Hot Seat = Variance?

[scott2130]

Is the idea of a Hot Seat at a poker table just variance?

If you define the term “Hot Seat” as a position on a poker table dealt cards at random that receives a high number of “good hands”, in a small sample size, that win the pot.

I want to expand on this idea a little more but I want to get answers along the way.

[bacats32]

I would say yes the same as being card dead at a table only the opposite.

[johnnyrocket]

yea its variance, each hand is independent so yes it is all due to variance

[jgca]

What about a hot rotator fairy, that moves forward one seat each hand?

This is just as likely to come up, but far less likely to be noticed by the human brain. That's the point.

[ocdscale]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the idea of a Hot Seat at a poker table just variance?

If you define the term “Hot Seat” as a position on a poker table dealt cards at random that receives a high number of “good hands”, in a small sample size, that win the pot.

I want to expand on this idea a little more but I want to get answers along the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you're still on this.
The cards you are dealt are random and independent of previous hands.
The fact that a single seat was dealt AA then KK in two hands does not affect the cards it will be dealt next hand.
No such thing as a lucky seat.

[scott2130]

You are missing the point. I not talking about a hot seat in the same way that a newbie does. I am breaking it down to its parts. I will have time later to expand on my idea.

To the others, thank you for keeping an open mind and not dismissing the concept before I can explain my idea.

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
What about a hot rotator fairy, that moves forward one seat each hand?

This is just as likely to come up, but far less likely to be noticed by the human brain. That's the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Occam's razor. The hot fairy that sticks to one seat is simpler, thus more likely

However your proposed fairly is more likely than a hot rotator fairy that moves forward two seats each hand

[Vang]

That is an enormous misapplication of Occam's razor.

Occam's razor suggests that one should make the fewest assumptions possible. To have any guesses which is more likely, we have to assume something about the conduct of non-existent fairies. Therefore, Occam's Razor suggests that we cannot know which is more likely.

[scott2130]

Ok, so it is agreed that it is just variance and I understand that it is impossible to know when the variance will change, good or bad, but why is it so taboo to change seats? If you only have a few hours and because of the slow nature of live play, you only get 40 hph, why not change seats?

I have heard the arguments that you will change your play or tilt, but not always. If you have been looking at 72o for an hour and just folding, there is no tilt.

IMO, if used sparingly and not just to chase the cards, changing seats is not always wrong.

BJ players will play more or less hands to mix up the order of the cards in the middle of a deck or shoe, why not apply the same logic to poker and switch seats? Other then the temptation to move to often, just like playing to many hands, I don't know why this wouldn't work.

[ocdscale]

[ QUOTE ]
That is an enormous misapplication of Occam's razor.

Occam's razor suggests that one should make the fewest assumptions possible. To have any guesses which is more likely, we have to assume something about the conduct of non-existent fairies. Therefore, Occam's Razor suggests that we cannot know which is more likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a 2nd degree level or what?