Bad Beats

[IcyHotMonkey]

Well to nobody's surprise there are a lot of topics concerning bad beats. The common notion is that the person who gave the beat loses in the long run. Well in this notion is the horrible assumption that the player is constantly the underdog in the hand. Even good players make risky decisions at times. There is no long run if for the most part the player makes correct decisions.

Nobody enjoys the antics of Phil Helmuth, but it is safe to say that he really has some horrid luck at times. It could very well be a trick of the cameras, but I rarely see him dish out a bad beat in comparison to the amount he takes in. Why is this the case? The common answer is that he is rarely in the position to give bad beats. I began keeping track of my bad beat ratio. The ratio of me giving out a bad beat to receiving a bad beat is 1:7.5

Luckiest Man in the World (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13081463_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-THE-LUCKIEST-MAN-IN-THE-WORLD-name_page.html)
Why is it so taboo saying I have horrid "luck". I'm a pretty young kid, but already have had more epic tragedies then the average person. (i.e. told I only had several years to live [beat that one though], had someone die in my lap, etc...) Statistically, one would think I would come out ahead of the people that give bad beats. But why? Probability states that it is possible for someone to lose 100 hands in a row, just not very probable. But then think of everything collectively, if a million hands are played within a couple hours, is it that hard to imagine someone losing 100 hands in row out of the thousands playing?

I was getting ready for a casino trip, when my friend decided to prove my bad luck by playing highcard. I lost 4 in a row. Then we switched games and another friend joined in. We started playing 3 person 7card draw for fun while waiting to leave. I lost about 5-6 in a row and came to the conclusion that we wouldn't leave until I won a hand. Keep in mind this is 3 handed. Well... 25 minutes later I finally won a hand. I lost a good amount of hands. I've never been on the opposite end and won that many times in a row.
Anything is possible, but someone has to be one end of the spectrum and someone has to be the other...
Reminds me of the movie The Cooler. Could be an aura, karma, call it what you will, but it seems possible for someone to just have a lot better luck then another.
Am I a rambling idiot or does this post entertain interesting ideas? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[low content]

It's entirely possible that you've had more than the expected share of bad beats . . . like you said, there will be people at both ends of the spectrum. But it's huge a mistake to think that your past experience in that regard is a predictor of future events. In my experience, that type of attitude tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy because it causes you to play gun-shy, i.e. less agressively than you should, and you end up leaving yourself open for more bad beats than is necessary. As to why you should come out ahead of the people dishing out bad beats . . . a bad beat usually involves someone calling/betting/raising from behind without odds to do so, which is the type of play that pays good players in the long run.

It seems you already understand this mentally--my reason for responding is really to encourage you to try to digest it psychologically and to not expect bad things, in poker or in life, because of what you've experienced.

[TStoneMBD]

firstly id like to say that your post is a meaningless rant that has no fluent topic for discussion.

secondly, id like to say that phil hellmuth may take more than his fair share of bad beats because he never gets his chips in the middle unless he is holding the nuts. he does not put himself in a position to outdraw others. hellmuth's style could be considered the opposite style of gus hansen, in that gus hansen gambles with the worst hand frequently, but in exchange takes down alot of small pots and builds his stack quickly. that is why you see gus hansen bad beating everybody, and you always see hellmuth take the worst of it.

[jimymat]

Bad players give bad beats. Good players get bad beats put on them. This is how it works for apparent reasons.

[JinX11]

What is a bad beat?? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[IcyHotMonkey]

ah, but a much needed rant. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[3N1GM4]

Firstly, I don't think this post is completely irrelevant as someone just accused it of being, although I do think it may be less to do with poker and more to do with "luck" and life in general.

It all depends on you philosophical outlook I guess. The easiest way to think about it is that whatever is going to happen will happen, that everything is predetermined if you like. We still make choices, sure, but we can only make one choice (as far as we know), so we will only ever see one outcome. Following this, obviously some people will have more "luck" than others. It is perfectly possible that someone could go their entire life (or millions of hands) without winning a single one. Unlikely, yes, but perfectly possible. Equally, someone else could win every hand they ever play... These are the extremes of course, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.

The point that was made about past performance of chance events not affecting future events is an important one as well. Just because you go on a massive losing streak, doesn't automatically mean it will continue. The nature and definition of "chance" is that each event is mutually exclusive and two such events cannot have their outcome affected by the outcome of the other.

If you play a hand a certain (correct) way and lose, it shouldn't mean you play the hand any different if the same situation occurs again. However, if you let these losses affect the way you play, clearly your game will worsen and as a result you will lose more. this can become a vicious cycle and convince you that you're "unlucky" in some way.

I could go on, but I'm sure I'm boring you already. Anyways, let me know what the rest of guys think.

Lates.

[IcyHotMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]

The point that was made about past performance of chance events not affecting future events is an important one as well. Just because you go on a massive losing streak, doesn't automatically mean it will continue. The nature and definition of "chance" is that each event is mutually exclusive and two such events cannot have their outcome affected by the outcome of the other.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and did not mean it to seem as if I am implying that past events will dictate the future.
I'm a very logical guy, actually extremely logical... Lately probability seems like an excuse. If I lose 10 hands in a row, the likelihood of that happening again is the same. But if it happens again, we deem it "probable" therefore excusable.
Ever met someone who constantly wins at chance games. And the excuse is, "well in the long run it will even out" but it doesn't. That person just wins a lot, in fact you rarely see him lose chance games. It gets to a point in which if you were to bet between him and another playing highcard, you'd put your money on him. Why do we get this inclination to gamble on him if the probability states that the other guy is just as likely to win? The answer is usually "because of past events". Why, it is the only tangible (recordings) answer one can conclude even though the "educated" man would still say there is an equal chance.

This is a massive stretch, but I find it entertaining that some people who do not believe in luck believe in religion.

I'm not saying that I believe in luck, I'm just posing the question for conversation. So please don't respond with silly replies about how idiotic I am or about how meaningless this post is (just don't respond if that's the case).

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The point that was made about past performance of chance events not affecting future events is an important one as well. Just because you go on a massive losing streak, doesn't automatically mean it will continue. The nature and definition of "chance" is that each event is mutually exclusive and two such events cannot have their outcome affected by the outcome of the other.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and did not mean it to seem as if I am implying that past events will dictate the future.
I'm a very logical guy, actually extremely logical... Lately probability seems like an excuse. If I lose 10 hands in a row, the likelihood of that happening again is the same. But if it happens again, we deem it "probable" therefore excusable.
Ever met someone who constantly wins at chance games. And the excuse is, "well in the long run it will even out" but it doesn't. That person just wins a lot, in fact you rarely see him lose chance games. It gets to a point in which if you were to bet between him and another playing highcard, you'd put your money on him. Why do we get this inclination to gamble on him if the probability states that the other guy is just as likely to win? The answer is usually "because of past events". Why, it is the only tangible (recordings) answer one can conclude even though the "educated" man would still say there is an equal chance.

This is a massive stretch, but I find it entertaining that some people who do not believe in luck believe in religion.

I'm not saying that I believe in luck, I'm just posing the question for conversation. So please don't respond with silly replies about how idiotic I am or about how meaningless this post is (just don't respond if that's the case).

[/ QUOTE ]

Selective memory. The fact that someone has been lucky in the past has no bearing on his continued luck (or lack thereof) in the future.

[jtr]

Well, I don't know about this bad luck curse or anything, but I'm certainly not going anywhere near the guy's lap. Just in case.