|
|
#1
10-24-2007, 03:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Why does it seem like the cards are not random?
I frequenly find that at certain tables I may make 3 or 4 buy-ins, and I seem to hit my outs and draws repetitively at these tables. On the other hand there are tables at the same level and type where nothing I do can ever work: at these tables I lose my boats to better boats or quads, my 2-pairs are always beaten by straits, my opponant always has the nut flush, etc. I understand that some opponants are better than others, but still i have to wonder how the results can be so different and how it can be a random event that my cards always result in a second-best hand at certain tables.
|
|
#3
10-24-2007, 03:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why does it seem like the cards are not random?
level?
|
|
#4
10-24-2007, 03:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why does it seem like the cards are not random?
do you understand the meaning of the word random?
|
|
#5
10-24-2007, 03:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why does it seem like the cards are not random?
wow, that is strange man
|
|
#8
10-24-2007, 03:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why does it seem like the cards are not random?
|
|
#10
10-24-2007, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why does it seem like the cards are not random?
[ QUOTE ]
I frequenly find that at certain tables I may make 3 or 4 buy-ins, and I seem to hit my outs and draws repetitively at these tables. On the other hand there are tables at the same level and type where nothing I do can ever work: at these tables I lose my boats to better boats or quads, my 2-pairs are always beaten by straits, my opponant always has the nut flush, etc. I understand that some opponants are better than others, but still i have to wonder how the results can be so different and how it can be a random event that my cards always result in a second-best hand at certain tables. [/ QUOTE ] Psychologists have found out that humans can not accurately determine whether a series of events is random or not. Specifically, we are biased to see random patterns as non random. Personally, I think there is an evolutionary advantage in that - if we think we see a pattern where antelopes are at watering holes at dusk, and they are not thare - no big harm. But if we have such a theory about a nonrandom pattern and we are right - we get to eat an antelope and live long enough to have children. There is an unfortunately bad book called Fooled by Randomness which discusses this bias in the context, mainly, of investments. My favorite example of this error is the "hot hand" in basketball. We all "know" that at times a player will get a "hot hand" such that he is more likely to make his next shot than he would normally be. But a careful statistical analysis shows that this is false. The probability of making the next shot is independent of whether you have made or missed a sequence of preceding shots. But damn it sure LOOKS like there is a "hot hand" effect. But there isn't. So too the cry - "it's rigged" It sure looks that way - but it isn't. You might look up Amos Tversky to find more stuff on this sort of thing.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
