royaltrux
03-15-2005, 02:15 PM
Zen and the Art of Poker by Larry W. Phillips is a very useful book to help you stay in the zone (zen-like state) while facing the many trials of playing poker. I think it is a must read for everyone who wants to look at how they emotionally play the game.
Anyway in Chapter II, Sub-Chapter 11 entitled "The Wall of Cards: Cyclical Luck" it talks about the ebb and flow of luck during play. How when cards run cold for one they streak for another. He talks a lot about feeling the flow of the game, your place in it and playing accordingly.
Here is where we get into murky water. He is basically talking about switching gears but he says,
"Mathematicians tell us that each hand takes place independently of all others. This is good advice to ignore. If things are going badly, back off. You may be playing in a game closer to your bankroll than your opponents are (or the experts), and thus cannont afford to test out the theory. Don't go home from a cardroom with a horrendous loss just because you read somewhere that mathematically "every hand is independent of every other," so you just kept betting away, despite the fact that you were losing every hand, one after the other. For your purposes the hands weren't operating independently of each other.
Longtime, experienced card players believe in the bunching of luck. They have seen it. They have felt it. They know it is not a pipe dream of a mirage. Ignore this phenomenon at your peril. Even the mathematicians admit that it can happen, will happen, does happen, and has happened--they just dispute it when it is happening."
He's basically saying that if you're getting the worst of it, even if you are on a streak of cards, you shouldn't play what is considered optimal (betting and raising) by our beloved SSH standards. I know that it is wise to stay when you have the best of it and leave a game when you are getting the worst of it, but is this what D&M&Co are saying in their various writings. It seems like he is basically throwing all math out the window and relying on paranormal circumstances. I have seen and felt this happen at times and I tell my self that the math will work out in the long run ( and it does).
But I was wondering what everyone thought about the short-term and how valid is this argument. And if this is what D&M&Co meant by "the worst of it" then this post is sorta usless. But it might for a good discussion that involves poker.
Anyway in Chapter II, Sub-Chapter 11 entitled "The Wall of Cards: Cyclical Luck" it talks about the ebb and flow of luck during play. How when cards run cold for one they streak for another. He talks a lot about feeling the flow of the game, your place in it and playing accordingly.
Here is where we get into murky water. He is basically talking about switching gears but he says,
"Mathematicians tell us that each hand takes place independently of all others. This is good advice to ignore. If things are going badly, back off. You may be playing in a game closer to your bankroll than your opponents are (or the experts), and thus cannont afford to test out the theory. Don't go home from a cardroom with a horrendous loss just because you read somewhere that mathematically "every hand is independent of every other," so you just kept betting away, despite the fact that you were losing every hand, one after the other. For your purposes the hands weren't operating independently of each other.
Longtime, experienced card players believe in the bunching of luck. They have seen it. They have felt it. They know it is not a pipe dream of a mirage. Ignore this phenomenon at your peril. Even the mathematicians admit that it can happen, will happen, does happen, and has happened--they just dispute it when it is happening."
He's basically saying that if you're getting the worst of it, even if you are on a streak of cards, you shouldn't play what is considered optimal (betting and raising) by our beloved SSH standards. I know that it is wise to stay when you have the best of it and leave a game when you are getting the worst of it, but is this what D&M&Co are saying in their various writings. It seems like he is basically throwing all math out the window and relying on paranormal circumstances. I have seen and felt this happen at times and I tell my self that the math will work out in the long run ( and it does).
But I was wondering what everyone thought about the short-term and how valid is this argument. And if this is what D&M&Co meant by "the worst of it" then this post is sorta usless. But it might for a good discussion that involves poker.