GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

Poker is chastised constanty because of the well known luck factor involved in the game. As I spoke with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson about on Saturday, our goal through the GPSTS should be to help people realize how much luck is involved in every single day of their lives, through work, relationships, family, etc. Think about how many crucial factors along your lifeline have been completely out of your control.

Once they understand the similarities, we can help the understand how luck (deviations from expectation) has only an affect on the short term. Like in poker, it is not the presence of luck in the short term, but the level of SKILL over the long term which will affect the outcome and SUCCESS we achieve in our lifetime.

Thoughts/Discussion?

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

Don't know if this is the proper forum but I'll give it a shot

Luck: Finding a 10 at the bar with big breasts and a nice ass
Skill: Having her make breakfast in the morning

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't know if this is the proper forum but I'll give it a shot

Luck: Finding a 10 at the bar with big breasts and a nice ass
Skill: Having her make breakfast in the morning

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting response to the thesis but I did lol in my mouth a little.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

how about luck turning into skill over the long run.

Luck - finding a bar that charges $2 for any drink you want
Skill - going to the same bar again.

What is GPSTS?

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

You can easily convince a group of successful people that skill predominates over luck in any occupation in the long run, since they all believe it is skill that got them to where they are. I'm fairly sure life is governed predominantly by luck, from beginning to end.

Since there is no way to measure skill in poker independently of results, the role of skill vs. luck is an intractable problem. Maybe you could take identical twins, aged 21 with no poker knowledge, give them the same 9 months of intensive training, and let them play for 3 years and if their results were close to the same you could make something of it.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

Luck: Finding a property that is 20% below market value.

Skill: Figuring out how you "stumbled across that property" and doing it over and over again [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

Its still gambling right? Even blackjack is a game of skill albeit with a negative expectation, exclusive of counting, but you have to play it with basic skill to minimize the -ev. I just don't think the luck vs. skill arguement does any good, everybody here knows that for a skilled player to profit off of poker 9 out of 10 players must be overall losers. You are going to make the arguement that it should be legalized for that 1 in 10 skilled player? I just want to be able to gamble legally, whats wrong with that? The bottom line to making it legal is to show someone in power the money and that they are not getting it when they could be.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[censored] Harvard

also wasn't there a recent book called The Hidden Role of Luck in the Markets and in Life or something? Can't find it ATM.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]

Once they understand the similarities, we can help the understand how luck (deviations from expectation) has only an affect on the short term.

Thoughts/Discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is if I get hit in a car crash by a drunk driver and die this has no long term effect?

I can now sleep easier.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can easily convince a group of successful people that skill predominates over luck in any occupation in the long run, since they all believe it is skill that got them to where they are. I'm fairly sure life is governed predominantly by luck, from beginning to end.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting response. Would you not agree though, that it is not the sole factor or luck that creates the successful outcome. That it is the experience and being prepared, which I would personally attribute as elements of the skill factor, when met with the "lucky" opportunity creates the formula for success that is clearly not equal throughout.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
Its still gambling right? Even blackjack is a game of skill albeit with a negative expectation, exclusive of counting, but you have to play it with basic skill to minimize the -ev. I just don't think the luck vs. skill arguement does any good, everybody here knows that for a skilled player to profit off of poker 9 out of 10 players must be overall losers. You are going to make the arguement that it should be legalized for that 1 in 10 skilled player? I just want to be able to gamble legally, whats wrong with that? The bottom line to making it legal is to show someone in power the money and that they are not getting it when they could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

There difference is this. No matter how optimal a players performance at a game like Blackjack, they are ALWAYS going to be looking at a negative expectation, over the long run. Keep in mind, the long run is what matters, both in poker and in life. Anyone can get lucky and pick up a 10 one night at a bar in their lifetime, but it is a combination of the luck involved with personal traits and the experience to take advantage of these situations over and over. Refer to the Nash Equilibrium. I would argue that on any given night in a bar, there are several players all using their abilities to reach the same goal. However, in most cases anyways....lol, only one player can be successful. I attest to you that the winner of this game is such because his SKILL was superior over his villain's. Agreed or not?

Contrary to the game on blackjack, poker is a game that has and can be beaten over the long run via superior skill. Proposing that the gambling that goes on in the game of blackjack is relative to that which goes on in games of poker, is to say that, for example, player such as Chip Reese , Doyle Brunson, and Stu Ungar are merely extraordinarily "lucky".

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Once they understand the similarities, we can help the understand how luck (deviations from expectation) has only an affect on the short term.

