Hello! The chances of winning any given...
 

hand in a no-limit hold'em tournament game is dependent on whether U are running lucky or not for that given hand.
Does anyone agree with this statement?
SittingBull

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

Of course it's dependent on that...assuming "luck" = variance.

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

uh...
what?
explain more?

If you're saying tournaments are all luck, then you're wrong.


If you're saying that you have to be lucky to win a preflop all in race...then sure...

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

Neither of those were the question.

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

Ok...so what was the question.

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

[ QUOTE ]
hand in a no-limit hold'em tournament game is dependent on whether U are running lucky or not for that given hand.
Does anyone agree with this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

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

I can tell you that if I was in a coinflip situation against Tiffany Williamson this main event or Moneymaker two years back, I would definitely not be expecting to win 50% of the time.

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

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

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

I know that when I'm running hot, I'm more likely to call in a coinflip situation or after flopping four flush. Obviously "running good" is about 1000th on the list of things I consider when making a preflop all-in or the like, but every now and again you're on a roll and want to keep the momentum going.

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

[ 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?

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

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

Quote "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?
Hmmm"
Of coure I don't know but the odds don't change, Q 10 is still a 4-1 dog. It's a 4-1 dog regardless of what happened to Q 10 earlier.
My whole point which has already been stated, is that these are independent events, just like the probablity of rolling a seven in craps doesn't change if I flip a coin and it comes up tails.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Quote "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?
Hmmm"
Of coure I don't know but the odds don't change, Q 10 is still a 4-1 dog. It's a 4-1 dog regardless of what happened to Q 10 earlier.
My whole point which has already been stated, is that these are independent events, just like the probablity of rolling a seven in craps doesn't change if I flip a coin and it comes up tails.

[/ QUOTE ]

subsequent poker hands aren't necessarily independent, though. the CARDS are independent, but the way you play or the way your opponents play may change from hand to hand based on what has happened in the prior hand. for example, if you are "running cold" you may tilt and then your chances of winning a hand absolutely depends on how much luck you've had in prior hands.

the OP is subject to interpretation.

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

[ QUOTE ]
hand in a no-limit hold'em tournament game is dependent on whether U are running lucky or not for that given hand.
Does anyone agree with this statement?
SittingBull

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, lots of people agree with this statement.

None of them are right.

There's no such thing as luck, it is merely a label applied by humans to the vicissitudes of life much like this post is merely an excuse to use the word "vicissitudes."

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

Not sure what the author of this post is trying to attain from asking this question but here is my two cents.

Of course luck/variance is a factor in every single hand or any given hand as you put it. But it's what you do with that luck or lack of luck that decides whether you win or lose. I don't know what you mean by "running lucky". Do you mean you get a great starting hand preflop or that you hit the nuts on the flop? Your question is relative.

If your saying the person who wins any given hand in a poker tournament is the luckiest of all the players who played that particular hand I would have to strongly disagree. People get lucky with great starting hands and hit their flops but still fold to other players who have absolutely nothing and decided to make their own luck.

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

You only quoted half of what Jesus Ferguson said in that interview and in other interviews when asked the same question. Ferguson stated that on average poker is 75% luck and 25% skill. But on any given hand it could be 99% luck and 1% skill or it could be 99% skill and 1% luck. Congrats to Jesus on that WSOP circuit win...quad Aces!!!!