The myth of luck...again

[bomblade]

I'm pretty sure I have made a post about "luck" before. I don't know if this will offer any new ideas or not. If not, sorry for wasting time.
The reason I want to post this though is cause of a situation/conversation I had last Saturday.
I'm playing 20/40 and a local player had recently left. He had 3 full racks and about 500 in green. He only was up about 700 though, due to the buy and rebuy. He got his money back by making some very good plays, and hit a few tough hands. About a half an hour after he left, one of the players mentioned to an observer how lucky X was. He stated further how someone was telling him how poker isn't a game of luck, and he chuckled. I turned and said that luck doesn't exist. What got me upset is how condescending he was to me. He is a much older man, and very conservative looking. I am young, and not conservative looking at all. He laughs at me, and says how I can say that.
As I explained to him, and another person at the table, who seemed interested, he got up and left. Very rude. I only hope I play with him again so I can take all his money.
What I'd like is for someone to give me the reasons or facts on why luck does exist. I don't believe it truly exists in any facet of life. If it does, it really means that some people are lucky, and some unlucky. Furthermore, if luck exists, than there are other factors to determine this luck. You can call it god, if you like.
If I have AA and I'm against 72, and there is a two on the flop and the river, most would say luck. If that's the case, wouldn't that mean that somehow on the shuffle, something occurred to make that other 2 come out on the river? Something other than the dealer's shuffle? How about the same hand and the flop is 722, and the turn is an A? Did I just get lucky? How did they get lucky on the flop and I got lucky on the turn? Over time, those AAs are going to beat 72o many times over, say 15-1. So how is that 1 time lucky? If that's luck, that would mean AA SHOULD win 100 percent of the time vs 72o.
I'd love for an intelligent response to this post.

[Jimbo]

It all depends on your definition. See I consider you lucky to still be around with that chip on your shoulder! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif Before you get mad I was just kidding! Luck: the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual

Seems to me there is such a thing as luck. The way you are trying to define luck has little relevance as to whether or not it exists as to other generally accepted definitions.

[Dwayne]

The people that are most superstitious are people that have the least understanding and control over the events in their life. Understanding and control require dedication, effort, and responsibility. It is much easier and more fun to speculate and convince one self of the possibility of UFO's and perpetual motion than to study and understand relativity and the second law of thermodynamics. There are two other things that support the faith in luck. First, the laws of probability are based on an infinite number of trials. We will never witness anywhere near an infinite number of trials in our lifetime. Second, our memory is biased. The pleasant or unpleasant outcomes stick in our minds much more so than the countless ordinary outcomes.

I do not believe in luck and I do not lecture at the poker table. If people want believe in luck, hunches, or ESP, I will encourage them to keep believing and keep trying. There are no lucky seats, lucky dealers, lucky tokens, and asking for a deck change is not going to improve your game. All it will do is identify you as a chump to the rest of the table. If this hurts your feelings I'm sorry. Forget what you just read and come join my game.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Other people can do a better job than I about explaining the non-existence of luck. But you should NEVER do it at the card table. You don't want to educate the dummies. If poker is not a game of luck, then it must be a game of skill, and you don't want to encourage them to develop their skill.

Let them stay in blissful ignorance so you can take their money.

Al

[Dwayne]

In Christianity, educating the ignorant is known as one of the seven Corporal Works of Mercy. If I am in the game, keep believing in your luck and expect no such mercy from me.

[Fitz]

I understand exactly what you mean, and for the most part, I agree with you. Those who get caught up in the idea of a person, thing or action being lucky or unlucky are deluding themselves. I do think we need to realize there is an element of chance in the game we play. Many would call this an element of luck; I think this is a matter of semantics. It has been pointed out the law of large numbers and probablility are based on an infinite number of trials. Since we can never get to that infinite number, we must realize we will see sometimes serious swings in the outcome of our trials. Pocket aces should win approximately 30% of the time against 9 random hands. This doesn't mean if we play 100 times, the aces will win 30 times. It is this swing in the line of probablity that makes up our variance. It is also this swing that puts players on tilt and forces them to ask for a new set up.