Thoughts/Discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is if I get hit in a car crash by a drunk driver and die this has no long term effect?

I can now sleep easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain your thought process. I don't understand how you came to this conclusion....

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
Luck: Finding a property that is 20% below market value.

Skill: Figuring out how you "stumbled across that property" and doing it over and over again [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It is the skill acquired through experience and understanding which causes a real estate agent to take advantage of an opportunity like this whereas a randomly chosen player would not have the same outcome over the long run.

What I'm saying, even IMO, sounds so elementary but THAT is exactly the reason that the argument against legalizing poker is so absurd.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is chastised constanty because of the well known luck factor involved in the game. As I spoke with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson about on Saturday, our goal through the GPSTS should be to help people realize how much luck is involved in every single day of their lives, through work, relationships, family, etc. Think about how many crucial factors along your lifeline have been completely out of your control.

Once they understand the similarities, we can help the understand how luck (deviations from expectation) has only an affect on the short term. Like in poker, it is not the presence of luck in the short term, but the level of SKILL over the long term which will affect the outcome and SUCCESS we achieve in our lifetime.

Thoughts/Discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow , that sounds very interesting.
yeah luck affects a lot of things in life

I'm curious how do calculate luck?

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

luck exist anywhere everywhere

i get outdrawn on the river in poker and lose a big pot

i can also get "bad beat" at work if my boss catchs me now posting at 2+2 forum instead of focusing on my current project

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

luck comes and goes
skill is forever
Felix

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker is chastised constanty because of the well known luck factor involved in the game. As I spoke with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson about on Saturday, our goal through the GPSTS should be to help people realize how much luck is involved in every single day of their lives, through work, relationships, family, etc. Think about how many crucial factors along your lifeline have been completely out of your control.

Once they understand the similarities, we can help the understand how luck (deviations from expectation) has only an affect on the short term. Like in poker, it is not the presence of luck in the short term, but the level of SKILL over the long term which will affect the outcome and SUCCESS we achieve in our lifetime.

Thoughts/Discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow , that sounds very interesting.
yeah luck affects a lot of things in life

I'm curious how do calculate luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a good question, but not one I can answer. I'm 22 yrs old and have absolutely no educational background in this area. I've formed these opinions from my own experiences and observations.

I would love to see a response from anyone who could even begin to formulate any kind of equation that ends intself to this topic though....can't imagine how.....but that would really give me a lot of hope for the sustained prestige of these forums....

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

My point exactly.....now IYO, how does this lend itself to the argument going on through legislation right now?

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

I think there is a general unwillingness to accept such a conclusion because it runs contrary to the American ideal. If you work hard --> success will follow. The ethos doesn't really allow for someone to work hard and fail, even if it was just bad luck.

There is obviously a spectrum of luck----skill with poker falling somewhere in the middle. Clearly more towards the luck limit than skill in the short term.

I think the most interesting comparison would be to sports. One of the reasons I believe they are so popular is the belief that the winner "deserves" to win through their hard work, preparation etc. Luck is grudgingly acknowledged sometimes but its contributions discounted.

On one hand, you have poker where most view it as predominately luck and on the other, sports where it is primarily viewed as completely skill based. Interestingly the more games ones plays in both activities the less luck involved. But that is no consolation for the team that suffers from the bad call, or the hand of god in the final.

Definitely an interesting topic though.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

Thats the point, where is the line that is crossed that makes a suckout in poker more or less "lucky" than one of the MANY uncontrollable events that occur in sports? Which I am not even going to begin to list ffs....

What it is that makes, for example, Brian or Taylor's preparation to play the HSNL games with the best of the best any less respectable than the preparation that an NFL team takes in the film room?

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

I understand to an extent, but please clarify your goals. I am just a chop at poker although I am still in the black. I play it for entertainment only, as do most, because 9 of 10 of us lose, we like the gamble of having the cards fall right on a good night (and the skilled poker players want us to have plenty of those good nights too). We want the ability to play online easily, and go to local card clubs. What does the skill over luck argument do for us? Just let us chops play poker, collect the government cut and let the majority gamble at this game, believe me the skilled players need this more than anything.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

this may sound retarded to you but heres my shot.

could u maybe give an x for the "long run luck factor". x=x for everyone yadda yadda thats fine in the infinately long run

i think when people say zomg long run 1.4million hands fgators sucks lolz, and that whatever happens in the "long run" must be all skill is not entirely accurate. i dont think the long run of poker can rightfully be obtained.

