Interesting take on poker pros

CraigJ · #1 03-18-2007, 12:24 AM

First let me say I beleive there is a lot of skill in poker. But there is also a lot of luck too. And trust me I know that in the long run skill will win.

Okay quick statistics lesson. In most processes, random variation conforms to a probability distribution know as the normal distribution, which is the most commonly observed probability distribution. It is also known as a bell curve or Guassian distribution. The empirical rule is a handy quick estimate given the mean and standard deviation of a data set that follows the normal distribution. The empircal rule states that for a normal data set 99.7% of all data will fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean.

Okay it doesn't matter if you understood a word of that or not. But apply it to the "luck" in holdem poker. What it says is most people over the course of their life are going to experience close to the same amount of luck when it comes to winning and losing. But there are a few who are going to be more unlucky (more bad beats) than normal and a few who are going to be more lucky (more suck outs) than normal.

Take Phil Ivy, he has the poker skills but I also bet you he falls outside the 99.7% on the lucky side. And I bet most of your best poker pros do as well.

So what I am saying is your best poker players not only have the skill but also have more than their fair share of luck.

elffaw · #2 03-18-2007, 02:12 AM

Way to rationalize your failure at poker. "They are pros cause they are lucky!" Yeah, that's it.

Happytime Harry · #3 03-18-2007, 03:59 AM

How much is Ivey down online for the year?

Matusow's a luckbox too.

You're just unlucky.

sevenhigh · #4 03-18-2007, 06:53 AM

not interesting just not true!!!!

Ray Of Light · #5 03-18-2007, 08:10 AM

CraigJ... have you really been on this forum for nearly three years and yet still harbour the belief that good poker pros are just really, REALLY lucky?... oh dear, just where did all your time go?

Josem · #6 03-18-2007, 08:30 AM

let's say that you rate Ivey's luck at "42" (or some other number)

Exactly what are you going to do with this information? Why does it matter whether you decree that Phil Ivey is lucky or unlucky?

Central Limit · #7 03-18-2007, 01:09 PM

I guess Jamie Gold must be a really, really great player, then. I mean given that one poker player can't be luckier than another...

admiralfluff · #8 03-18-2007, 02:34 PM

This is a commonly accepted theory for all professional athletes. The best pros are certainly better than average, but they are most likely not as good (long term) as their short-term results.

CraigJ · #9 03-18-2007, 03:39 PM

Learn to read people!!

I never said there wasn't any skill in poker. Trust me I know there is. (I like to think I fall in the skilled area.) But there is also luck in Poker. And based on the probablity distribution there have to be people who are going to get more than their fair share of good luck at the poker table.

I was saying imagine the Poker Player who is incredibly skilled and also has more than his fair share of good luck. He has the best of BOTH worlds. Now if that person exists where would you find that someone? Probably dominating the Poker world. Sounds like Phil Ivy to me. Again he has the best of BOTH worlds, VERY SKILLED, VERY LUCKY.

CraigJ · #10 03-18-2007, 03:47 PM

Learn to read people!!

I never said there wasn't any skill in poker. Trust me I know there is. (I like to think I fall in the skilled area.) But there is also luck in Poker. And based on the probablity distribution there have to be people who are going to get more than their fair share of good luck at the poker table.

I was saying imagine the Poker Player who is incredibly skilled and also has more than his fair share of good luck. He has the best of BOTH worlds. Now if that person exists where would you find that someone? Probably dominating the Poker world. Sounds like Phil Ivy to me. Again he has the best of BOTH worlds, VERY SKILLED, VERY LUCKY.