Fitz

The existence of luck can be a subject for an endless debate. If you wish your friend 'good luck' when he's going for a job interview and gets the job over 100 other candidates, did he get lucky or was he probably be the best candidate for the job? If a person wins the 70 million to 1 Big Game lottery with $10 worth of tickets, did he get lucky or he stumbled on the so-called highly improbable statistical aberration. Because the overwhelming majority of the population are un-schooled in the laws of probability and statistics luck seems to be the most common and convenient word to define the favorable (lucky) or unfavorable (unlucky) outcome of an expected or unexpected event. If your opponent outdraws your pocket rockets with his 2-outer on the river and you're in the mood for a sarcastic comment, you dont say to your opponent:'you just defied the laws of probability'. You simply say: you just got lucky.'

Does this make any sense?

[Clarkmeister]

The result of any random event is "luck"

If we flip a coin, one of us will get lucky and one will get unlucky.

If I have two outs against your poker hand with one card to come, one of us will get lucky and one will get unlucky.

Every single hand involves luck.

Righto. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Why people insist on putting the word luck in question marks is a little beyond me. For the love of god man, good and bad things happen to people everyday. If my mom gets broadsided by a drunk driver and dies, is that unlucky? Yes, yes it is. If somebody wins a lotto 6/49 lottery, is that lucky? Yes, yes it is. If 2 equally skilled people play poker for 2 years, and 1 of them is up 200 big bets more than the other one, has he been luckier than the other? Yes, yes he has. If you want to redefine the word for yourself, knock yourself out. But, by standard definitions, over the course of their careers, some players are luckier than others. Whether it be by simple statistics or divine intervention, it doesn't matter much. The insistence of some poker players that luck doesn't exist is ridiculous. It's mostly a question of semantics I suppose, but only because you're attempting to redefine the word. Luck exists. Maybe not in a sense that some people are born lucky, but over the course of their lives, not everyone has the same fortune. This can not be disputed. Even if a bunch of equally skilled players played to infinity, some will be luckier than others in a sense that some will be up much more money than others.

[bomblade]

If I am driving and a drunk driver is coming the opposite way, and doesn't hit me, is that lucky? If he does hit me, is that unlucky? If I swerve into his lane and we collide, who's lucky and unlucky then?
If two people of unequal skill play for 2 years, and the skilled player is ahead 200bb, is he lucky still?
If I hit a set with AA and beat two pair, is that lucky? Is it lucky that he hit two pair? Or, is it just that the odds were dictated?
Some find it absurd for me to not believe in luck. I find it absurd for them to believe in luck.
I'm not changing the definition.
Luck: a force that brings good fortune or adversity.
This is the definition that most people are using, when the word "luck" is used.
"A force"...as to say that there is other factors, other than randomness, when a person gets hit by a drunk driver, or when they get rivered by a gutshot straight. What force is this? God? Is God making a drunk driver swerve and kill someone's mother? Is God changing the face of a card, so that it'll win someone a poker hand? If not God, what force? What is causing these lucky and unlucky events in this world?
If getting hit and killed while driving is unlucky, than we are lucky every time we're in a car.
For every action there is a reaction. We all agree on this, I would hope. For every lucky event, there is an unlucky event.
Take the river gutshot straight scenario now. If the river card doesn't come and give someone the straight, what is that? Luck? Or just a normal occurance?
I play poker with a guy, who every time I play with him, he says poker is 80 percent luck, and anyone who says different is wrong/an idiot. He claims the only thing that makes a winning poker player is his starting hands. Everything else is out of his hands. Anyone agree with this?

[2ndGoat]

>>I play poker with a guy, who every time I play with him, he says poker is 80 percent luck, and anyone who says different is wrong/an idiot.
If someone says this and I'm feeling arrogant, I'll roll my eyes.
If someone says this and I'm feeling sarcastic, I'll reply "Yeah, and 20% diet."

2ndGoat

"If I am driving and a drunk driver is coming the opposite way, and doesn't hit me, is that lucky?"
Yes, a little.
"If he does hit me, is that unlucky?" Of course, yes.

"If I swerve into his lane and we collide, who's lucky and unlucky then?". Depending on the reasons you swerved and collided, maybe you were very unlucky, maybe he was, maybe you both were, depends. You were probably both unlucky.