if someone goes on for a sick heater that lasts 10k hands, can u honestly tell me that the "luck" will even out over 1.4 million hands...i do not buy into that

p.s. im not fgators

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its still gambling right? Even blackjack is a game of skill albeit with a negative expectation, exclusive of counting, but you have to play it with basic skill to minimize the -ev. I just don't think the luck vs. skill arguement does any good, everybody here knows that for a skilled player to profit off of poker 9 out of 10 players must be overall losers. You are going to make the arguement that it should be legalized for that 1 in 10 skilled player? I just want to be able to gamble legally, whats wrong with that? The bottom line to making it legal is to show someone in power the money and that they are not getting it when they could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

There difference is this. No matter how optimal a players performance at a game like Blackjack, they are ALWAYS going to be looking at a negative expectation, over the long run. Keep in mind, the long run is what matters, both in poker and in life. Anyone can get lucky and pick up a 10 one night at a bar in their lifetime, but it is a combination of the luck involved with personal traits and the experience to take advantage of these situations over and over. Refer to the Nash Equilibrium. I would argue that on any given night in a bar, there are several players all using their abilities to reach the same goal. However, in most cases anyways....lol, only one player can be successful. I attest to you that the winner of this game is such because his SKILL was superior over his villain's. Agreed or not?



[/ QUOTE ]

A. Randomly taking a 10 home is lucky, getting her to make breakfast in the morning is skill.
B. What bar do you go to where there's only one chick?

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
this may sound retarded to you but heres my shot.

could u maybe give an x for the "long run luck factor". x=x for everyone yadda yadda thats fine in the infinately long run

i think when people say zomg long run 1.4million hands fgators sucks lolz, and that whatever happens in the "long run" must be all skill is not entirely accurate. i dont think the long run of poker can rightfully be obtained.

if someone goes on for a sick heater that lasts 10k hands, can u honestly tell me that the "luck" will even out over 1.4 million hands...i do not buy into that

p.s. im not fgators

[/ QUOTE ]

nice random fgators reference

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its still gambling right? Even blackjack is a game of skill albeit with a negative expectation, exclusive of counting, but you have to play it with basic skill to minimize the -ev. I just don't think the luck vs. skill arguement does any good, everybody here knows that for a skilled player to profit off of poker 9 out of 10 players must be overall losers. You are going to make the arguement that it should be legalized for that 1 in 10 skilled player? I just want to be able to gamble legally, whats wrong with that? The bottom line to making it legal is to show someone in power the money and that they are not getting it when they could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

There difference is this. No matter how optimal a players performance at a game like Blackjack, they are ALWAYS going to be looking at a negative expectation, over the long run. Keep in mind, the long run is what matters, both in poker and in life. Anyone can get lucky and pick up a 10 one night at a bar in their lifetime, but it is a combination of the luck involved with personal traits and the experience to take advantage of these situations over and over. Refer to the Nash Equilibrium. I would argue that on any given night in a bar, there are several players all using their abilities to reach the same goal. However, in most cases anyways....lol, only one player can be successful. I attest to you that the winner of this game is such because his SKILL was superior over his villain's. Agreed or not?



[/ QUOTE ]

A. Randomly taking a 10 home is lucky, getting her to make breakfast in the morning is skill.
B. What bar do you go to where there's only one chick?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to respond to the posts in this thread in such a random order but I'm going to tend to respond to the ones which need less thought first......

I said nothing about one girl at a bar, although the statement was theoretical so I easily could have. If it helps you, imagine it this way. There are are a dozen 4's, a dozen 8's, and one 10. The 10 is just so far and away better looking than all of the rest. You would agree that without doubt, there would be a number of players using their best game to outdo the other players, yes?

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
this may sound retarded to you but heres my shot.

could u maybe give an x for the "long run luck factor". x=x for everyone yadda yadda thats fine in the infinately long run

i think when people say zomg long run 1.4million hands fgators sucks lolz, and that whatever happens in the "long run" must be all skill is not entirely accurate. i dont think the long run of poker can rightfully be obtained.

if someone goes on for a sick heater that lasts 10k hands, can u honestly tell me that the "luck" will even out over 1.4 million hands...i do not buy into that

p.s. im not fgators

[/ QUOTE ]

in the infinite run , luck breaks even

but in reality there is no infinite but over a very long run
it should be near even

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
this may sound retarded to you but heres my shot.

could u maybe give an x for the "long run luck factor". x=x for everyone yadda yadda thats fine in the infinately long run

i think when people say zomg long run 1.4million hands fgators sucks lolz, and that whatever happens in the "long run" must be all skill is not entirely accurate. i dont think the long run of poker can rightfully be obtained.

if someone goes on for a sick heater that lasts 10k hands, can u honestly tell me that the "luck" will even out over 1.4 million hands...i do not buy into that

p.s. im not fgators

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, in one way I agree with you, but you are leaving half of the equation out....

