Re: Some people ARE CONSISTENTLY LUCKIER than others.




On Mar 1 2006 2:38 PM, RedKnave wrote:


Could be a semantics issue. Maybe I'm not accurately interpretting, or
understanding, Gary Carson's statement that, "Mathematics predicts that
some people will be consistently luckier than others." I don't usually
think of him as making meaningless statements. If there is any truth in
his statement, however, then it seems we must consider that the inverse
must be true, and that, while past cards aren't predictive of future cards
in the short term, it may be that a particular individual may overall get
consistently bad cards, bad flops, or bad beats.

It's not sematics.

It's the difference between the chances of something happening to a particular
person versus the chances of someting happening to some person.

Some person will win the lottery.  But, the chances of you winning the lottery
are very long.

The classic probability problem is the Birthday Problem.

What are the chances that two people in a classroom of about 30 people have the
same birthday?

It's about 50-50

What are the chances that someone in a class of about 30 people have your
birthday?

It's a longshot.

Somebody will end up having been lucky at cards their entire life.  We can
predict very accurately about how many such people there are.  We just have no
clue at all who that person will be.


I hesitate to give a personal example, but... I just got another AK
(happened to be off-suit, but that's not too important for the moment.)
Of the last 28 times I have gotten AK (s or o), only once have I gotten an
A or K on the flop, and only one other time did it improve by the river
(of the hands where I able to stay to the river.) I don't know whether
this classifies as bad luck, but I'm fairly certain the fact that I've
lost the majority of those hands doesn't make me a bad player.

What makes you a bad player is making bad decisions

I really don't know where any of this goes, though. Probably nowhere, as
Will said. I was just going off Gary's comment and it seemed like an
interesting exercise, with maybe a kernal or two for those who are,
mathematically, consistently unluckier than others.

The past is over with.  Be done with it because it's done with you.

Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Luck/skill in backgammon
    ... half-decent winning chances at all -- say, ... times my opponent's stack, I can't let him slide for free unless I'd ... outs is a shorthand description of how many cards I have that will win ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
  • Re: Luck/skill in backgammon
    ... If the first two cards are not good isn't it just about automatic to ... there's a big difference between choosing to not play (a ... by betting in such a manner to cause everyone else to fold. ... only because you're specifically referring to "win chances". ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
  • Re: Yup Online Poker Is Rigged
    ... At the most, since you know at least your 2 cards, ... his two cards, and the flop (he can't have a one outer pre-flop), you ... he has a 1 in 52 chance of hitting his J? ... Mark B actually pointed out that the chances of one outers ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Pls. Help: Generating Sets of Bingo Cards
    ... Chances will not be evenly distributed across several sets (sheets, ... players) as long as number selection for each card happens randomly ... and does not take into account the numbers of other cards in the set. ... a set with a less fortunate distribution will ...
    (rec.puzzles)
  • Re: My chances
    ... John Schoenfeld wrote: ... > What do you put my chances at having discovered something of great ... > significance in mathematics? ... Unsafe for children and most mammals) ...
    (sci.math)