Poker Gods or Fallacy?

[CardSharkGames]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, the analogy of the coin flipping trial is that someone has just started playing Hold'em and suffered 5 (or 10 or 100) bad beats in a row. This is not a "prelook", it is his actual experience to this point in time. What remains for such a player is the experiences he will have over the remainder of his life. Since the expected run of Hold'em luck for him from this time forward is 50:50 good:bad, it is obvious that such a person's initial bad luck is not statistically expected to "balance out" in the long run, as people like to claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with your reasoning is that you have picked an arbitrary subset out of the poker player's entire lifetime of hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have not picked an *arbitrary* subset. If you look in my quote above, I said that we are starting (for the purposes of my discussion, not necessarily the op's life) with "his actual experience to this point in time". Of the set of hands which the player will have in his life are two subsets: (1) the hands he has already played and whose outcome is known, and (2) the hands he is expected to play over the the rest of his life and whose outcome is not *known*, but can be statistically projected.

Before the person plays his first hand of Hold'em, subset 1 is null and the the expected luck ratio for both subset 2 and the entire set of both played and unplayed games for his life are the same, say 50:50.

But as he plays hands, they move from subset 2 to subset 1. The expectation for subset 2 (unplayed hands) remains 50:50 while the luck ratio for subset 1 (played hands) is the actual results (say 10 bad and 0 good).

For example, you define a trial of flipping a coin 1000 times. This is the original set and the expected outcome is 500:500 for heads:tails. If the first 10 flips are heads, the set still consists of a trial of 1000 flips, but now you have two subsets -- (1) flips already done and (2) flips not yet done. The results of set 1 are 10:0 and subset 2's expectation is now 495:495, making the revised expected results for the original set to be 505:495.

This is not an "arbitrary" selection of trials -- it is the only one possible given that we want to compare actual results of completed actions versus expected results of actions not yet completed.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, you define a trial of flipping a coin 1000 times. This is the original set and the expected outcome is 500:500 for heads:tails. If the first 10 flips are heads, the set still consists of a trial of 1000 flips, but now you have two subsets -- (1) flips already done and (2) flips not yet done. The results of set 1 are 10:0 and subset 2's expectation is now 495:495, making the revised expected results for the original set to be 505:495.

[/ QUOTE ]
As soon as you get your first result, you can recalculate the final expected result. You can then recalculate after each result or every tenth result. Or you could just wait until all 1000 are done before calculating. So what value are you gaining by doing a middle trial recalcuation? Every point in the trial from start to finish will have it's own end estimate based on known results.

But why are we doing this? How are we using this information?

[Mllndllrmn]

This is simple. Odds are set to predict, not determine. You can lose Aces over Kings every time you play them in your life, and nothing is owed to you. In the end, SKILL evens out (or rises, I guess) and you win money. Daniel Negraneu said that someone can run hot for 1 week, month, year, or hell even 10 years, but in the end skill is what is going to win the money, unless you are so lucky that you never lose your entire life. But all these numbers and odds and math is all good and fine but un-necessary, odds predict not determine.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
You wouldnt know it from this post, but I'm actually very good with statistics.

[/ QUOTE ] Unless you are 10 years old or younger, I think it's pretty safe to say this thread has illustrated that you are not very good with statistics.

[CardSharkGames]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, you define a trial of flipping a coin 1000 times. This is the original set and the expected outcome is 500:500 for heads:tails. If the first 10 flips are heads, the set still consists of a trial of 1000 flips, but now you have two subsets -- (1) flips already done and (2) flips not yet done. The results of set 1 are 10:0 and subset 2's expectation is now 495:495, making the revised expected results for the original set to be 505:495.

[/ QUOTE ]
As soon as you get your first result, you can recalculate the final expected result. You can then recalculate after each result or every tenth result. Or you could just wait until all 1000 are done before calculating. So what value are you gaining by doing a middle trial recalcuation? Every point in the trial from start to finish will have it's own end estimate based on known results.

