What is the biggest lie about poker ? (1 Viewer)

[rummeraises]

Perhaps this old man is just better than you? You call it luck, he goes home and tells his wife that the fish was grumbling at his game again?

Well since he overlooks his hands, is unable to calculate odds , plays almost every hand and is reckless with his bets , maybe he has all the skills and thats why he beats the game.

 

[DrStrange]

Retrospectively, yes there are clearly players who have benefited from luck <variation> over their poker carriers. All players are not equally lucky. Variance might favor one player and curse another just due to random chance.

This is also true for real life - some people got lucky, born into wealth, blessed with ability to be a professional ball player, high IQ. And some people were quite unlucky, born in third world poverty, cancer before adulthood, crippling birth defect.

There is a selection effect as well. Really unlucky people are already dead - out of sight, out of mind. By the time you hit 90, I expect we would often find a long string of lucky breaks in your life. Same thing in poker. The players that are both bad and the victims of harmful variation tend to drop out of the game. That leaves the table with new players, good players and "lucky" players.

But these reflective things are not the proper questions to ponder. The question is, can we predict the future based on how "lucky" or "unlucky" someone ran in the past? { FWIIW, I say no we can't predict the future variance a player will experience based on prior variance. }

I also say we can not easily parse the effect of skill from the effects of luck. The "lucky old guy, too feeble minded to read his hand" might really have some trouble reading tabled hands in a circus game environment but he also could be more skilled than expected.

Also, observers are commonly plagued by bias. They remember noteworthy things they like and forget similar things they didn't like. You could poll the three dozen regulars in my game and find we have 25 winners, 9 break-even players and 2 losers. . . . So I harbor doubts about testimony based on observation and memories.

Normally, I ask for hand histories. But the selection bias effect happens here as well. You could look at a 100 hand session from my last session and find "proof" that I am unlucky or lucky, which ever you wanted to find. Hand histories picked from the lucky pile surely would show that point as would hands picked from the unlucky pile. It is quite hard to not fall into the "bad beat" vs "lucky brag" trap when evaluating play in a poker game.

Where others might see luck, I see well concealed skill -=- DrStrange

 

[rummeraises]

Your assertion is so ridiculous I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time replying here... But i'll try to be brief:

To the limit, all random outcomes converge to the same point. That does not mean that at a particular point in time all outcomes are the same, only that the longer the time frame, the more they will tend to be equal. Now, the differences in outcome at a certain time is not due to what you're calling luck, it's due to something called randomness.

And your next question, you're equating poker outcome with random card distribution. Poker results depend on many other factors other than card distribution. Poker is not roulette.

How do you think casinos make money in roulette, black jack and things like that?

Seriously... You have got to be kidding...

So randomness, always equals out for every poker player ? Tell us all, exactly how many hands must each player be part of, to prove that every player on earth ends up with the exact same amount of good luck and bad luck in poker ?

Then lets discuss the other luck factor, that if 100 people each get quads 4 times per year , it doesnt mean their luck is exactly equal, because there are many other variables. For example , getting quads and winning a pot is good luck, but if you dont get paid off with your quads and only win a $20 pot,. but someone else gets quads and gets paid off for a $500 pot , we can once again see how powerful the luck factor becomes.

You nor anyone else will ever convince me that every poker player on earth will end up with the exact same amount of good luck and bad luck, over the course of thousand of hands. My 40 years of playing, is the evidence I need to form my opinion on this subject.

 

[ChaosRock]

Okey dokey then.

 

[rummeraises]

Retrospectively, yes there are clearly players who have benefited from luck <variation> over their poker carriers. All players are not equally lucky. Variance might favor one player and curse another just due to random chance.

This is also true for real life - some people got lucky, born into wealth, blessed with ability to be a professional ball player, high IQ. And some people were quite unlucky, born in third world poverty, cancer before adulthood, crippling birth defect.

There is a selection effect as well. Really unlucky people are already dead - out of sight, out of mind. By the time you hit 90, I expect we would often find a long string of lucky breaks in your life. Same thing in poker. The players that are both bad and the victims of harmful variation tend to drop out of the game. That leaves the table with new players, good players and "lucky" players.

