Crisis of Faith

[Michael J. Sykes]

One thing that sets most of us sharpies apart from the masses is our unwavering faith in randomness. We believe that the cards dealt by a competent and honest dealer have no relation to the value of our previous hands, our choice of seat, or even the jade Buddha guarding our opponent's chip stack.

My question is for those of you who are true believers. Have you ever experienced a run of cards so unbelievably horrible and prolonged that it shook your faith in randomness? I am experiencing such a run now. [I realize that an incredibly good run would provide equal evidence of nonrandomness, but it would not be equally likely to damage the recipient's faith.]

In opposition to aspects of quantum theory, Einstein said: 'God does not play dice with the universe'. Could it be that our good and bad runs of cards are predetermined by unseen elemental forces? Is randomness an illusion?

Sometimes, we cling to our faith to avoid the darkness of the alternative. Randomness may be nothing more than a theoretical construct, but it is the best construct we have to make sense of events we are unable to predict or understand. So, I am striving to keep the faith for the time being.

-MJS

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Have you ever experienced a run of cards so unbelievably horrible and prolonged that it shook your faith in randomness?

Has your faith in randomness ever been shaken by a 2-week run where it seemed you fit every flop and made 75% of your draws?

Einstein said: 'God does not play dice

I believe Bohr replied "stop telling God what to do."

Sometimes, we cling to our faith to avoid the darkness of the alternative.

Other times, bad results causes us to imagine monsters under the bed.


Is randomness an illusion?

Here's a dose of reality. If you could randomly shuffle a 52 card deck once persecond, the probable frequency of repeating a single *exact* order of all the cards would be greater than the known age of the universe. That's a complicated way of saying that the long run is a very, very long time. No matter how long your bad fluctuation has lasted, it's just a small sample.

So, I am striving to keep the faith for the time being.

Time for a dose of reality. Stop thinking like a loser.

[stripsqueez]

suck it up

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Michael J. Sykes]

[ QUOTE ]
Time for a dose of reality. Stop thinking like a loser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though you seem to be a true believer, I am curious about the somewhat hostile tone of your response. It may be worthwhile to consider why my statement provoked angry feelings in you.

Regards,

MJS

[Michael J. Sykes]

[CrisBrown]

Hi Michael,

<My question is for those of you who are true believers. Have you ever experienced a run of cards so unbelievably horrible and prolonged that it shook your faith in randomness? I am experiencing such a run now. >

Only once, and that was when I was dealt exactly one duece in 21 of 22 consecutive hands. I thought it just a bit odd so I did the math, and the probability of that was about the same as the probability of my having identical DNA with someone in China. (We're talking one-in-trillions.) So I wrote to the site and asked if they'd had a glitch in their RNG, sent them the hands, sent them my calculation of the random probabilities, and suggested they might want to run a diagnostic just to be sure.

Note: I did NOT ask for a refund. That I was dealt trash in 21 of 22 hands is not all that surprising. That each of those 21 trash hands contained a duece was very weird, but to my mind that didn't change the flow of the tourney or my chances of winning.

Anyway, although I didn't ask for a refund, they sent me a refund anyway, and promised to run diagnostics on their RNG. Two days later they took the site down for 48 hours, ostensibly for server updates, so perhaps they did find a problem. *shrugs*

Other than that one instance, no. Have I hit cold waves, where I catch trash and miss every flop for days or weeks on end? Sure. Everyone does. It's part of poker, and in fact it's predicted by chaos theory. When that happens, I drop down in stakes, try to figure out if any leaks have come into my game, and whine to anyone who'll listen. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Cris

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Didn't mean to sound hostile and there was never an intention of anger. Had I been standing in front of you and said the words you quoted, you wouldn't have perceived them as such. You would've accepted my words in the same manner as the "suck it up" answer.

