to ask most people if they’d rather be lucky or skilled at poker, most of them would probably say skilled. Lefty Gomez did say “I’d rather be lucky than good”, and he’s one of the best pitchers ever to wear Yankees’ pinstripes, but with that attitude I’m guessing Gomez wasn’t a great poker player.
Anyone who picks luck over skills is a fool, plain and simple. The reasoning is quite simple if you can break away from your lucky rabbit’s foot long enough to figure it out. Luck can and does fade, while skill is yours forever.
If I still haven’t converted you to the sensible realm, think of it this way: Would you rather know that you have only a 10 percent chance of hitting one of your outs on the river, or just hope you get lucky? I’ll take the skill, which would likely cause you to fold and keep the money you would have lost while putting your money on pure luck.
Luck is for losers. Anyone who wants to argue that, “hey, I watch poker on TV all the time and the pros are always getting lucky” simply doesn’t have a case. It’s all right that the pros get lucky every now and then, though. You know why? Because they’ve also got incredible skill. If you want to throw together a little luck with your immense skill, that’s the panacea. In fact, that’s the formula for winning the now over-populated World Series of Poker main event. You need a big load of skill to make sure you’re making the right decisions during the week you’ll be playing, but you also need a little luck for when your immense skills fail you.
I think the great Doyle Brunson puts it best in his classic book Super System. “Everyone gets lucky once and a while. But no one is consistently lucky. So it has to be something other than luck to account for the fact that I’ve been a consistently big winner through the year.”
If you want to argue with the 10-time WSOP bracelet winner, go right ahead. I’ll be over here working on improving my skills, while you keep relying on dumb luck.
How do you explain I am dealt a pair of nines. I am one position away from the button and there is one limper after the big blind. I raise 3 times the big blind and that gets rid of the person on the button and the blinds. The flop comes down and there is a nine. I flop a set. I only have one oponent and what could he possibly have and what are the chances. He moves all in and I naturally call with my set. Turns out he is playing with a 5 9 of diamonds and is on a flush draw. He makes his flush and I lose. What's the mathematical probability of that. I am sure all way round I was favoured to win but he was luckier that time. Really, another bad beat to add to the list.
Cards have no memory and each hand is independent of prior and future hands. Contrary to what some may believe. Although it was a bad beat for me on the flip side he played those cards in hopes of getting a flush and he got it. In spite of the odds of making that hand.
How do you explain I am dealt a pair of nines. I am one position away from the button and there is one limper after the big blind. I raise 3 times the big blind and that gets rid of the person on the button and the blinds. The flop comes down and there is a nine. I flop a set. I only have one oponent and what could he possibly have and what are the chances. He moves all in and I naturally call with my set. Turns out he is playing with a 5 9 of diamonds and is on a flush draw. He makes his flush and I lose. What's the mathematical probability of that. I am sure all way round I was favoured to win but he was luckier that time. Really, another bad beat to add to the list.
Cards have no memory and each hand is independent of prior and future hands. Contrary to what some may believe. Although it was a bad beat for me on the flip side he played those cards in hopes of getting a flush and he got it. In spite of the odds of making that hand.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! One bad beat is your argument. Seriously?
Like everything in life, the amount of LUCK one has is directly related to the amount of effort they put into an act.
If you're trying to prove your point with a single beat, you're wasting your time. Sure luck has a factor, be it good or bad luck. But what you don't seem to understand that your set will win more in the long run than your opponents "lucky" hit. Considering he was on a flush draw, he made the right move by calling you.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! One bad beat is your argument. Seriously?
/g2
That is one of many bad beats. Just you and the other guy to see the flop. The flop comes up diamonds which he happens to have. What are the chances of that? Then he goes on to make his flush. Talk about a suck out hand for this. Furthermore who calls a preflop raise with 5 9. But this is what you are up against. People that play all kinds of cards and they sucking out on you. If are not calling this luck than what is it?
Preflop I had 9 9 he had 9 5 preflop I was 85 % favored to win. After the flop I was 71% favored to win. A huge suck out. So even though mathematically I was favored he lucked out and beat me.