But these reflective things are not the proper questions to ponder. The question is, can we predict the future based on how "lucky" or "unlucky" someone ran in the past? { FWIIW, I say no we can't predict the future variance a player will experience based on prior variance. }

I also say we can not easily parse the effect of skill from the effects of luck. The "lucky old guy, too feeble minded to read his hand" might really have some trouble reading tabled hands in a circus game environment but he also could be more skilled than expected.

Also, observers are commonly plagued by bias. They remember noteworthy things they like and forget similar things they didn't like. You could poll the three dozen regulars in my game and find we have 25 winners, 9 break-even players and 2 losers. . . . So I harbor doubts about testimony based on observation and memories.

Normally, I ask for hand histories. But the selection bias effect happens here as well. You could look at a 100 hand session from my last session and find "proof" that I am unlucky or lucky, which ever you wanted to find. Hand histories picked from the lucky pile surely would show that point as would hands picked from the unlucky pile. It is quite hard to not fall into the "bad beat" vs "lucky brag" trap when evaluating play in a poker game.

Where others might see luck, I see well concealed skill -=- DrStrange

Ive seen this old man, overlook his hand, and lose pots, because he did not read his own hand properly. He does this quite often. This is further proof of how unskilled he is..but his continual GOOD LUCK, has made up for his lack of skills over the last 10 years Ive played with him. I can assure you, he isnt " acting" like a weak poker player..he is a weak player with incredible good luck.

 

[Mtvernonbryan]

“.....I knew that’s what you had!”

 

[Kain8]

Ive seen this old man, overlook his hand, and lose pots, because he did not read his own hand properly. He does this quite often. This is further proof of how unskilled he is..but his continual GOOD LUCK, has made up for his lack of skills over the last 10 years Ive played with him. I can assure you, he isnt " acting" like a weak poker player..he is a weak player with incredible good luck.

Fine, you're right, the old man is lucky and you're the unluckiest player in the history of everything to ever do anything in all of creation and throughout the possibility of infinite universes.

Feel better now?

 

[rummeraises]

Fine, you're right, the old man is lucky and you're the unluckiest player in the history of everything to ever do anything in all of creation and throughout the possibility of infinite universes.

Feel better now?

Another useless strawman response. I never claimed I was unlucky.

I feel fine.

 

[Josh Kifer]

No such thing as luck. Just timing and opportunity. Someone can be "lucky" for there life, but it most likely means they are hitting that randomness that poker odds give us. That's just going to happen.

Someone is going to hit there 2% chance about 2% of the time..... Skill and solid play will always win out against them with enough time at the table. In the end, luck is just easy answer to label the frustration of that SOB winning against your aces with 10/6 off.

Change your play against them and try and flip the script. Put "lucky" people on decisions. Most people deem them are people that need cards to hit when playing, don't give them free cards and make them lose chasing. If they hit once every 5 times, neat... Make them pay the other four.

 

[mooremo]

While I think you have brought up a couple of interesting points in your two threads, this is a poker CHIP site. Do you have any chips to show, or did you just get tired of 2+2?

 

[TheOctagon]

It's like any other game of independent trials. Over time, the odds play out exactly as probability would have them.

The problem is this: a single player cannot, in most cases, experience enough hands to approach a statistically relevant set of trials. This old man has seen a disproportionate amount of high hands given the amount of trials he's likely to have witnessed.

If you were to look across every poker hand being played across all time you'd see the same "luck" (i.e. frequency of hands per hands played) applied uniformly across those trials. Our limited perspective gives us the concept of our own personal sense of luck (THAT guy got 4 royals in 2 years - I can't even catch a low straight flush!). The odds are eternal.

So, in that case, if there is a being that is omniscient and cognizant about every poker hand - that's the poker god.

And and it definitely doesn't care about your pocket 9s .

 

[Shaggy]

Two points to throw in here that have as of yet been brought up:
1. The old man certainly has a table image that allows him to get paid off when he hits big. Likely other players make the assumption that Ol' Gus is misreading his hand again.
2. When you play trash... you have more opportunities to hit big hands. I will never hit quad nines when I'm holding 92 in the hole (because I'll fold pre flop)... other players will.

