Cards running in Cycles

[tminus]

I was reading through a holdem book the other night and ran across the following:

"Cards can and do run in cycles. The theory of large numbers says so. If you experience a period where it seems like nothing but the low cards are winning the pots, then it is a perfectly legitimate strategy change to start playing low cards"

anyone care to comment on this ?

[sthief09]

Ken Warren if a [censored] retard

[peachy]

i dont care if i see it happen for days on end...i will not alter my play to play those hands just based on that...noway jose!!

But thats just me!! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
Ken Warren if a [censored] retard

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty funny.

[cardcounter0]

1) nothing in the "theory of large numbers" says anything about cards having to run in cycles.

2) I think this is bad advice.

[onegymrat]

I think that cards run in cycles as often as not running in cycles. I think that this advice is absurd.

[Freakin]

Bad advice; he is wrong.

Fin.

[EStreet20]

This is obviously completely wrong but I was wondering if the book includes specific citation info for this theory. I'm curious to see someone try to explain the idea behind this theory.
Good luck,
Matt

[tminus]

thanks...i wanted to make sure i wasnt missing something
BTW, how did you know it was Warren ?
i try not to use people real names out here

[tminus]

the page continues with:

"This would be an excellent time to vary your play so you dont get a reputation as strictly a high card player. It kills your action when everyone knows exactly what kind of cards youre probably holding. The trick is knowing when the cycle ends and low cards should not be played anymore. Playing low cards, such as 76o, 65s, 63s do win some pretty big pots but you cannot play them consistently if you want to be a big winner at this game."

Then he follows it up with 2 pages of rules like dropping if an A hits flop or if there is a substancial pf raise.

For this to be effective as a way of advertising false weak play you would have to play it to the end though.

[cardcounter0]

"The trick is knowing when the cycle ends and low cards should not be played anymore."

That would be a really cool trick.

[memphis57]

This is very true. The cyclical nature of card deals was first noticed in live games using real cards. The reason was simple - higher value cards have more ink on them and so are heavier. Thus, in a fair shuffle, they tend to sink to the bottom of the deck. Astute players like Ken recognized this fact and typically began a new deck with a low card strategy, gradually shifting to a high card one as penetration became deeper.

When online poker first started, it didn't catch on very fast. People noticed something was wrong with the deal. After a few years they figured out that, since K's don't weigh any more than #'s in a random number generator, the shuffle wasn't producing the same clumped results. They have since modified the shuffling algorithm so it faithfully reproduces real life. This is why it is now wise to play the cycles on line.

[Onaflag]

[ QUOTE ]
This is very true. The cyclical nature of card deals was first noticed in live games using real cards. The reason was simple - higher value cards have more ink on them and so are heavier. Thus, in a fair shuffle, they tend to sink to the bottom of the deck. Astute players like Ken recognized this fact and typically began a new deck with a low card strategy, gradually shifting to a high card one as penetration became deeper.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a waste of time putting this theory in a book. Everyone knows this already. Card counting doesn't only apply to BJ. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Onaflag..........

[Chairman Wood]

[ QUOTE ]
Cards can and do run in cycles. The theory of large numbers says so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can someone state to me the "theory of large numbers?"

[Brainwalter]

google can (http://www.probabilitytheory.info/topics/the_law_of_large_numbers.htm)

[Siingo]

I think that is when you have alots of number after the first number... Ohh that might not be the therory but it is atleast a large number....

[Saint_D]

Game theory is clear on this. Each gambling event is discrete and there can be no effect from previous hands/flips/whatever.

Also, the heavy king stuff is also total BS (online anyway). According to the party poker web site, they shuffle a new deck for each hand. The card distribution is utterly random, as random as computers can make it. (Computer nerds know this isn't real randomness, but they also know it's close enough).

Don't worry about this crap. You can beat online poker just by reading and learning SSH.

The very reason you can beat the fish is because they swallow this crap whole. They are looking for an "easy" way to beat the game. Ironically, there is an easy way to beat the game. Just spend a little time and effort studying. The same proven method that works for just about anything.

If you want to beleive in this stuff, welcome to being human. If you want to win at poker, learn to outflank your own human nature.

If you don't know what "pattern maps" are, do a search now. This is just pattern maps with another coat of paint.

[cardcounter0]

"According to the party poker web site, they shuffle a new deck for each hand."