Consider a 7 days week. You are the example, each day of the week, you have a rating of luck from -10 to +10. These are just random #s but I'm doing this for a reason. M-1 T+7 W-9 Th+10 F+6 S-2 Su+7. Just like in poker, some days in life you have more bad luck than good luck (as it pertains to your goals) and vice versa.

The idea behind looking at the affect of luck in the long run and short term is this. In the short term, the "spread" of that weeks lucky that I offered to you is highly impacted by the luck of each day. Over the course of say, 52 weeks however, the luck of each day affects the overall outcome very little. Also, if you were to look at the course of a lifetime, each one of the whole 7 day weeks would make very little independent impact on the overall outcome. Considering that over infinity, each players "luck" factor is exactly even (please point out this sentence with evidence otherwise if you disagree), you have to recognize that both bad AND good luck occur with the same frequency.

That being said.....we don't play over the course of infinity. We play within a certain time restraint. That means, that you are correct, there is undoubtedly, at the end of 2 separate poker players lives, going to be a difference in the outcome due to luck.

The point here is, while it is difficult if not impossible to determine a set determinant between the "short" term and the "long" term, the factor that luck has on poker (and IMO life) decreases as time goes on and becomes closer to neutral.

Skill however, reacts much differently than luck, over time.

Nice post btw, good to see some through process in NVG.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its still gambling right? Even blackjack is a game of skill albeit with a negative expectation, exclusive of counting, but you have to play it with basic skill to minimize the -ev. I just don't think the luck vs. skill arguement does any good, everybody here knows that for a skilled player to profit off of poker 9 out of 10 players must be overall losers. You are going to make the arguement that it should be legalized for that 1 in 10 skilled player? I just want to be able to gamble legally, whats wrong with that? The bottom line to making it legal is to show someone in power the money and that they are not getting it when they could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

There difference is this. No matter how optimal a players performance at a game like Blackjack, they are ALWAYS going to be looking at a negative expectation, over the long run. Keep in mind, the long run is what matters, both in poker and in life. Anyone can get lucky and pick up a 10 one night at a bar in their lifetime, but it is a combination of the luck involved with personal traits and the experience to take advantage of these situations over and over. Refer to the Nash Equilibrium. I would argue that on any given night in a bar, there are several players all using their abilities to reach the same goal. However, in most cases anyways....lol, only one player can be successful. I attest to you that the winner of this game is such because his SKILL was superior over his villain's. Agreed or not?



[/ QUOTE ]

A. Randomly taking a 10 home is lucky, getting her to make breakfast in the morning is skill.
B. What bar do you go to where there's only one chick?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to respond to the posts in this thread in such a random order but I'm going to tend to respond to the ones which need less thought first......

I said nothing about one girl at a bar, although the statement was theoretical so I easily could have. If it helps you, imagine it this way. There are are a dozen 4's, a dozen 8's, and one 10. The 10 is just so far and away better looking than all of the rest. You would agree that without doubt, there would be a number of players using their best game to outdo the other players, yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the subtle jab at my laziness.

In that scenario there is still incomplete information. How many players are there? What is each player's taste in women? One player may think the 8 is a 10 and the 10 is a 4. You may have some chubby-chaser that thinks the 4 is a 10 (sorry all you big women out there, please don't hate me). What is the 10's choice in men? How slutty are the 8's?

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

lol np.

You bring up a good point though. In poker, it is easier to define a "consistent throughout" goal, which is to win $. (Don't be confused with the "objective" of a poker player, which is to make correct decisions).

In the scenario that was proposed in this thread (not by my btw) is one that certainly has it's faults. You are certainly right that the goals of each player in the "bar" game are NOT consistent throughout. This is because of a fundamental difference in a player's POV in the bar game, which I'll call perception. The 1-10 scale of one of these theoretical "girls" maybe not be PERCEIVED the same way as another players'.

That being said, I'd like to get some feedback on this contrast (since you've got me thinking now)......

Note: For the sake of this argument, use the most "popular" idea of the terms "ugly" and "attractive" as you know them...

