Cyclical Luck
 

Lets say that someone says that they have a foolproof system to playing roulette (a game in which we all know cannot be beat in the longrun). This system involves betting red or black based on previous rolls of the roulette ball. For example, if 5 reds hit in a row, there is a higher probability that black will be next and should be bet. What would be your reaction to this??? I'm sure the posters on this board would unanimously agree that this is complete garbage.

So why is it that some poker literature seems to hint at exactly this strategy?

Here is the most profound example that comes to mind:

Excerpt from Zen and The Art of Poker by Larry W. Phillips:
pg75-76

If your cards are below average, but you've been winning with anything and everything, you should play more hands. Conversely, if you've been getting fairly good hands, but you've lost with them, you might want to fold some more...Mathematicians tell us that each hand takes place independently of all others. This is good advice to ignore...Longtime experienced card players believe in this bunching of luck.

I have read similar advice in other wellknown poker literature and somehow I am inclined to believe this; although it doesnt seem to line up with the concept of random probability. Could this be due to human error in the shuffling of the deck (i.e. clumping of cards)? Or could it possibly be a non-random shuffling algorithm online??? These could contribute slightly to the factor, but I beleive these "non-random flukes" so to speak are so minute it can be ignored in the calculation of probable outcomes. Could it be a function of our own psychological involvment in the game? Or could this advice just be plain inacurate (although I am lead to believe otherwise).

Just something to think about.

Re: Cyclical Luck
 

The roulette system of course is garbage. The paragraph about poker is correct up until it says "the bunching of luck". The reason you play more hands when you are winning is because your opponents will fear you more, and the reason you play fewer hands when you are losing is because they will take shots at you. Of course the "bunching of luck" or "rushes" do occur at a statistically predictable frequency. This does not imply that getting good cards on one hand makes it more likely that you will get good cards on the the next hand. What happens is that the chance of winning a number of hands in a row due to the rush gives you an additional chance to win on subsequent hands due to the opponent's reaction to you. In that sense, you are "playing into a rush". There is a fine line between this and what most gambler's believe. You cannot apply this to a game where the trials are completly independent.

Re: Cyclical Luck
 

I remember once flipping through a book on craps. The author reccommended doubling your bet after winning a few in a row in order to capitalize on your rushes. I still wonder if a Casino was involved with that publication.

Morgan

Re: Cyclical Luck
 

There are many many books with such systems for craps, roulette, and blackjack. Probably more than that for winning gambling systems. Some systems even sell for a great deal of money. Progressions have been popular with gamblers since the times of Cardano and Pascal. It should be pointed out that such systems can provide the recreational gambler a very high probability, over 90%, of winning on a given night, or in the short run. This may even be desireable to some who only play occasionally. If this is all the system claims to do, it is not fraudulent. If such a system leads you to believe that you can obtain a postive ev, or that you can make a living, then then it is fraudulent.

Re: Cyclical Luck
 

The excerpt was not part of a system, just general advice.

As far as systems go, I think they are bad, not inherently, but because they have the tendency of getting people to believe that have the best of it. I know very intelligent people who believed systems could win.

I think the only honest way to write on fixed gambling games, short of teaching probability, is to say for each dollar wagered at roullette you will lose roughly a nickle.

Morgan

Re: Cyclical Luck
 

A guy I used to work for once labored for countless hours on his home craps table developing his "system", he then went to Vegas and made a killing. Later, he discovered that his system was bunk (but he still got to keep the money [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] ). Obviously, luck was in his favor, as this endeavor had no long run ev.

Very sharp guy, this guy also studied the horses for over 10 years before he ever really "cracked" the races, but since then he has made quite a fortune (horses are beatable, unlike craps, I mean in the long run). He's also a pretty sharp poker player. He is currently worth millions.

Don

Re: Cyclical Luck
 

They are often misleading; however, you can also make a similar statement about many legitimate gambling books on poker and blackjack. They tend to make people believe that they can read one book and become a significant winner, without making clear that you also need extensive study, experience, thinking, practice, and reading of many other books as well.

Re: Cyclical Luck
 

When you play a "rush" in poker you do so because by winning several hands in a short time period your opponents become afraid of you and hence start to play worse against you, allowing you to win more hands.

It is not about "luck" or about getting better hands grouped together due to dealing mistakes, that is extremely unlikely.

Anyone who says a fair roulete game can be beaten can play in poker with me anytime.

Re: Cyclical Luck: Morgan et al
 

Casino managers have a saying:

'All players go broke, but system players...go broke systematically.'

Re: Cyclical Luck
 

This guy sounds like a sharp cookie. The horses are beatable but it takes study not just a glance at a racing mag that all the punters look at. Surprised your friend thought he could beat craps, though. But then, even Sir Isaac Newton held to the crackpot idea that base metal could be turned into gold.