Proof that people do not believe hands are independant

[jat850]

Live 2/4 at Commerce - average players - I am still on my learner's permit.

1st hand: I am MP3, about even, and a I fairly tight which means that I play the fewest hands on a % basis at the table. I look at my hold cards - AA - are they going to be nice to me or stab me in the back? I follow the rules - I raise. Most players listen to the raise and fold. Only the blinds and one other person plays. I bet out all the way through the hand and the AA's hold and are shown at a showdown. (A rare a blessed event in and of itself.)

2nd hand, I am now MP2. I look down and THEY'RE BACK!!! Back to back pocket rockets. Gotta raise. Now the comments start: "Well at least he can't have ACE's again!" This time 6 players call the raise and see the flop even though I am in worse position to raise and haven't raised twice in a row before at the table. Flop has another ACE in it plus T-rag.

Checked to me I just keep betting out. One guy goes all in and 3 others stay with me. Turn is THE 4TH ACE!!! I have never had 4 ACE's in a $ game before. River is a 10. 2 people stayed all the way to showdown + the one all in.

Dealer had a pretty good idea what was up, started calling for pocket T's which would have been a jackpot hand.

IMO, the 2nd hand provides proof positive that people do not think rationally about hands being independant of one another. A basic statistical principle of independant events crosses over with the real world poker advice of play "in the moment" of THAT hand, not the last one. Most players drove right through the STOP signs that I put plainly in the middle of the road early and often.

No real advice needed here. This one was just too much fun not to share. LOL.

[shant]

Were you giving Commerce low-limit regulars credit for having a thought process before this event?

[jat850]

they exist. Rene Descrates, I believe unless my memory banks are faulty, again. So, TECHNICALLY, there IS a thought process, just not a GOOD thought process, Shant. LOL.

[brettbrettr]

Your next post should be entitled "Proof that most people suck at poker"

[jat850]

If I follow your suggestion, that 2nd post would be redundant, wouldn't it? My goal is to, at least, engage in "entertrainment." (purposefully 'sic') I'll pick a new target for my next post. Perhaps even me.