"If two people of unequal skill play for 2 years, and the skilled player is ahead 200bb, is he lucky still?"

Maybe they both were lucky, maybe they both were unlucky. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but it obviously says nothing.

"If I hit a set with AA and beat two pair, is that lucky?"
Yes, clearly. If you think otherwise, you're way out there.

"Is it lucky that he hit two pair? Or, is it just that the odds were dictated?"
The odds were dictated that he would hit 2 pair when you hit a set? He was unlucky to hit 2 pair when you hit a set. If you think otherwise, you are way out there.

If people say "man that guy is lucky", what they generally mean is "man that guy has been lucky". So what if it is due to a sometimes normal statistical deviation, or influence by some other force. What you're saying is that you don't believe that there is some force driving the events that happen to people. That is fine. Believe that, you're probably right. But please, stop phrasing it as "I don't believe in luck" because that just makes no sense. Luck exists in the context of good and bad things happening by chance to people and things every day. In that way, luck exists. Does luck exist as a force that "protects" some, and hurts others? Likely not, but you definitely can't state that as fact. So, arguing a point that "luck doesn't exist" is just begging for people to come back at you.
By most people's definition, if a madman breaks into my house, shoots me in the kneecaps, and cuts off my tongue, I was unlucky. Apparently you don't think so. By your definition, apparently, it was dictated by the odds - every so often, a madman *will* break into my house, cap me, and cut off my tongue, so it wasn't really unlucky. Feel free to think that is not unlucky. Whatever floats your boat. But you're certainly going to get into a tonne of arguments with people, and they're not always going to be wrong when they disaagree. Saying "I don't believe in luck" is foolish, and just begging for lots of scraps. Saying "I don't believe there is a a force that brings good fortune or adversity" is reasonable.

[Clarkmeister]

Limit holdem does have a substantial amount of luck. If it were 100% skill, then an expert would never lose and a fish could never ever win. Think what you want but "luck" or random chance is a significant part of limit poker. To think otherwise is simply wrong.

On a 1-10 scale, if Chess is a 10 for skill and rolling dice for high number is a 1, then limit holdem is probabaly about a 6 for any given session.

The pedant sez:

It's worth noting that although the defenders of luck are dead right in this thread, and bomblade is not asking a coherent question, it's not true that

"Even if a bunch of equally skilled players played to infinity, some will be luckier than others in [the] sense that some will be up much more money than others."

This is false, not because there's no luck in poker, but because infinity is such a long time. At infinity all the statistical dead heats are, axiomatically, dead even, and all the 'equally skilled' players have the same amount of money. This is the only thing 'equally skilled' means, and of course since infinity never gets around to happening it's impossible every to say that two people are equally skilled.

I'm not sure the enigma of luck and skill is really all that complicated.

Jim vdH

[Jimbo]

Bomblade,

Who besides you uses this definition? Luck: a force that brings good fortune or adversity. Again you have defined a word to suit your position. I searched 6 dictionarys and never found yours. Do you mind stating in which reference you found this one?

My statement:

"Even if a bunch of equally skilled players played to infinity, some will be luckier than others in [the] sense that some will be up much more money than others."

is true. Most people think it is false due to misinterpreting the law of large numbers. The numbers do not even out in the end. Relative frequencies of occurrence do tend to their true probabilities, but this in no way implies that everybody will be even in the end. The difference in amount won, between the most fortunate and least fortunate players, as they play an ever increasing number of hands, will increase without bound. e.g. Toss a coin 10 times, 100 times, 1000 times, 1000,000 times. Is the difference between # of heads and # of tails going to decrease. Not likely. The difference in number increases as n increases. The probability will tend to 0.5, but the difference will tend to increase. Hence, my statement in quotes above. The thought that at infinity, everybody has exactly the same amount of money is dead wrong.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Clarkmeister's estimate of 6 on a scale of 10 sounds reasonable, but the question that interests me is WHY so many people claim that poker is about 80% luck. I think they do so to protect their egos. If it's a game of luck, then they are not responsible for their losses, and they don't have to respect your wins.

Conversely, if they admit that skill has a very significant effects, then they tacitly admit that they aren't skilled because they lose.