Ugly guys perception of an 8 : Attractive guy's perception of an 8

Micro stakes poker player's perception of $1k : High stakes poker player's perception of $1k

Discuss (I cant only hope this gets half as much attention as ridiculous threads like "What are the top pros worth?")

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Once they understand the similarities, we can help the understand how luck (deviations from expectation) has only an affect on the short term.

Thoughts/Discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is if I get hit in a car crash by a drunk driver and die this has no long term effect?

I can now sleep easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZOMG that's obviously not what he's saying

You're like the retard at the poker table that says, well...poker isn't a game of skill, cause this one time in a tournament i got it all in pf with AA and lost....so obviously it's a game of luck.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]


The idea behind looking at the affect of luck in the long run and short term is this. In the short term, the "spread" of that weeks lucky that I offered to you is highly impacted by the luck of each day. Over the course of say, 52 weeks however, the luck of each day affects the overall outcome very little. Also, if you were to look at the course of a lifetime, each one of the whole 7 day weeks would make very little independent impact on the overall outcome. Considering that over infinity, each players "luck" factor is exactly even (please point out this sentence with evidence otherwise if you disagree), you have to recognize that both bad AND good luck occur with the same frequency.


[/ QUOTE ]

i do agree 100% about one bad week will not be recognizable through infinity, however i do dispute that any poker player has played enough to reasonably compare with infinity.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol np.

You bring up a good point though. In poker, it is easier to define a "consistent throughout" goal, which is to win $. (Don't be confused with the "objective" of a poker player, which is to make correct decisions).

In the scenario that was proposed in this thread (not by my btw) is one that certainly has it's faults. You are certainly right that the goals of each player in the "bar" game are NOT consistent throughout. This is because of a fundamental difference in a player's POV in the bar game, which I'll call perception. The 1-10 scale of one of these theoretical "girls" maybe not be PERCEIVED the same way as another players'.

That being said, I'd like to get some feedback on this contrast (since you've got me thinking now)......

Note: For the sake of this argument, use the most "popular" idea of the terms "ugly" and "attractive" as you know them...

Ugly guys perception of an 8 : Attractive guy's perception of an 8

Micro stakes poker player's perception of $1k : High stakes poker player's perception of $1k

Discuss (I cant only hope this gets half as much attention as ridiculous threads like "What are the top pros worth?")

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say that's necessarily true because there are high stakes players who would value $1k more than micro stakes players. What if the micro stakes player is a billionaire but gets the rush from playing cards, not the money involved, so he plays micro stakes. Same with a high-stakes player who is broke but continually plays high limit games with backing.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

well you're not disagreeing with me, I just proposed a contrast of perceptions....interesting POV though. While I think the majority oh HSNL players would value $1k less than a 50nl player, for example, there are certainly instances where that is not the case, though very few IMO.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
well you're not disagreeing with me, I just proposed a contrast of perceptions....interesting POV though. While I think the majority oh HSNL players would value $1k less than a 50nl player, for example, there are certainly instances where that is not the case, though very few IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree that most High Stakes Players value $1k less than most Low Stakes Players, there still is the variance of each group.

The only way I can really think of is to play it out like hands and ranges. Player A shows up with a certain range of hands in certain situations a certain amount of times. Player B then has to guesstimate what Player A's range is at the current time. Therefore Player B would raise in a certain situation 1/3 of the time, call 1/3 of the time, and fold 1/3 of the time. Basically, what it comes down to is there is no theory of human thinking as no two humans think alike.

Not sure if that makes sense.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

and for that reason, different players have different outcomes over the course of each year, or to use a sample with even less of a luck determinant, say 10 years. In your example, the raise call or fold 1/3 each, it's the players who make that most correct decision consistently over the 10 year period who will be the biggest winners. Not the players who have the luckiest results or happen to make several "lucky guess" decisions throughout their play.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
and for that reason, different players have different outcomes over the course of each year, or to use a sample with even less of a luck determinant, say 10 years. In your example, the raise call or fold 1/3 each, it's the players who make that most correct decision consistently over the 10 year period who will be the biggest winners. Not the players who have the luckiest results or happen to make several "lucky guess" decisions throughout their play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Although, 10 years may not even be a big enough sample size.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

I assume you must have read this already?

Fooled by Randomness

Excellent book.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

Nope, never read it

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thoughts/Discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, read The Black Swan.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

Calvinists take a different view, I hear.

Re: GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis
 

"I'm curious how do calculate luck? "

Ask a standard deviant.