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

[0524432]

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?

[budblown]

Don't know if this is the proper forum but I'll give it a shot

Luck: Finding a 10 at the bar with big breasts and a nice ass
Skill: Having her make breakfast in the morning

[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't know if this is the proper forum but I'll give it a shot

Luck: Finding a 10 at the bar with big breasts and a nice ass
Skill: Having her make breakfast in the morning

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting response to the thesis but I did lol in my mouth a little.

[budblown]

how about luck turning into skill over the long run.

Luck - finding a bar that charges $2 for any drink you want
Skill - going to the same bar again.

What is GPSTS?

[Todd Terry]

You can easily convince a group of successful people that skill predominates over luck in any occupation in the long run, since they all believe it is skill that got them to where they are. I'm fairly sure life is governed predominantly by luck, from beginning to end.

Since there is no way to measure skill in poker independently of results, the role of skill vs. luck is an intractable problem. Maybe you could take identical twins, aged 21 with no poker knowledge, give them the same 9 months of intensive training, and let them play for 3 years and if their results were close to the same you could make something of it.

[RikaKazak]

Luck: Finding a property that is 20% below market value.

Skill: Figuring out how you "stumbled across that property" and doing it over and over again [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[ContactGSW]

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.

[Keyser.]

[censored] Harvard

also wasn't there a recent book called The Hidden Role of Luck in the Markets and in Life or something? Can't find it ATM.

[dlorc]

[ 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.

[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
You can easily convince a group of successful people that skill predominates over luck in any occupation in the long run, since they all believe it is skill that got them to where they are. I'm fairly sure life is governed predominantly by luck, from beginning to end.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting response. Would you not agree though, that it is not the sole factor or luck that creates the successful outcome. That it is the experience and being prepared, which I would personally attribute as elements of the skill factor, when met with the "lucky" opportunity creates the formula for success that is clearly not equal throughout.