Based on the above... what is perceived as this old man's good luck vs. your good luck is likely skewed. I won't go so far as to say everyone's "luck" equals out. I will say that over time, everyone's card distribution equals out. What you do with those cards is up to you... see my two points above.

 

[Josh Kifer]

It's like any other game of independent trials. Over time, the odds play out exactly as probability would have them.

The problem is this: a single player cannot, in most cases, experience enough hands to approach a statistically relevant set of trials. This old man has seen a disproportionate amount of high hands given the amount of trials he's likely to have witnessed.

If you were to look across every poker hand being played across all time you'd see the same "luck" (i.e. frequency of hands per hands played) applied uniformly across those trials. Our limited perspective gives us the concept of our own personal sense of luck (THAT guy got 4 royals in 2 years - I can't even catch a low straight flush!). The odds are eternal.

So, in that case, if there is a being that is omniscient and cognizant about every poker hand - that's the poker god.

And and it definitely doesn't care about your pocket 9s .

My GF talks about how pocket nines and AK are the unluckest hands in poker. I just point out she plays them weakly and does not try and control the pot. She then yells at me and I get in trouble.

Booooo.

 

[Jimulacrum]

1. One anecdotal example cannot prove an assertion like yours, especially when we're talking about probability.

2. You present no data whatsoever to back up your claim. You say the old man has been destroying this game for 10 years, but has he or anyone kept any kind of records? You can rub elbows with as many celebrity players as you want, but it's no substitute for the real numbers.

3. Assuming for the moment that he actually does have an incredible win rate over 10 years, you really can't rule out that he's cheating. Especially if he's such a piss-poor player (which, again, we're assuming based on your word), it would be highly anomalous for him to win consistently over a long period. At some point, you have to entertain the idea that his win streak is the result of something other than some vague form of magic you call "luck." Of course, it's possible that his winning is due to chance, but the longer it goes on, the more the probability of him cheating (or being a hustler who has convinced you he's an idiot) starts to compete with and eventually exceed the probability of winning due to chance.

4. The claim isn't even that everyone will have the same exact amount of good and bad outcomes over a lifetime. That's a straw man. Even if we all lived 100,000 years, it still wouldn't be true, just as you will almost never have 50% heads and 50% tails over a gazillion coin flips. The truth is that everyone has equal opportunity to receive good and bad cards in any fair game. The cards are randomized each hand, and the probability of each outcome is always the same for everyone, but actual results may (and often do) vary wildly.

 

[rummeraises]

While I think you have brought up a couple of interesting points in your two threads, this is a poker CHIP site. Do you have any chips to show, or did you just get tired of 2+2?

This specific section of the forum, is about casinos and poker ?

 

[JRReynolds6181]

“More rake is better” comes to mind as a big lie....

 

[rummeraises]

Two points to throw in here that have as of yet been brought up:
1. The old man certainly has a table image that allows him to get paid off when he hits big. Likely other players make the assumption that Ol' Gus is misreading his hand again.
2. When you play trash... you have more opportunities to hit big hands. I will never hit quad nines when I'm holding 92 in the hole (because I'll fold pre flop)... other players will.

Agreed. One night, I counted how many hands we played at the table. We dealt out about 85 hands and out of that, the old man played 79 hands . His good luck allows him to play so many hands and beat the game . If I played as loosely as he does, I would be a regular loser in the game. I know this, because Ive tried to play his style and it is a losing proposition for me.

 

[TheOctagon]

Guys, I was just kidding about the 9s. You don't have to crap on them so hard...

 

[Josh Kifer]

1. One anecdotal example cannot prove an assertion like yours, especially when we're talking about probability.

2. You present no data whatsoever to back up your claim. You say the old man has been destroying this game for 10 years, but has he or anyone kept any kind of records? You can rub elbows with as many celebrity players as you want, but it's no substitute for the real numbers.

3. Assuming for the moment that he actually does have an incredible win rate over 10 years, you really can't rule out that he's cheating. Especially if he's such a piss-poor player (which, again, we're assuming based on your word), it would be highly anomalous for him to win consistently over a long period. At some point, you have to entertain the idea that his win streak is the result of something other than some vague form of magic you call "luck." Of course, it's possible that his winning is due to chance, but the longer it goes on, the more the probability of him cheating (or being a hustler who has convinced you he's an idiot) starts to compete with and eventually exceed the probability of winning due to chance.