I really believe that there's no worse beat than the ones you put on yourself. Again, my answer came of harsher in print than it would've face to face, but once you start questioning yourself, the treatment your bankroll will get at the table will be orders of magnitude harsher than any words. Hang in there. We've all been there.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I was dealt exactly one duece in 21 of 22 consecutive hands.

Chris, I'm going to ask you the same question I asked the poster. If in 21 of 22 hands you were dealt an Ace instead of a deuce, would you have written support suggesting they run a diagnostic on their RNG?

I'm not trying to be obnoxious (though I may be succeeding /images/graemlins/tongue.gif), I'm making a psychological point.

[rivaridge]

"Use the force Luke"

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Kurnson,

I probably wouldn't have before. But now that I know how hugely unlikely that is, I probably would, because the next fluke of a glitchy RNG might not be so benevolent. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

And, let's face it, we're all more comfortable when we have no cause to doubt the randomness of the deals, even if for a while that randomness is working to our favor. If I were playing in a B&M game and got dealt an A in 21 of 22 hands, I would begin to wonder if there weren't some sleight-of-hand occurring, and at the very least I'd request a setup, if not a change of dealers.

Cris

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Time for a dose of reality. Stop thinking like a loser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though you seem to be a true believer, I am curious about the somewhat hostile tone of your response. It may be worthwhile to consider why my statement provoked angry feelings in you.

Regards,

MJS

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it was goofy nonsense? What kind of "faith" are you talking about? Some kind of "maybe the cards are telling me something" ridiculousness?

I think you should record your hands and see if you're not just expecting too much.

[Diplomat]

Hi Michael,

ironically, part of your victimization by randomness makes the games profitable. Think about it this way -- if bad players were never dealt hands that won (aces that stand up or 85o that hits an inside gutshot on the river against your set) they would not play. Bad times are tough -- I happen to be in the midst (hopefully near the end) of the worst loosing streak of my career. But if you keep playing winnning poker, it will turn around. For me, there somehow is comfort in the knowledge that my loosing is good for the game, and will actually benefit me later.

Whether or not you believe in randomness is irrelivant. You've got to work with what you have, and the most logical, rational approach is to consider the deal to be almost perfectly random. I'll go as far to say it would be almost impossible to construct a winning approach to any form of poker without assuming the deck is dealt randomly.

So if you think it's not random, either give up that belief or give up poker.

That said, you should watch for cheating, computer errors (online), and other such problems. But don't blame good for cracking your set of tens. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Hope you come out of the drought soon,

-Diplomat

[Louie Landale]

Wild fluctuations are inevitable. You would be EXTREMELY lucky if you routinely experienced "average" luck, say every month.

Don't worry about Einstein and Quantum Mechanics. Besides, the Quantum folk proved that God DOES play dice ..err.. probably plays dice with the universe. Or probably proved it. Or probably said they proved it. Whatever.

What separates the sharpies ..err.. the "are's" from the masses ..err.. the "should be's" is maintaining composure in the face of inevitable wild fluctuations.

- Louie

Actually, there ARE forces controlling the roll of the dice. But these forces balance each other out and are fickle, so it just APPEARS as though its all random.

[daryn]

basically it all comes down to one question.

does free will exist? or is every event in the world predetermined?

the craziest part is, i don't know.. nobody does.

[tpir90036]

i still have all of my faith in randomness. but i use the cold streaks to help analyze my leaks even more than i noramlly do.

that is the big problem with poker: people attribute winning to good play and skill while they attribute losing to bad luck and bad cards. what they fail to realize is that the inverse of this might be to blame.

not saying this is you...just pointing it out.

good luck!

[David Steele]

Have you ever experienced a run of cards so unbelievably horrible and prolonged that it shook your faith in randomness?

No can't say that I have.

Could it be that our good and bad runs of cards are predetermined by unseen elemental forces?

No it could not.

Is randomness an illusion?
No it is real.

D.