Al

[Clarkmeister]

I agree with that. I think many people play for ego, not for winning. These are the people who gain some sort of satisfaction from showing how "smart" they are, and by belittling others. It's like they have never matured and are seeking the approval of others like a child does. The human ego is a complex thing.

I stand by my previous post.

If you think that 'infinity' is just a large number like any other large number, then your post makes some sense. But infinity is bigger than any big number you pick, and at infinity it is not only likely but certain that the statistics must win out. (It is precisely this fact about infinity that you are referring to when you say that frequencies "tend to" their true probabilities. At infinity all tendencies are consummated.)

Alert readers will note that this is a purely academic debate, since infinity never comes. Schlubs like me would ask only that people not bandy about the word 'infinity' when what they mean is 'many many sessions of sweet poker action.'

(I'd add too that the difference in bankroll among several equally skilled players is just as likely to decrease as to increase as they play more hands; to maintain that it MUST 'increase without bound' is to hold that one of those players is just a consistently 'lucky player,' which is superstition.)

This should probably all be on the 'probability' board. Or the 'pedantry' one.

The Pedant

All right, I know where you're going, and yes, infinity isn't just some other number. I speak of it like it's a number on this board because I don't feel like throwing the limit terminology around all the time. Some things even out in the limit, other things do not. Say we have 10 equally skilled players playing poker continually, and every so often we check up on them, the difference between the largest bankroll and smallest bankroll will tend to increase as the number of hands increase.

You state:

"I'd add too that the difference in bankroll among several equally skilled players is just as likely to decrease as to increase as they play more hands;"

The difference between the largest bankroll and smallest will tend to increase. It is not just as likely to decrease as increase. The expected difference between largest and smallest bankroll will increase as the number of trials increases. That difference is going to be an increasing function of # of hands. And since the # of hands is tending to infinity, we know where the difference between largest and smallest bankroll is going.

[Bozeman]

Ok, let's say we are flipping perfect coins (betting $1 on heads).

Limit as trials -> infinity ((wins-losses)/trials)=EV=0.

However, Limit as trials -> infinity (wins-losses) != 0. (This is not completely rigorous, all one can actually say is that P(lim=0)->0, but for any given trial, this will be a non-zero (in fact infinite) number).

Because of the peculiarities of infinite number arithmetic, we can divide two infinite numbers (wins-losses) and (trials) and get 0.

Craig

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

From Star Trek - "The Doomsday machine"

Spock: It appears that random chance has operated in our favor.
McCoy: You mean we got lucky.
Spock: I believe I said that.

/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Okay, I think I understand that, and I think (unsurprisingly) that it vindicates my position about infinity. I'm assuming, however, that when you say

P(lim=0)->0

you mean P(lim=0) -> 1. Since this is supposed to be the 'rigorous' version of the statement lim=0 I don't see how the probability of lim=0 being true can approach 0.

A follow-up question: can anyone give a proof or demonstration of JJJ's claim that the absolute difference (heads-tails) increases without bound even though the percentage difference decreases?

("Toss a coin 10 times, 100 times, 1000 times, 1000,000 times. Is the difference between # of heads and # of tails going to decrease. Not likely. The difference in number increases as n increases. The probability will tend to 0.5, but the difference will tend to increase." [Note by the way that the probability just IS .5, it doesn't 'tend to' .5. I suppose JJJ means 'frequency.'])

It seems to me that this can only be true if the # of trials increases more than twice as fast as the absolute difference increases. How would you prove this intuitively pretty plausible statement?

It still seems pretty clear to me that the guy who has the smallest bankroll after 10,000 hands is unlikely to be the guy with the smallest bankroll after 100,000 hands. Hence no sense in talking about long-term 'luck' that has any sustained status.

We're both neglecting of course that people will probably bust out with nonzero probability no matter how big their initial bankrolls are.

