Crisis of Faith

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

mojito

[daryn]

ok, then it matters [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[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