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
Only once, and that was when I was dealt exactly one duece in 21 of 22 consecutive hands. I thought it just a bit odd so I did the math, and the probability of that was about the same as the probability of my having identical DNA with someone in China. (We're talking one-in-trillions.) So I wrote to the site and asked if they'd had a glitch in their RNG, sent them the hands, sent them my calculation of the random probabilities, and suggested they might want to run a diagnostic just to be sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure most people on this thread know a whole lot more about probability so take this comment with a grain of salt but:

If you had taken a random sample of 22 consecutive hands and found that they each contained one duece you would have a very disturbing clump, but if you thousdands and thousands of hands and eventually come across a clump of this size it doesn't seem that alarming.

In other words, according to my vague understanding of the scientific method, the event that makes you suspicious shouldn't also be used as evidence in support of the hypothesis you form as a result of that suspicion. Or something like that.

/mc

[Shaun]

Look man, anytime you post anything like this on this site you are going to get about 50% jerk responses that amount to "you probably just suck" or "toughen up" or "I never lose". I would not reccomend coming here for any reassurance. Poker players are generally a-holes to some degree or another. They know that answers like "suck it up" or "I have never lost for more than a week" or whatever will cause you to continue questioning yourself and this is what they want. Even if they never play against you or see you, poker players like for others to be on tilt, just in case.

Occasionally someone who is going through the same bad run and has considered that the online site's random shuffle generator is not so random will come along and sympathize with you. Trust me, there are people who have lost for "long" periods of time and they are and were still quality players. The problem as someone alluded to is the term "long" and or long run. It just isn't simple to define how long it really is.

You could do a few things for damage control:
Drop down a limit or change to PL/NL/limit from whatever you play now.

Focus on a different game: If you are a hold-em player, play stud or Omaha for a while.

Start playing shorthanded (this could be worse tough).

Finally, don't expect help from anyone else. When players are winning, they feel they have ascended to never before seen levels of poker play- and they will be sure to let those who are admitting to "bad luck" (something they have lost belief in) know that there is no such thing as running bad etc (because afterall, they are on a hot streak).

Of course in a few months you might wish to come back and post the same type of questions and chances are you will get similar responses, but they will be from different players who are running good. Of course not everyone fits into the "temporary expert" category. What you really need to do is, yes, toughen up, but mainly put things in perspective. If you have lost for years, then you are either cursed by the poker Gods or just aren't good. If you have lost for months you might have some leaks but then again you might just be in the midst of a statictical anomaly. If it is weeks then get back to us when it has been months. It is theoretically possible to flip a coin 100 times and have it land on heads every time. Have I ever seen it happen? No way. But it could. Even if no one has ever seen it happen, it is still possible. You have to keep things like this in mind when taking beatings in poker. Most importantly though, you have to remember all the money you've won over the years/months or whatever and smile when bad players suckout on you runner runner.

[Michael J. Sykes]

No problem. Truth is, I just wanted to yank your chain a bit. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Regards,

MJS

[Michael J. Sykes]

I am surprised a site would send you a refund due to a bad run of cards, unless perhaps there was something wrong. What site was it?

In truth, to the extend that I have had a crisis of faith, it has concerned the randomness of an online cardroom's deal, not randonmness itself. However, I have no interest in starting a boring conspiracy thread! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif I thought it would be much more interesting to explore our thoughts and feelings about randomness.

-MJS

[mojito]

Hi all,
first posting here. Have been playing for 6 months (around 50 hours per month) in L.A. casinos on 2/4, 3/6, 4/8 and occasionally 6/12 tables. Trying to follow Lee Jones book, although getting surprised every single day...

Just commenting on the idea of bad luck runs, i wanted to give an example of what happened to me the last 2 days at Hollywood Park Casino:

Worst run i have ever had on 3/6 tables (even with changing tables): all the trash u can imagine, and when i happen to get a good hand, bad beat.. so i lost 200 $ in 2 hours.
Switched to 4/8: same story, lost another 200 $ in 2 hours.
Decided to switch to 6/12 after observing a passive table: i got dealt AA twice, QQ, TT, 88, 77, 44, 33 in less than one hour winning most of them , sometimes with sets...
Won 400 $ , went home.
So, i guess i was lucky to be proven randomness singularities on one night.