But why are we doing this? How are we using this information?

[/ QUOTE ]

We are using this information to respond to comments like this one: "You have to believe and understand that we all get the same hands, in the same distribution, in the long run." which was just made in http://tinyurl.com/3bnspu

The point of such comments are to (falsely) reassure someone who has had a run of bad luck that such a run will, by necessity or even just by statistical expectation, turn around and be offset by a surplus of good luck in the future.

At the point the comment is made, we are in what you call "the middle of the trial", but that "middle" is defined as the point between the actual results of the past and the projected results of the future. In order to refute the claim that past bad luck will be offset by more than normal good luck in the future, we must do "a middle trial recalcuation".

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
At the point the comment is made, we are in what you call "the middle of the trial", but that "middle" is defined as the point between the actual results of the past and the projected results of the future. In order to refute the claim that past bad luck will be offset by more than normal good luck in the future, we must do "a middle trial recalcuation".

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I do agree with this. At the present point in time, your luck should be even from now till the end of your career, regardless of your results up until now.

So when one guy says I have been outdrawn for an entire week and the other guy says it will even out in the future, they are BOTH spouting meaningless comments.

The only reason a "run" of bad luck is worse than a "run" of good luck (which are simply statistical variances) is that the bad luck may cause your bankroll to hit zero which is very undesirable. I would rather discuss play than what cards are falling.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Someone in the other forum thought I was saying that I was more likely to get it on the next hand, but thats not what I was saying.

But, this still seems wrong to me. WTF is a "luck credit"? Luck has no memory, right? I seem to be contradicting myself, but thats the problem...

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct - luck has no memory. Let's say you're flipping a fair coin for $1 each flip. This is obviously 0EV.

Now, let's say on the first 10 flips, you're unlucky loose $10. Now, all future flips are still 0EV, so if you do an additional 1000 flips, your expectation is that you will still be down $10. Same if you do 1 million flips. No number of flips will catch you up expectation-wise.

The basic fact is that luck does NOT even out. If your luck has been bad, there is no mechanism that makes up for it in the future - what's lost is lost, and you're just as likely to have even more bad luck in the future as you are to have good luck.

That may sound depressing, but it's also true the other drirection. IF you get lucky, there's no corresponding bad luck spell coming to get you in the future. If you were up $10 after the first 10 flips, and then flipped 1 million more, you would still expect to be up an average of $10 at the end.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]

So when one guy says I have been outdrawn for an entire week and the other guy says it will even out in the future, they are BOTH spouting meaningless comments.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The first guy is making a factual statement about the past. it has meaning, and can either be true or false.

The second guy is making a statement of statistics, and his statement has meaning but is always false.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]

The point of such comments are to (falsely) reassure someone who has had a run of bad luck that such a run will, by necessity or even just by statistical expectation, turn around and be offset by a surplus of good luck in the future.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a key point. Usually statements about luck evening out are made to re-assure people who are losing (whether their losses are due to luck or skill).

A more honest statement to someone who has been unlucky is that they can expect their future luck to be better - specifically expect it to be even, whereas their past luck was bad. That may not be as reassuring, but it's the truth.

Of course, most poker downswings of any size are issues of relative skill and vig, not luck. But people don't like to be told that. They'd rather continue to believe that they're a winning player who just doesn't happen to win. Who am I to complain about that? Don't tap the aquarium [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So when one guy says I have been outdrawn for an entire week and the other guy says it will even out in the future, they are BOTH spouting meaningless comments.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The first guy is making a factual statement about the past. it has meaning, and can either be true or false.

The second guy is making a statement of statistics, and his statement has meaning but is always false.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the future, I am going to avoid posts that include the terms "bad run" "good run" "luck" "even out over the long run" "variance" "cold deck" "poker gods" and the biggest one of all "why do I keep losing to donks who suck out on me?".