4. The claim isn't even that everyone will have the same exact amount of good and bad outcomes over a lifetime. That's a straw man. Even if we all lived 100,000 years, it still wouldn't be true, just as you will almost never have 50% heads and 50% tails over a gazillion coin flips. The truth is that everyone has equal opportunity to receive good and bad cards in any fair game. The cards are randomized each hand, and the probability of each outcome is always the same for everyone, but actual results may (and often do) vary wildly.

Everyone says my grandma is lucky on the slots. She's won 5k-6k jackpots so many times. No one is accounting for the multiple trips she's gone and won nothing, and I think she's down 10-20k in the long run. But that data is ignored and she "always wins"...

That's not how it works....

 

[Chipandchair]

Ive seen this old man, overlook his hand, and lose pots, because he did not read his own hand properly. He does this quite often. This is further proof of how unskilled he is..but his continual GOOD LUCK, has made up for his lack of skills over the last 10 years Ive played with him. I can assure you, he isnt " acting" like a weak poker player..he is a weak player with incredible good luck.

Maybe he is just skilled at making you believe that he is unskilled??

 

[Jimulacrum]

"This guy is so bad at pool, man. He knocks the balls off the table, he scratched on the break, and he almost used the pool cue backward one time, right in front of me!"

"Such a moron. I have no idea how he managed to beat me out of that $200 on the last game. Must be the luckiest guy alive."

 

[rummeraises]

1. One anecdotal example cannot prove an assertion like yours, especially when we're talking about probability.

2. You present no data whatsoever to back up your claim. You say the old man has been destroying this game for 10 years, but has he or anyone kept any kind of records? You can rub elbows with as many celebrity players as you want, but it's no substitute for the real numbers.

3. Assuming for the moment that he actually does have an incredible win rate over 10 years, you really can't rule out that he's cheating. Especially if he's such a piss-poor player (which, again, we're assuming based on your word), it would be highly anomalous for him to win consistently over a long period. At some point, you have to entertain the idea that his win streak is the result of something other than some vague form of magic you call "luck." Of course, it's possible that his winning is due to chance, but the longer it goes on, the more the probability of him cheating (or being a hustler who has convinced you he's an idiot) starts to compete with and eventually exceed the probability of winning due to chance.

4. The claim isn't even that everyone will have the same exact amount of good and bad outcomes over a lifetime. That's a straw man. Even if we all lived 100,000 years, it still wouldn't be true, just as you will almost never have 50% heads and 50% tails over a gazillion coin flips. The truth is that everyone has equal opportunity to receive good and bad cards in any fair game. The cards are randomized each hand, and the probability of each outcome is always the same for everyone, but actual results may (and often do) vary wildly.

Hes not cheating. Hes been a reckless winning poker player most of his life . Ive been told this by all the local players who have played with him for 40 years. Years ago, I believed the lie, that all poker players have the same good/bad luck over the course of time. After playing poker with this old man for 10 years, I know the truth now.

Just because all players have EQUAL opportunity to get good or bad cards, does not mean that opportunity will always manifest itself equally for all poker players over the course of time.

 

[rummeraises]

"This guy is so bad at pool, man. He knocks the balls of the table, he scratched on the break, and he almost used the pool cue backward one time, right in front of me!"

"Such a moron. I have no idea how he managed to beat me out of that $200 on the last game. Must be the luckiest guy alive."

Are you truly trying to equate the game of pool, with poker ?

 

[Josh Kifer]

Maybe he is just skilled at making you believe that he is unskilled??

I did that once at my game. Got nearly blackout drunk before hand on whiskey, started sobering up but kept on "drinking" and playing loose as hell. Finally hit a monster and got paid off. Table image is real, man.... But then I had 3 more hours of dealing full of old whiskey.

I'm an idiot and stopped having fun.

 

[Kain8]

Another useless strawman response. I never claimed I was unlucky.

I feel fine.

