Are there cards which like me?

[blindfold]

there are many people who make a living playing this game, Id like to know why you think its bullshyt

[thelyingthief]

claims, claims, claims

[blindfold]

so far youve stated here (as well as your other posts) that you dont trust the game or the players...then why would you post here?

[thelyingthief]

to lend a sense of battle-toughened truth to the discussion.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious if there are people in here (serious players) who do have this kind of supersticious thoughts and act according to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm also curious about this. The theoretical answer about luck is pretty much "take it or leave it" -- either you trust that the cards are neutral, or you don't -- but this question about the pervasiveness of supersitition is more intriguing. For example, how many top cash-game or tournament pros still accomedate a bit of room for superstition? Brunson's famous for winning twice with T2. As stunning as winning twice with tens full of deuces is, it must be noted that T2 isn't nearly as bad heads-up, although I believe it's still pretty bad. But does he ascribe some kind of magical properties to those cards? Or is he just using them as a randomizing device? (And if so, isn't that a flawed randomizing device, since I would never pay him off on a board of TT2xx but I might pay off his junk full house on a board of 338xx?)

And I haven't even gone into some of the possible theological questions about runs of good and bad luck.... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Anyway, i've gone way beyond the scope of the OP, but I too am curious how much superstition influences those who make their living by playing a "game of chance".

[Galilee]

[ QUOTE ]
And if so, isn't that a flawed randomizing device, since I would never pay him off on a board of TT2xx but I might pay off his junk full house on a board of 338xx?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but what if Doyle is just having a laugh when he says T2 is lucky for him, but knowing that you believe him he goes and runs a huge bluff on you when the board shows TT2 ...

If you fold then it's you who's acting according to (someone else's) supersticion.

You'd better hope that Doyle doesn't read this on 2+2 before your next game!

[AKQJ10]

Ooh, good point. I was planning to take my life savings and go out to Bellagio to play three hands in the Big Game, but now i'd better rethink. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[donkeyradish]

Actually I would disagree with most answers and say that everyone does indeed have a "lucky hand", by which I mean, for example in Holdem, a pair of starting cards that just for them, over time happens to do much better than the 'expected' average.

It is not possible for most mere mortals to play enough hands in a lifetime for results of a specific hand such as "red tens" to "average out".

So "lucky hands" in a way really do exist; but they may as well not do, as you don't know what they are in advance.

[JPNet]

"The theoretical answer about luck is pretty much "take it or leave it" -- either you trust that the cards are neutral, or you don't"

Actually, the theoretical answer about luck has nothing to do with faith or trust. It is covered by mathematics in Probability and Statistics and is addressed scientifically. i.e. the chances of winning with a set of 2 cards can be proven, in various circumstances.

The fact that a professional player chooses, for whatever reason, to play cards that are less than premium has nothing to do with mathematics, but more to do with psychology. i.e if Daniel, Gus or Doyle play small cards, they may be thinking that you are probably playing big cards, you know they play small cards often, and if the flop comes up small you will have missed the flop and can be chased off the hand. Or they may be superstitious, with the same result.

That doesn't change the math, or make favorite cards more likely to win.

[AKQJ10]

I wrote,

[ QUOTE ]
"The theoretical answer about luck is pretty much "take it or leave it" -- either you trust that the cards are neutral, or you don't"

[/ QUOTE ]

Then JPNet thoroughly took what I wrote out of context by fixating on the word "trust":

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the theoretical answer about luck has nothing to do with faith or trust.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but the point isn't whether the math is trustworthy. (I'm quite confident it is.) The point isn't whether our trust or lack thereof influences the correctness of the answer. (It doesn't.) The point is whether the OP, or his father, or any given players chooses to accept the math as trustworthy.

And that is "take it or leave it" -- either they trust that the cards are neutral, or they don't.

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't change the math, or make favorite cards more likely to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand that sentence -- if Hansen by playing "suboptimally" gains a psychological advantage that makes him money, then he is more likely to win. I know we all know this, but having the best hand at the table and winning the pot (or the tournament) are very different things. But perhaps I'm taking you out of context now?