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

[MiltonFriedman]

Skill: Having her for breakfast in the morning

[xsizzurpx]

Luck definitely plays a huge role in everyone's life but I think individuals have some control over how much, i guess in poker terms variance, there is in there life. Lets take the bar example. If you go out to a bar 10 nights and every time you are there you try to pick up the 10 lets say that you are successful 1 night. Your twin who is like you in every way goes to the same bar 10 nights but instead of trying to hook up with the 10 goes for a 7 and bags one 4 of the nights. Who is luckier? How much did each person's actions affect this luck who had the better outcome. I think these are all things that need to be thought about if we are trying to measure luck.

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
Luck definitely plays a huge role in everyone's life but I think individuals have some control over how much, i guess in poker terms variance, there is in there life. Lets take the bar example. If you go out to a bar 10 nights and every time you are there you try to pick up the 10 lets say that you are successful 1 night. Your twin who is like you in every way goes to the same bar 10 nights but instead of trying to hook up with the 10 goes for a 7 and bags one 4 of the nights. Who is luckier? How much did each person's actions affect this luck who had the better outcome. I think these are all things that need to be thought about if we are trying to measure luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

How drunk was I the night I got the 10? On the other nights did I bag a 7 or a 3? Or did I go home alone?

Here's an interesting scenario. Me and my identical twin walk into a bar - everything about us is identical from looks to personality to likes and dislikes - I approach the 10 and talk to her, she digs me. Then my twin walks over and talks to her and she digs him, but she doesn't know we are twins. I then walk up and she has to choose between us. She has to take one of us home, but who? Whoever she picks is luckier at that moment right?

These random bar scenarios are making me thirsty.

[pernicus53]

Everyone is discussing luck in terms of something happening to you during your life. What about the "luck" of the larger circumstances of one's life? Say two people go into a bar to pick up the "10" and one looks "better" than the other. He wasn't, then, "lucky" to have picked her up, but couldn't we say he's "lucky" to have been born that way? His genes determined this, but he's lucky to have those genes, right? But people don't like this line of thought, quite understandably, because it just sounds like sour grapes on the part of whomever didn't get the "10." But if you're "lucky" to just happen to pick up some chick for no apparent reason, you're really "lucky" to have been born in a way that allows you to do it all the time (and to not seem "lucky.") That is something that happens to you that you can't control, even if it "happens" before you were born. So, people in first-world countries are "lucky" to have been born three and not in third-world countries (except for to people who don't value modern technology/wealth). Everything's relative, and someone who, for example, pities himself for running bad at poker could be reminded, well, you were born with your limbs, etc. Apparently the guy who inspired the character Tony Knish in Rounders said to someone who was complaining about a bad beat "that wasn't a bad beat. Hiroshima was a bad beat." Anyway, my point is not that people shouldn't complain about bad luck. But I've always thought of luck in terms of a person's overall life, because it seems to me everything else flows from there. I've always felt like, why does it matter if I get "lucky" and pick up some hotty at a bar: isn't the bigger issue that I'd NEED luck? That may seem like defeatist thinking, yet knowing one's limitations can be quite useful--you can then, I suppose, at least start working on your skills.

[thehotspur]

I think that the best contribution that the GPSTS could make in relation to using poker theory to arm people with a positive way of thinking about and dealing with luck is through adapting some Sklansky.

Through his Theory of Poker book many of us were introduced to the rather radical concept of conceiving of the correctness of decisions and behaviour abstracted from actual success or failure.

So rather than bemoan the fact that we got our money in as a 3/1 favourite several times in a row and lost, we can think of it as each time we did it we "won money".

So applying the concept of Sklansky bucks to non-gambling fields would be worthwhile as an educational tool. It effectively ignores the role of luck in judging the correctness of decisions.

There is another completely opposite point that can be made in which a person is not skilled in an area and *needs* to rely on luck to succeed at something. There is a lesson to be learnt there from poker too. The lesson is to be active and to put yourself in a position where it is possible to get lucky. That 10 babe at the bar isn't gonna knock at your bedroom door!