Well, there you go! When ever I take a new deck out of the box, it is in order. Unless you give it a very good wash, and several shuffles, the cards are clumped together.

They should reshuffle the old deck, instead of using a new one each time.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[JayD]

[ QUOTE ]
This is very true. The cyclical nature of card deals was first noticed in live games using real cards. The reason was simple - higher value cards have more ink on them and so are heavier. Thus, in a fair shuffle, they tend to sink to the bottom of the deck. Astute players like Ken recognized this fact and typically began a new deck with a low card strategy, gradually shifting to a high card one as penetration became deeper.

When online poker first started, it didn't catch on very fast. People noticed something was wrong with the deal. After a few years they figured out that, since K's don't weigh any more than #'s in a random number generator, the shuffle wasn't producing the same clumped results. They have since modified the shuffling algorithm so it faithfully reproduces real life. This is why it is now wise to play the cycles on line.

[/ QUOTE ]

"since K's don't weigh any more than #'s in a random number generator"

This might not be true. We can assume that the cards are ordered from 2 to A in the card shuffling software. In binary this would be:

2 0000
3 0001
4 0010
5 0011
6 0100
7 0101
8 0110
9 0111
T 1000
J 1001
Q 1010
K 1011
A 1100

For example: the 2 is represented by 0000, and the A is represented by 1100 in the computer.

Now since we all know electrons have mass (9.11 × 10^-31 kg), and 1 bits have more electrons, it makes sense that cards with more 1 bits are heavier and tend to sink to the bottom of the deck.

Very light:
2 0000

Light:
3 0001
4 0010
6 0100
T 1000

Middle:
5 0011
7 0101
8 0110
J 1001
Q 1010
A 1100

Heavy:
9 0111
K 1011

So there are only a few minor adjustments that need to be made when creating a light/heavy card strategy for online poker. The K's are still one of the heaviest cards in the software's deck- just like live games.

[Saint_D]

Memphis, when I started reading this I was thinking I was going to have to lecture you on computer science. But I quickly came to realize you have a very keen insight here. I was all wrapped up in the complexities of the algorithms, and forgot about the electron densities in the sort matrix!

My pattern map thanks you.

[Ianco15]

[ QUOTE ]
i try not to use people real names out here

[/ QUOTE ]
It's okay to use the author's name in a post when you are talking about his/her book.

[SA125]

Right church, wrong pew. Going after low cards is stupid. Denying that when you're running bad you're running bad and will lose is another.

S&M always talk about cards being plastic and each new deal seperate. Obviously true in theory. Playing tells you a different story. Online is easier to judge because the stats are right there.

There's times you are getting cracked left and right and know you'll be losing. Your win % is 2 and Win % of flops seen is 10%. You might as well gear it down because it's your turn in the barrel. Other times you're on fire with 15%/40% numbers and ram and jam. There's no denying that.

[memphis57]

An excellent addition to the science of card-clumpage, JayD. That's nobel prize material there, my boy. Hope to see more thoughtful posts like this from you in the future.

[tminus]

what can i say, it was the first book of many that ive read on the subject and i always wondered about that paragraph

glad i got that cleared up at the the beginning of my learning curve rather than later

thanks for the help !

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
Now since we all know electrons have mass (9.11 × 10^-31 kg)

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, that's the mass of an electron at rest. We're talking about electrons that are undergoing a vigorous shuffling.

If v is the speed of an electron in meters per second (m/s) and c is the speed of light (approximately 2.99792 x 108 m/s), then the mass of an electron in motion, me*, is

me* = me / (1 - v2/c2)1/2 = 9.11 x 10^-31 / (1 - v2/c2)1/2 kg

So, all you need to know is the precise position and momentum for all the electrons in the digital deck and you'll have a fool-proof method for predicting the next card to be dealt. Piece of cake.

/mc

[balt999]

I think it's a very stupid comment..nuff said..

balt999 journal about poker and life..check it out (http://www.livejournal.com/users/balt999/)

[Saint_D]

[ QUOTE ]
There's times you are getting cracked left and right and know you'll be losing. Your win % is 2 and Win % of flops seen is 10%. You might as well gear it down because it's your turn in the barrel. Other times you're on fire with 15%/40% numbers and ram and jam. There's no denying that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I deny it.

[masonx]

its mathematically proven that a preflop favorite will loose by the river to any lessor hand. duh!