Just thought of sharing this.

mojito.

Courageous men defying tyrants are never wanting in history, but it requires true heroism to defy the tyranny of public opinion - Clemenceau.

[daryn]

you even mention the fact that you changed tables.. like it would matter.

[mojito]

no i change tables to play against different types of players.. not for the luck thing /images/graemlins/smile.gif

mojito

[daryn]

ok, then it matters /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[CrisBrown]

Hi Monty,

<If you had taken a random sample of 22 consecutive hands and found that they each contained one duece you would have a very disturbing clump, but if you thousdands and thousands of hands and eventually come across a clump of this size it doesn't seem that alarming.

In other words, according to my vague understanding of the scientific method, the event that makes you suspicious shouldn't also be used as evidence in support of the hypothesis you form as a result of that suspicion. Or something like that.>

I agree, and that's why I didn't write to them saying "Your system is rigged" or something like that. I just explained what had happened, explained the probabilities and how very unlikely that was, and suggested they run their diagnostics just in case there was a problem.

Their diagnostics -- not my clump of hands -- would have been the test of the tacit hypothesis.

And, as I said, I didn't ask for a refund. It was nice of them to give me one, but I'd have been satisfied with just a "Thank you for your comments and we will research this matter." *shrugs* As I said, it didn't affect the outcome of the tournament -- to my mind -- because catching trash in 21 of 22 hands is not at all unusual. I'd have folded 21 other trash hands the same way I folded those 21 trash hands, so no biggie.

Cris

[stripsqueez]

gee, shaun - you got issues

i cant let the suggestion that my advice to the poster to "suck it up" came from a mean, "hope he keeps losing" perspective go unanswered - i've posted on the topic before if you care to search - i firmly believe if you want to be a better poker player you have to suck it up

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever experienced a run of cards so unbelievably horrible and prolonged that it shook your faith in randomness?

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to feel that way when I didn't play that well but two things changed that. First is that I play better and don't have as many losing streaks. Second is that I play online mostly and with two tables so, time wise, losing straks don't last as long.

Actually, now I sometimes feel that I am getting hit it the face with the deck way more than I should.

[Michael J. Sykes]

[ QUOTE ]

Whether or not you believe in randomness is irrelivant. You've got to work with what you have, and the most logical, rational approach is to consider the deal to be almost perfectly random. I'll go as far to say it would be almost impossible to construct a winning approach to any form of poker without assuming the deck is dealt randomly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Though I do not think one's belief in randomness is irrelevant or necessarily rational, I do agree that it is currently the most pragmatic assumption upon which a profit-oriented gambler should base his strategy.

Regards,

MJS

[Michael J. Sykes]

Hi Louie,

You are good at cutting to the heart of matters.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, there ARE forces controlling the roll of the dice. But these forces balance each other out and are fickle, so it just APPEARS as though its all random.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! It somehow strikes me as odd that we place our faith in the notion that those fickle forces will combine and interact in such a way as to render future events unpredictable. And yet, it is upon this belief that I rely for my livelihood.

Regards,

MJS

[Michael J. Sykes]

I'm not sure I get the connection. If we knew for a fact that free will did not exist, what would be the implication for the validity of randomness?

-MJS

[Michael J. Sykes]

You are mistaken. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-MJS

[daryn]

if free will does not exist, then everything that happens in the world was predetermined. for instance, the dealer shuffles the deck and deals cards out. the order of these cards were already predetermined, and there's no reason to believe they are random.

this is only if free will does not exist.

[Michael J. Sykes]

Then in your view, the existence of free will would be evidence of randomness?

If there was no free will, I do not think this would logically preclude the possibility that events are determined by a combination of random and orderly processes.