[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is discussing luck in terms of something happening to you during your life. What about the "luck" of the larger circumstances of one's life? Say two people go into a bar to pick up the "10" and one looks "better" than the other. He wasn't, then, "lucky" to have picked her up, but couldn't we say he's "lucky" to have been born that way? His genes determined this, but he's lucky to have those genes, right? But people don't like this line of thought, quite understandably, because it just sounds like sour grapes on the part of whomever didn't get the "10."

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point about the born human traits that are more attractive than others to most of the public in the dating game. We could go on and on about the form in which luck affects EVERYONES lives on a daily basis, and that was one of the points of my original thesis.

What we need to do with this understanding is show how unreasonable the negative connotation that has come along with the word "poker" is because of the factor of luck involved with the game. IMO, and as I stated in the documentary filming of the GPSTS conference this past weekend at Harvard Law, it is not the luck factor that is holding poker down, but instead something else. This something else is the "crowd" poker has been involved with since it's beginning.

We've all heard Doyle speak of the stories he told his now wife that he was a business man etc etc because of the shady/criminal/immoral image that the game of poker and it's player held. This IMO, is what is making it so hard for some people to forget and now understand that poker is a respectable sport and in reality, involves just as much if not LESS shady/criminal/immoral activities than most other sports, political, or judicial venues.

[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the best contribution that the GPSTS could make in relation to using poker theory to arm people with a positive way of thinking about and dealing with luck is through adapting some Sklansky.

Through his Theory of Poker book many of us were introduced to the rather radical concept of conceiving of the correctness of decisions and behaviour abstracted from actual success or failure.

So rather than bemoan the fact that we got our money in as a 3/1 favourite several times in a row and lost, we can think of it as each time we did it we "won money".

So applying the concept of Sklansky bucks to non-gambling fields would be worthwhile as an educational tool. It effectively ignores the role of luck in judging the correctness of decisions.

There is another completely opposite point that can be made in which a person is not skilled in an area and *needs* to rely on luck to succeed at something. There is a lesson to be learnt there from poker too. The lesson is to be active and to put yourself in a position where it is possible to get lucky. That 10 babe at the bar isn't gonna knock at your bedroom door!

[/ QUOTE ]

If you haven't read this response yet please do.

[pernicus53]

[ QUOTE ]

Good point about the born human traits that are more attractive than others to most of the public in the dating game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that wasn't my point. Obviously, the point I was making was that while a lot of people define luck as having to do with something that happens TO you, it can also be defined as having to do with larger sets of circumstances, things many overlook. If you have too narrow a definition of luck, you'd be missing out on a lot of avenues for analysis of it. The dating scenario WAS AN EXAMPLE. Sometimes people use examples when making points.


[ QUOTE ]

We could go on and on about the form in which luck affects EVERYONES lives on a daily basis, and that was one of the points of my original thesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You didn't make that point at all. Your original post said, "As I spoke with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson about on Saturday, our goal through the GPSTS should be to help people realize how much luck is involved in every single day of their lives, through work, relationships, family, etc."
You can't see the difference between "we can all go on and on" and "we should help people realize how much"?
You apparently aren't interested in "thoughts/discussion" at all, but only a regurgitation of your own pro-poker propaganda.

[JFJB]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is chastised constanty because of the well known luck factor involved in the game. As I spoke with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson about on Saturday, our goal through the GPSTS should be to help people realize how much luck is involved in every single day of their lives, through work, relationships, family, etc. Think about how many crucial factors along your lifeline have been completely out of your control.

Once they understand the similarities, we can help the understand how luck (deviations from expectation) has only an affect on the short term. Like in poker, it is not the presence of luck in the short term, but the level of SKILL over the long term which will affect the outcome and SUCCESS we achieve in our lifetime.

Thoughts/Discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seperating Luck from Skill is not that simple. You can try to make an argument for it but not prove it (IMHO).

What about this thought : It comes a point in a poker tournament, where an important skill is to know you now have to rely on luck.

[0524432]

Relax. I was agreeing with you, apparently you felt otherwise...