Preflop I had 9 9 he had 9 5 preflop I was 85 % favored to win. After the flop I was 71% favored to win. A huge suck out. So even though mathematically I was favored he lucked out and beat me.
Huh? Where do you get the percentages from? Did you take into account all the hands dealt for that specific tournament to all players in that tournament to see how all the math calculates out? Just because you know mathematics doesn't mean you will be favored in winning any given hand. As for the rest of your wishy washy explanation, learn to take a beat like a boy (and work up from there).
Aaaaaand, play that same hand 1,000,000 times, you'll win about 710,000 of them. He'll win (or "get lucky", in the parlance you seem to prefer) 290,000 of them.
Over the long run, you win money because of people like this, who aren't skilled (or knowledgeable in Dalinispeak) enough to know to to lay it down.
Seriously, stop with the luck stuff. It's all math. If you choose to not play the percentages most players, you'll almost certainly be a long run loser, unless your reads are amazing or you have a SuperUserAccount.
Huh? Where do you get the percentages from? Did you take into account all the hands dealt for that specific tournament to all players in that tournament to see how all the math calculates out? Just because you know mathematics doesn't mean you will be favored in winning any given hand. As for the rest of your wishy washy explanation, learn to take a beat like a boy (and work up from there).
On another thread someone gave this link. I put in the hands and was given those percentages. This threads premise is that poker is not a game of chance or luck. Observation and experience shows otherwise.
Aaaaaand, play that same hand 1,000,000 times, you'll win about 710,000 of them. He'll win (or "get lucky", in the parlance you seem to prefer) 290,000 of them.
Over the long run, you win money because of people like this, who aren't skilled (or knowledgeable in Dalinispeak) enough to know to to lay it down.
Seriously, stop with the luck stuff. It's all math. If you choose to not play the percentages most players, you'll almost certainly be a long run loser, unless your reads are amazing or you have a SuperUserAccount.
when someone sucks out on you what do you call it? Math? Luck is just a word and everyone knows what it means. Preflop you have aces and someone calls with a junk hand and wins. What do call this math a variance?? Why can't anyone admit such a player got lucky and luck is a factor in poker.
Comments
However, my understanding of why poker is considered one long session is because of the law of large numbers. Meaning, that if I'm an 80% favourite to win a hand, I cannot expect to win 8/10, 80/100, 800/1000, etc ... but eventually after many tens of thousands (or millions of hands ... like I'll live that long) that I should expect to have won about 80% of the time. In the meantime I can expect to win or lose 10/10, 80/100, etc...
Or am I also completely stunned?
/g2
You CAN expect to win 8/10 hands (on average)...that's what it really means to be an 80% favorite to win a hand. Since the hands are independent, we can model the probabilities of winning 'n' out of 10 trials, such that in each trial we are 80% to win. I have printed out a table that indicates 1) the likelihood of winning 'n' trials, 2) the contribution of that event to the total # of hands won. Even though you CAN expect to win 8/10 hands, you WILL win 8/10 hands only 30.2% of the time. You will win <= 4 hands less than 1% of the time and you will win all 10 hands 10.7% of the time.
# Wins // Probability // Contribution
0 // 0.000% // 0.0000
1 // 0.000% // 0.0000
2 // 0.007% // 0.0001
3 // 0.079% // 0.0024
4 // 0.551% // 0.0220
5 // 2.642% // 0.1321
6 // 8.808% // 0.5285
7 // 20.133% // 1.4093
8 // 30.199% // 2.4159
9 // 26.844% // 2.4159
10 // 10.737% // 1.0737
-- // 100.000% // 8.0000
- Mark
P.S. I can't wait to hear what dalini has to say...
yep. me too.
You asked, I agree the hands are independent of the hand dealt prior and after each shuffle of the cards. This idea that the cards will find some form of mathematical equilibrium after so many hands is bunk. As for the rest of your wishy washy explanation of you expect to win 8/10 times with that hand 30.2% of the time.
How can anyone play that way?? WTF.
I think this thread needs a poll question!
Is luck a required factor to win? YES/NO!
What's a haddon
You ask, "How can anyone play that way??". I respond, "How can anyone NOT play this way??"
That being said, I agree that, to win at poker, you need to have at least an average (or slightly below average) amount of luck.
