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

[Phreak]

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

[budblown]

[ 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?

[budblown]

[ 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

[0524432]

[ 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?

[felixleong]

[ 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

[0524432]

[ 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.

[budblown]

[ 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?

[0524432]

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?")

[RikaKazak]

[ 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.

[Phreak]

[ 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.