Re: Hello! The chances of winning any given...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no it's pure nonsense but many people play like they believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you claim that there is no element of luck involved in poker? So essentially, if I'm better than you...I will win every single hand. The only way you can win is if you're better than your opponent.

If you have A-A and get all in preflop against 2-3 and lose, you're saying that variance (a.k.a. "luck") didn't come into play?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that you're confusing luck that occured prior to the hand in question and luck during the hand.

OP asked (i think) if your chances of getting lucky in a hand are dependent on whether or not you had been lucky in previous recent hands. the answer is no.

now, the alternative deeper question that OP may have actually meant to ask is "If I have been running good, am I more or less likely to win the following hand given that I may change the way I play, for better or worse, when I've been running good." The answer is player dependent.

Re: Hello! The chances of winning any given...
 

of course there's luck in poker. I have Q 10 and I beat your K K. Next hand I raise with Q 10 and you reraise with A A. Thinking I'm going to win because I have Q 10 is nonsense.

Re: Hello! The chances of winning any given...
 

I think it's possible that other players play worse against you when you've been getting noticably lucky in a short period of time. However, whether that increases your chances on the current hand depends on whether or not your own play degrades as a result of winning. A lot of players loosen up inappropriately when getting lucky (including Doyle Brunson, who claims he raises every pot until losing or getting re-raised).

Re: Hello! The chances of winning any given...
 

[ QUOTE ]
OP asked (i think) if your chances of getting lucky in a hand are dependent on whether or not you had been lucky in previous recent hands. the answer is no.

[/ QUOTE ]
His question is ambiguous. A well placed comma or reworded sentence would make it evident what he's referring to. The way it's written, he's referring to luck within that hand. An argument could easily be made that a comma would change the statement from "running lucky for a given hand" to "running lucky in that particular session".

Re: Hello! The chances of winning any given...
 

I think i'm interpreting the question in the OP as not about running hot in general and playing rushes but more as running hot with a certain hand. I'm going to play X Y because I'm running well with those 2 cards.

Hello,again! Letyoudown and Chris Ferguson seem to...
 

on the same plane. Ferguson stated that there is a 99% luck chance involved when he was asked that question.
But he implied that when playing 1000's of HRS. , skill overtakes luck by 99%.
I do believe that at any given hand,winning is a crap shoot. However,over many HRS. of repeated play,the more skillful players will be consistent winners--about 65% of the time---I would NOT put the win rate over time at 99%--NOT even for the experts.
One of my favorite stud writers,Roy West,stated that one will lose about 20% of the time--REGARDLESS of how well he plays.
He will also WIN about 20% of the time--REGARDLESS of how poorly he plays.
Hence,if one plays "PERFECT" poker over a long period of time,he should win about 80% of the time.
But ALL players continuously make mistakes--the best players make few major mistakes--but continue to make an average # of small ones.
These cumulative errors should reduce the winning players win's to about 65%-70%.
HappyPokering, [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
SittingBull

Hello,Betty! The NEXT hand U raise with QT...Hmmm..
 

What convinces U that U will NOT beat AA the NEXT TIME???
UNLESS U can accurately predict the outcome of the cards,U REALLY do NOT know,do U? [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]
Hmmm
SittingBull

Re: Hello! The chances of winning any given...
 

[ QUOTE ]
of course there's luck in poker. I have Q 10 and I beat your K K. Next hand I raise with Q 10 and you reraise with A A. Thinking I'm going to win because I have Q 10 is nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

what does this have to do with my post? i don't follow.

Re: Hello,again! Letyoudown and Chris Ferguson seem to...
 

[ QUOTE ]
on the same plane. Ferguson stated that there is a 99% luck chance involved when he was asked that question.
But he implied that when playing 1000's of HRS. , skill overtakes luck by 99%.
I do believe that at any given hand,winning is a crap shoot. However,over many HRS. of repeated play,the more skillful players will be consistent winners--about 65% of the time---I would NOT put the win rate over time at 99%--NOT even for the experts.
One of my favorite stud writers,Roy West,stated that one will lose about 20% of the time--REGARDLESS of how well he plays.
He will also WIN about 20% of the time--REGARDLESS of how poorly he plays.
Hence,if one plays "PERFECT" poker over a long period of time,he should win about 80% of the time.
But ALL players continuously make mistakes--the best players make few major mistakes--but continue to make an average # of small ones.
These cumulative errors should reduce the winning players win's to about 65%-70%.
HappyPokering, [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
SittingBull

[/ QUOTE ]

this makes no sense.

you say that individual hands are a "total crap shoot". what do you mean? if you mean that the results of a single hand have nothing to do with skill, then it is impossible for the results of a collection of 100, 1000, or 1 million such hands to depend on skill.

what ferguson was getting at (if i may be so bold as to speak for the son of God himself) is that if you view the results of a single hand as being a random variable then it's variance is extremely high as compared to the variance representing the average result of several thousand hands. so high, in fact, that the variance in the results of the single hand dwarfs the skill edge in the single hand. however, when considering the average of several thousand hands the variance of the average is dwarfed by the edge in skill.

this isn't profound poker knowledge. this is the CLT.

Hello,Mosdef! I agree with U 100%
 

Thanks for clarifying Chris's statement.
SittingBull