Zen and the Art of Poker

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Luck is not real.

[/ QUOTE ]


In cold, hard terms I agree. The odds never change. A good hand/bet is always the same.

But, like DeciphrThs said, there are those who look at your heater/rush and think, "Man, he's hot right now," and change their play accordingly. Maybe you've just not noticed it.

I watched a Doyle B. interview and he said pretty much the same thing. IIRC, that remark's been discussed in another thread. He said when he's on a run of good cards he'll sometimes play cards he wouldn't normally because of the opponent's concern for his "luck." (paraphrase)

Give it a try. It may work for you. Or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, trust me, I do. "Lucky Fish" is my favorite table image, and I've learned how to develop it on purpose in B&M's.

The problem with the Zen book is that it doesn't make this distinction (between luck as a psychological trick on your opponents or luck as an actual cosmic force), or if it does it doesn't communicate that fact very well which pretty much amounts to the same thing.

Yeah I tend to agree with what everyone else has been saying. I've read Zen and the ART of Poker and what Phillips said wasn't that luck affects your table image and allows you to be more successize, but that luck is cyclic and if you've been getting lucky recently, you should play more loosely because you're more likely to get lucky at that moment (or vice versa, if you've been getting unlucky you should tighten up). This goes along with the basic Buddhist belief that life in general moves in cycles, which, quite franky, I don't really buy into. Mathematically, you're no more likely to get lucky in any given hand than when you're enduring a cold streak, but the way the other players perceive you will definitely be different and they'll probably be less likely to stand up to you if you show any signs of strength.

Hi guys. I either wrote-- or meant to write but didn't-- to do this stuff in small doses, playing your regular game, and keeping a "minor eye" on this, which probably is what most of us do. It then becomes kind of a moot point because at this level it matches up with our deteriorating (or its opposite) table image.
Best,
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Luck is not real.

You realize that you just said there's no such thing as variance.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Yes, every hand is independent, but that doesn't mean that each similar hand plays out in the same way. Take the same cards dealt to each player and the same flop, turn, and river, and it's entirely possible that the hand will not be played the same way twice. one reason for the difference is the perceptions the players have about each other based on what has transpired in the previous x amount of time.

The cards are independent of all other factors. The players' perceptions are not.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Luck is not real.

You realize that you just said there's no such thing as variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Constellations are not real, in that they have no significance other than as a pattern that exists only in our minds. But the stars are still there, and they exist in exactly the same locations we believe them to, but nothing "decided" that they should exist in that pattern; it just happened that way.

When I say "Luck is not real," what I really mean is that "There is no force behind the phenomenon of random occurrences happening in ways we perceive to be good or bad." In other words, you can go on a 150BB downswing in limit and have it not be your fault, but it's not due to some force "deciding" you were destined to do so; it just happened that way.

[roundest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
something about taking in to consideration of your recent luck (good or bad) in previous hands in order to make a better educated decision in your current hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the major failing of that book (yes I have read it). Luck is not real.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that he doesn't talk about your opponent's perception of your luck. As far as Phillip's is concerned, you could be playing blackjack or starting a new poker session against all new opponents and your play should be partly based on how "lucky" you have been recently.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

When I say "Luck is not real," what I really mean is that "There is no force behind the phenomenon of random occurrences happening in ways we perceive to be good or bad."

OK. Just when see the word "luck" I interpret it as "variance," being that I'm not a mystic.

SPOCK: It appears that random chance has operated in our favor
McCOY: You mean we got lucky
SPOCK: I believe I said that

It saddens me that you're forced to put all this energy into explaining your initial post.

[Zotzs]

I don't believe in changing the way you play based on a "lucky streak" at all. Sometimes luck moves in cycles, sometimes it doesn't. I don't see too many zen masters winning poker tournaments. However I do believe in changing the way you play based on how the other players pervieve your "luck".

Whether you go on a rush from a run of strong cards, some nice bluffs or a combination of both makes no real difference. A good player will always be getting ready to play back at you. They could be doing this because you're not having to show your cards and they suspect you are stealing pots, or, they can see you've had a run of strong cards and think you will begin to use this image to start stealing pots. Either way, I believe its a big mistake to loosen up on a rush when there are tough players at the table because they will be waiting to trap a player loosening up on a rush.

If on the other hand you are at a table of mediocre/fishy players who fear lucky streaks and start to fold to small bets well thats a different story...