- Mark
Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. In the long run, I'd win 80% of the time but in the short term it won't work out that way.
For example, if I was to flip a coin 10 times, it probably won't come up heads 5 times and tails 5 times. But if I flipped that coin a million times (while it still probably wouldn't come up exactly half of mill of each) it would be statistically close enough. During those million coin flips though, there would be stretches where either heads or tails came up more frequently than the 1:1 odds suggest.
Back to poker ... that means that in the long run if I play against someone who will put even money in the pot when they are a 2:1 dog, eventually I will win money in the long run. Even if in the short term they make their hand 100 times in a row. Of course, I would also have to avoid putting even money in the pot when I was a 2:1 dog in order for that to be profitable.
dalini:
Since I don't believe in luck I'm going to say that is not a factor in winning. To me luck is simply a word used to describe the outcome of an event. So I do use the terms 'that was lucky' or 'what rotten luck' after the outcome is known but luck not is a force that determines the outcome of that event.
Luck is a very well used and defined word in the language. Everyone knows what it means. Whether you believe in luck or not, it exists as culture has defined it in poker. Whether the people on this thread want to concede that fact or not is irrelevant.
When you are sitting at a table of ten players it is doubtful you will be dealt the absolute best starting hand every time. Even if you were could you recognize you had the best starting hand? Probability 1 in 10 hands dealt you have the best starting hand. Its relative isn't it? After the cards are dealt what is the probability your hand remains the best hand? As you have no way of knowing what the other player was dealt or will call with. Starts to get rather perplexing.
So really any hand you choose to play you run the risk of being beat. Unless you have the miraclous ability to read what the other players are holding you run the risk of falling victim at any given time to 3 of kind, st8s or just being outdrawn which happens so often. Being trapped or outdrawn can be coined as your luck.
/g2
Luck vs Skill...the CAGE MATCH!! Only ONE will survive!!
Let's see now, do I want to get LUCKY tonight...or SKILLED? lol
Cards have no memory and each hand is independent of prior and future hands. Contrary to what some may believe. Although it was a bad beat for me on the flip side he played those cards in hopes of getting a flush and he got it. In spite of the odds of making that hand.
/g2
/g2
If you're trying to prove your point with a single beat, you're wasting your time. Sure luck has a factor, be it good or bad luck. But what you don't seem to understand that your set will win more in the long run than your opponents "lucky" hit. Considering he was on a flush draw, he made the right move by calling you.
He has a flush draw
He has seven outs
That means he'll win ROUGHLY 30% of the time
He won
Wow.. this example is statistically irrelevant
Mark
That is one of many bad beats. Just you and the other guy to see the flop. The flop comes up diamonds which he happens to have. What are the chances of that? Then he goes on to make his flush. Talk about a suck out hand for this. Furthermore who calls a preflop raise with 5 9. But this is what you are up against. People that play all kinds of cards and they sucking out on you. If are not calling this luck than what is it?
Variance?
Statistically average?
Shit happens?
STFU already
Mark
Preflop I had 9 9 he had 9 5 preflop I was 85 % favored to win. After the flop I was 71% favored to win. A huge suck out. So even though mathematically I was favored he lucked out and beat me.
Mark
/g2
Aaaaaand, play that same hand 1,000,000 times, you'll win about 710,000 of them. He'll win (or "get lucky", in the parlance you seem to prefer) 290,000 of them.
Over the long run, you win money because of people like this, who aren't skilled (or knowledgeable in Dalinispeak) enough to know to to lay it down.
Seriously, stop with the luck stuff. It's all math. If you choose to not play the percentages most players, you'll almost certainly be a long run loser, unless your reads are amazing or you have a SuperUserAccount.
On another thread someone gave this link. I put in the hands and was given those percentages. This threads premise is that poker is not a game of chance or luck. Observation and experience shows otherwise.
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_odds/texas_holdem
when someone sucks out on you what do you call it? Math? Luck is just a word and everyone knows what it means. Preflop you have aces and someone calls with a junk hand and wins. What do call this math a variance?? Why can't anyone admit such a player got lucky and luck is a factor in poker.
You are a real genius. You think of that all on you own:-X