Hes not cheating. Hes been a reckless winning poker player most of his life . Ive been told this by all the local players who have played with him for 40 years. Years ago, I believed the lie, that all poker players have the same good/bad luck over the course of time. After playing poker with this old man for 10 years, I know the truth now.

Just because all players have EQUAL opportunity to get good or bad cards, does not mean that opportunity will always manifest itself equally for all poker players over the course of time.

Fine, the old man is THE ABSOLUTE LUCKIEST YOU'VE EVER SEEN IN YOUR 40+ YEARS OF PLAYING, end of discussion, and you got your confirmation bias that you're desperately seeking.

Feel better NOW?

 

[rummeraises]

Maybe he is just skilled at making you believe that he is unskilled??

Doubt it.
Im not aware of any poker players that purposefully overlook their winning hands and let the losing hand win the pot just for the sake of trying to act like they are unskilled.

Fine, the old man is THE ABSOLUTE LUCKIEST YOU'VE EVER SEEN IN YOUR 40+ YEARS OF PLAYING, end of discussion, and you got your confirmation bias that you're desperately seeking.

Feel better NOW?

It seems like this topic, irritates you. No one forced you to come here and reply.

 

[Josh Kifer]

Fine, the old man is THE ABSOLUTE LUCKIEST YOU'VE EVER SEEN IN YOUR 40+ YEARS OF PLAYING, end of discussion, and you got your confirmation bias that you're desperately seeking.

Feel better NOW?

I feel better. But I'm at work so it does not matter.

 

[Josh Kifer]

"This guy is so bad at pool, man. He knocks the balls of the table, he scratched on the break, and he almost used the pool cue backward one time, right in front of me!"

"Such a moron. I have no idea how he managed to beat me out of that $200 on the last game. Must be the luckiest guy alive."

How dare you compare a game of skill with a game of skill.

SHAME.

 

[kmccormick100]

So randomness, always equals out for every poker player ? Tell us all, exactly how many hands must each player be part of, to prove that every player on earth ends up with the exact same amount of good luck and bad luck in poker ?

Then lets discuss the other luck factor, that if 100 people each get quads 4 times per year , it doesnt mean their luck is exactly equal, because there are many other variables. For example , getting quads and winning a pot is good luck, but if you dont get paid off with your quads and only win a $20 pot,. but someone else gets quads and gets paid off for a $500 pot , we can once again see how powerful the luck factor becomes.

You nor anyone else will ever convince me that every poker player on earth will end up with the exact same amount of good luck and bad luck, over the course of thousand of hands. My 40 years of playing, is the evidence I need to form my opinion on this subject.

No, I would say for the majority of players true randomness never equals out. People that have played 5million+ hands of online poker probably experience close to true randomness, but they can see unlucky downswings for tens of thousands of hands at a time. A live recreational player might see 5-10k hands a year, a full time grinder somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-40k hands/year. Given those numbers it's not unreasonable to think a player could run either lucky or unlucky for years at a time given statistical variance and never realize the equilibrium in their "luck". Many players run unlucky in their first months or years of poker, and go broke, never to realize their "good luck". Better players learn how to mitigate their risk and weather out downswings and "unlucky periods" or how to adjust and lose the minimum. Maximizing value when ahead helps offset "bad luck" but most recreational players don't come anywhere close to maximizing value.

Also, still not sure if troll.

 

[Josh Kifer]

No, I would say for the majority of players true randomness never equals out. People that have played 5million+ hands of online poker probably experience close to true randomness, but they can see unlucky downswings for tens of thousands of hands at a time. A live recreational player might see 5-10k hands a year, a full time grinder somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-40k hands/year. Given those numbers it's not unreasonable to think a player could run either lucky or unlucky for years at a time given statistical variance and never realize the equilibrium in their "luck". Many players run unlucky in their first months or years of poker, and go broke, never to realize their "good luck". Better players learn how to mitigate their risk and weather out downswings and "unlucky periods" or how to adjust and lose the minimum. Maximizing value when ahead helps offset "bad luck" but most recreational players don't come anywhere close to maximizing value.

Also, still not sure if troll.
View attachment 268009

I'm posting, so you know there is some trolling going on.