"Luck"
It seems every person I talk to who is a losing player has the same complaint: "I have no luck", or "I have the worst luck man".
I was reading a thread on PocketFives and I came across this post.
Do you guys all really think "luck" exists?
Seriously?
All "luck" means is how variance has hit you in a particular hand. If you are a 95% favourite going to the river and your opponent hits his two-outer... does that mean you have bad luck? Of course not. If you play that same hand thousands of times, you'll win 95% of them. You got hit with one of the 5% this time. There is no such thing as luck. Everybody over the long haul will win and lose while ahead equal amounts, and win and lose while behind equal amounts. AA vs. KK preflop seems like such a big favorite... but it loses once in FIVE times! That is not a small amount if you are a regular online player seeing hundreds if not thousands of hands a day. People are not lucky or unlucky.
Luck = no.
Skill and probability = absolutely.
Luck, like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, doesn't exist.
Here is a definition of "Luck" from Wikipedia.
Luck as a fallacy
A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability, and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck commits the post hoc logical fallacy, which argues that because something is sequentially connected, it is connected otherwise, as well:
A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;
Therefore, A caused B.
In this particular perspective, probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections. A brick falling on a person walking below, therefore, is not a function of that person's luck, but is instead the result of a collection of understood, (or explainable) occurrences. Statistically, every person walking under the building was just as likely to have the brick fall on them.
The gambler's fallacy and inverse gambler's fallacy both explain some reasoning problems in common beliefs in luck. They involve denying the unpredictability of random events: "I haven't rolled a six all week, so I'll definitely roll one tonight".
Luck is merely an expression noting an extended period of noted outcomes, completely consistent with random walk probability theory. Wishing one "good luck" will not cause such an extended period, but it expresses positive feelings toward the one - not necessarily wholly undesirable.
I was reading a thread on PocketFives and I came across this post.
Do you guys all really think "luck" exists?
Seriously?
All "luck" means is how variance has hit you in a particular hand. If you are a 95% favourite going to the river and your opponent hits his two-outer... does that mean you have bad luck? Of course not. If you play that same hand thousands of times, you'll win 95% of them. You got hit with one of the 5% this time. There is no such thing as luck. Everybody over the long haul will win and lose while ahead equal amounts, and win and lose while behind equal amounts. AA vs. KK preflop seems like such a big favorite... but it loses once in FIVE times! That is not a small amount if you are a regular online player seeing hundreds if not thousands of hands a day. People are not lucky or unlucky.
Luck = no.
Skill and probability = absolutely.
Luck, like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, doesn't exist.
Here is a definition of "Luck" from Wikipedia.
Luck as a fallacy
A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability, and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck commits the post hoc logical fallacy, which argues that because something is sequentially connected, it is connected otherwise, as well:
A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;
Therefore, A caused B.
In this particular perspective, probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections. A brick falling on a person walking below, therefore, is not a function of that person's luck, but is instead the result of a collection of understood, (or explainable) occurrences. Statistically, every person walking under the building was just as likely to have the brick fall on them.
The gambler's fallacy and inverse gambler's fallacy both explain some reasoning problems in common beliefs in luck. They involve denying the unpredictability of random events: "I haven't rolled a six all week, so I'll definitely roll one tonight".
Luck is merely an expression noting an extended period of noted outcomes, completely consistent with random walk probability theory. Wishing one "good luck" will not cause such an extended period, but it expresses positive feelings toward the one - not necessarily wholly undesirable.
posted by myst @ 4:34 PM
2 Comments:
At 7:34 PM,
Anonymous said…
When it comes to poker, I only believe in "bad luck". When I win it is clearly due to skill and when I lose... well, that's just bad luck ;)
Seriously though... nice post.
At 6:46 PM,
Anonymous said…
Is that really what you think about luck? I just think luck has a little bit to do with it. Its not all probability. If you are all in on the turn, and the guy has a flush draw and hits when the pot is 100K. But you come right back and win the next 4 pots in the same situation worth 10K. You were about 80% favorite, and you won 4 out of 5, but wait, you lost 60K. I thought getting the chips in when you are 80% favorite was a profitable play ?? Thats why i think it has alot to do with situation. Getting lucky in the right spot hitting that 9% chance with the river to come can change the life of someone.
Example: Moneymaker in 2003 Main Event vs Phil Ivey. Phil Ivey has a chance to cripple Phil Ivey and Moneymaker hits his 4 outter. Phil Ivey is out(he would have probably finished in top 3 after that win(who knows), so probably about a 1 million $ difference for him) and for Moneymaker, he could be next out and we would probably not even remember who moneymaker is. Now his life has changed, he's a millionaire in endorsements and ended up making over 2 million in the tourny as we all know. I think LUCK had alot to do with Moneymakers win. Sure he put himself in some good spots and but he got lucky at the right time, right place.
I'm sure you agree that if a J comes in the WPT in Niagara. Theres a good posibility its a Million dollar swing for you. Do you agree ?
Post a Comment
<< Home