-MJS

[CrisBrown]

Hi Michael,

When I was in law school, in the professors' office wing there was a staircase with letters on each stair: A, B, C, D, and F. The joke was that these were the "grading stairs" ... the professors just tossed the final exams down the stairwell and wherever yours landed, that was your grade for the class. (Law school courses typically base the entire grade on the final exam.)

In my first semester, I aced all of my exams, and while I felt fairly confident, I was extremely surprised. So when my faculty advisor asked about it, I said I just got lucky with the grading stairs. He asked why I said that, and I said ... "Hey, grades are a crap shoot."

To my surprise, he nodded and said "From your perspective, that's true." He went on to explain that we students had no way to know a given professor's standards for grading a given exam, and when you don't know how a result is arrived at, then it does appear random from the outside.

In fact, the deal of cards and the roll of dice is not random. With actual cards, it's determined by the shuffle, a decidedly non-random though non-predictable process. Online, it's determined by various factors (depending on the site), typically involving "noisy diodes," time of users' mouse clicks, and algorithms. With dice, it's determined by inertia, kinetic energy, surface resistance and reflectivity, and gravity.

They're not "random," they're simply "unpredictable." Which, for all practical purposes, is as good as "random."

Cris

[adios]

"My question is for those of you who are true believers. Have you ever experienced a run of cards so unbelievably horrible and prolonged that it shook your faith in randomness?"

I would think at some point on the left hand side of the bell curve most would lose faith in randomness. I'm referring a negative swing that happens very, very, very rarely though. So my question to you would be what kind of horrible bad run of cards are we talking about in statistical terms?

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
gee, shaun - you got issues [ QUOTE ]


LOL. This comment illustrates exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm afraid I have better things to do than do a search just to see if a poster's needling remark is out of character . To me, "suck it up" sounds like a smart-a**, snide remark. This isn't RGP. It is a strategy forum. If "suck it up" is a strategy tip then perhaps it would be better to explain it in a more friendly way. But of course, anyone who reads such comments knows what they're about- being an a-hole.

[Michael J. Sykes]

[ QUOTE ]
I would think at some point on the left hand side of the bell curve most would lose faith in randomness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

[ QUOTE ]
...So my question to you would be what kind of horrible bad run of cards are we talking about in statistical terms?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I have not truly lost the faith, I have not attempted to quantify my bad luck (though I could try with my pokertracker data). Besides, to do so would be a no win proposition; any such report would be likely to elicit "that's not so bad," "you must play bad," or " I don't believe you" responses. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Regards,

MJS

[stripsqueez]

since you ask...

talk of standard deviation is a fine example of science overtaking reality in my view

what is acheived by a knowledge of standard deviation ? - the answer i expect to get is that standard deviation helps a poker player understand whats happening when he/she goes on an extended loosing streak (other things too but its used in a bad beat context for this purpose) - why does a poker player require that understanding whilst experiencing the loosing streak ?

presumably the understanding in a scientific setting of why he/she is experiencing the loosing streak is comforting - the need is an emotional need - bad beats are an emotional, personal thing - ironic then that science is supposed to comfort the person experiencing a loosing streak

don't get me wrong - standard deviation is a helpful tool in understanding the game but it is not understanding the game to understand standard deviation - playing the game is understanding the game - ideally i would have such a profound understanding of the game that bad beats occured without notice such was my expectation of having them - not true and it will never be true because you never master a good game

the path to a profound understanding ?

suck it up

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[daryn]

just because i say this: if there is no free will, then there is no randomness to the universe.


doesn't mean i mean this: if there IS free will, then there IS randomness to the universe

i should hope you understand this


also, i'm pretty sure i said that if there was no free will, then there is no need for things to be random. that's different than saying that things are not random.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
since you ask...

...ideally i would have such a profound understanding of the game that bad beats occured without notice such was my expectation of having them - not true and it will never be true because you never master a good game

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. That probably feels better, too.