Jim

[bomblade]

So if I have AA and someone has 97o, we're heads up, and the flop is A97...I got lucky? And if I don't think so, I'm out there? That doesn't make much sense to me. AA is a far better hand than 97. A better flop example is 922, turn is a 7. I have best hand, am I lucky?
If you get killed and robbed by a madmen, and the "odds" were dictated, it's not to say that you have some sort of personal odds, that eventually, this will happen. Its saying that there are madmen out there that break into people's homes and rob them, or kill them. If this happened to you, I wouldn't say you were unlucky, I'd say you were unfortunate. When I say I don't believe in luck, I am referring to the "force", not random chance.

[bomblade]

Merriam-Webster dictionary online. I didn't make this definition up and despite what some people have argued, this is the precise definition people refer to when using the term "luck" in a poker game.

[ripdog]

bomblade,

Do you keep records of your play? If so, do you calculate your standard deviation? Calculating your SD will give you an idea of what effect luck has on your results. With enough data points you should be able to analyze a session to confirm that you played it mistake free. Using your SD calculation (and figuring a 95% confidence level as well), you will be able to tell how lucky or unlucky you were during that session.

[Jimbo]

Thanks for your response Bomblade. Now here is where your argument loses some credibility. I looked up several words in common usage that are generally agreed do not now nor have ever existed. The M-W dictionary begins with "a mythical".......or a legendary............ then completes the definition. Since the dictionary you chose does not state nor imply that luck is non-existent, legendary nor mythical I feel my argument that it does exist has more merit and can be logically proven thusly, using your chosen book of reference.

M-W definition for LUCK-1 a : a force that brings good fortune or adversity b : the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual

Wheras:
Unicorn-a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead

Phoenix-a legendary bird which according to one account lived 500 years, burned itself to ashes on a pyre, and rose alive from the ashes to live another period; also : a person or thing likened to the phoenix

Now as to your quote "this is the precise definition people refer to when using the term "luck" in a poker game. This is so far from realistic I cannot believe you put in in print. If you read this thread it is obvious that people are not using this definition, again other than you in an attempt to prove your point.

It is all well and good for you to use your chosen definition but to state undeniably that all people define luck in your manner (and so absolutely) is capricious, egocentric and inaccurate.

[bomblade]

Sorry Jimbo, but you're wrong. If you have read all of my posts in this thread, the people I refer to, are those who argue with me about luck and how it's more important than anything in a poker game. And, the majority of replies in this thread that are against my original argument, are also going by the definition I stated. Obviously the word luck exists. The word love exists too. There is a standard definition for love in any dictionary you'll find. Is it at all possible though, that some people who use the word love, are using it incorrectly? That they say love and it actually has no meaning in the way they use it?

[Jimbo]

Yes Bomblade I am sure people use the term love incorrectly as well. In addition luck is more important than any other single factor in a poker game. Skill plays is but a small part of the equation in the short term.

Simplified illustration via simulation.
100,000 trials at each n, estimated expected values are average difference between heads and tails (|#heads-#tails|).

n Average diff
10........2.4572
100.......7.9582
1000......25.5162
10000.....80.5186

etc., etc.
The expected difference between # of heads and # of tails increases as n increases. This really shouldn't be a surprise. Of course this is a very simplified example, but it really should illustrate that the expected difference between the largest and smallest bankroll of a group of equally skilled players will tend to increase as the number of hands increases. This is just true. You seem to know what you're talking about in a lot of things, but if you disagree with this, you're wrong. If you agree, and we're simply talking about different things, sorry for wasting both of our time.


Another quick made up thing:

n # heads relative frequency abs(#heads - #tails)

10......8.............0.8 ................6
100.....55............0.55................10
1000....520...........0.52................40
10000...5100..........0.51................200

The relative frequency is tending to 0.5, even as the difference between heads and tails increases. /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

[AlanBostick]

A follow-up question: can anyone give a proof or demonstration of JJJ's claim that the absolute difference (heads-tails) increases without bound even though the percentage difference decreases?

Abs(#heads - #tails) will scale as the standard deviation of #heads. And as we all know from probability theory[1], the distribution of coin tosses is the binomial distribution, and the standard deviation scales as sqrt(n) where n is number of tosses. Lim(n->infinity)sqrt(n) = infinity.

QED

[1] If you don't know this, you've got no business arguing the point in the first place.

I'll just say luck doesn't play the biggest role in poker, but you can believe and think what you like. I just want you and your clones to play in my games.