One last try

[CraigJ]

Every process in life follows a distribution pattern known as a bell curve. It looks like a bell because most people fall in the middle but a few are on either end (left or right).

Even life itself falls into a bell curve. Unfortunately a few die at an early age (left) while a few fortuante get to live to be over a hundred (right). Most are in the middle and live to be roughly the same age.

Some people live in extreme poverty (left), others have more money than they will ever know what to do with (right). But most are in the middle. That is why middle class is the largest class.

Skill in poker falls into the bell curve. Every person in the world would fall into this category whether thay play poker or not. Most could care less about the game so they fall in the middle. Those who learn about the game, play and practice it, are going to be moving themselves to the right side of the curve. Ivy is on the far right because he is so skilled. Unfortunately if someone was born with a mental handicap they would have to be on the far left.

Now here we go, luck in poker will also distribute into a bell curve. And by luck we mean how well you fair against the percentages. For arguments sake for a 50/50 probability 51 would be considered lucky, 49 unlucky. Just like any other process in life it will distribute in a bell curve. A few will get more than their fair share of luck (beat the probabilites) while a few will get more than their fair share of bad luck.

TO SAY THAT FOR SOME REASON LUCK IN POKER DOESN'T FALL INTO THIS DISTRIBUTION AND WILL EVENTUALLY EQUAL OUT FOR EVERYONE IS LIKE SAYING LIFE WILL EVENTUALLY EQUAL OUT FOR EVERYONE. AND THAT IS REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN.

All I have been trying to say is Ivy is very much on the right in his poker skill. Where his luck falls we don't really know. He may be so far to the right that his luck is on the left and his skill just makes up for it. But if we can find the person who is just as far on the right as Ivy and whose luck (beating the percentages) is also the farthest on the right, then we have just found the most dominate poker player in the world.

[bernie]

Does this really need a 3rd thread?

b

[sanmarcosrun1]

GIVE IT UP PLEASE!!!!
You are just creating clutter in the forum. This didnt need another thread. This could be posted in the other threads. Your arguement is based on saying that certain people are just born with more luck. If you do not see how out in left field that thought process is then I truly feel sorry for you. Luck is a myth. When people suckout on a hand they are not just getting lucky on someone. They are hitting the hand in the certain percent range that it falls under. That doesnt mean they are lucky the hand is following its probability. Over hundreds of thousands of hands and years of playing poker the individual will have hit their hands within perecntage range it is suppossed to. Please go read Sklansky's book on the Theory of Poker.

[CraigJ]

And yet they continue to post to it adding to the clutter and moving it back to the top.

[CraigJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Over hundreds of thousands of hands and years of playing poker the individual will have hit their hands within perecntage range it is suppossed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes most will, but a few won't. This is why we have our Tiger Woods, our Michael Jordans, our Albert Einsteins, our Bill Gates.

[sanmarcosrun1]

Are you kidding me? What do those people have to do with poker. NOTHING!! Tiger woods and Jordan are athletes who work their buts off they are not lucky people. Stop trying to bring correlation into this with things that have nothing to do with poker. You are presenting illogical examples. Those people have nothing to do with luck.

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
Every process in life follows a distribution pattern known as a bell curve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, no it doesn't. In fact, math has many distributions it uses to describe processes found in life. The one you refer to as "bell curve" is really known as a normal or Gaussian distribution. Here is a listing of others that are used to describe many life processes from proton decay to the patterns of relected light, etc:

Benford • Bernoulli • binomial • Boltzmann • categorical • compound Poisson • degenerate • Gauss-Kuzmin • geometric • hypergeometric • logarithmic • negative binomial • parabolic fractal • Poisson • Rademacher • Skellam • uniform • Yule-Simon • zeta • Zipf • Zipf-Mandelbrot Ewens • multinomial • multivariate Polya
Beta • Beta prime • Cauchy • chi-square • Dirac delta function • Erlang • exponential • exponential power • F • fading • Fisher's z • Fisher-Tippett • Gamma • generalized extreme value • generalized hyperbolic • generalized inverse Gaussian • Half-Logistic • Hotelling's T-square • hyperbolic secant • hyper-exponential • hypoexponential • inverse chi-square • inverse Gaussian • inverse gamma • Kumaraswamy • Landau • Laplace • Lévy • Lévy skew alpha-stable • logistic • log-normal • Maxwell-Boltzmann • Maxwell speed • normal (Gaussian) • normal inverse Gaussian • Pareto • Pearson • polar • raised cosine • Rayleigh • relativistic Breit-Wigner • Rice • shifted Gompertz • Student's t • triangular • type-1 Gumbel • type-2 Gumbel • uniform • Variance-Gamma • Voigt • von Mises • Weibull • Wigner semicircle • Wilks' lambda Dirichlet • Kent • matrix normal • multivariate normal • multivariate Student • von Mises-Fisher • Wigner quasi • Wishart
• Cantor • conditional • exponential family • infinitely divisible • location-scale family • marginal • maximum entropy • phase-type • posterior • prior • quasi • sampling • singular

So I guess first step would be to prove that "luck" actually is normally distributed. How do you know it really doesn't follow a Cauchy distribution?

[CraigJ]

Not luck. Because they fall outside the bell curve in different areas.

[Xanthro]

Craig, your whole bell curve is wrong, because even if "luck" were to fall into a bell curve category, it can only do so based on the past, which has no bearing on the future.

Your whole argument boils down to, if two people are equally skilled, the person who gets lucky will win.

That's not some revelation or something new. What you are tying to argue further is that one person is inherently lucky and that person would have an advantage over an equally skilled person. Nobody is inherently more lucky, even if that person has benefited from luck in the past.

The odds of winning the lotto are very small, and it's all luck, winning it once does nothing to increase or decrease your chance of winning it again. If I catch a 46-1 card on the river to suck out, it doesn't change my odds in the future of catching another 46-1.

Also, the curve of luck in poker is very flat over a small number of hands, and exceedingly steep over a large number.

A person who's never played before could beat Ivy in one hand, but that person would stand no chance of being the winner over 10,000 hands.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every process in life follows a distribution pattern known as a bell curve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, no it doesn't. In fact, math has many distributions it uses to describe processes found in life. The one you refer to as "bell curve" is really known as a normal or Gaussian distribution. Here is a listing of others that are used to describe many life processes from proton decay to the patterns of relected light, etc:

bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • multivariate bell curve
bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve•
bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve • bell curve•


[/ QUOTE ]

cardcounter,

you can say that. But this is what I read.