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

[budblown]

[ 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.

[0524432]

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.

[budblown]

[ 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.

[0524432]

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.

[budblown]

[ 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.

[aitchie]

I assume you must have read this already?

Fooled by Randomness

Excellent book.

[budblown]

Nope, never read it

[Nick Rivers]

[ QUOTE ]
Thoughts/Discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, read The Black Swan.

[MiltonFriedman]

Calvinists take a different view, I hear.

[MiltonFriedman]

"I'm curious how do calculate luck? "

Ask a standard deviant.