janushr,
Why, whenever there is some legit thread about variance going on, you always jump into it talking - 5t4rZ and RNG R1Gg3D foshizzle gtd pr000fz?
Regards
Notifications
Clear all
General Poker Discussion
77
Posts
23
Users
0
Reactions
15.1 K
Views
Originally posted by Kyyberi
It didn't take that long before rigged theories were drawn to this discussion.For the 100th flip the chance is 50/50. But for the whole 100 flip series it's pretty low. It shows that luck has no memory, but we can think beforehand what is the propability of those unlikely streaks.
Yeah its a shame that rigging came in when the topic has nothing to do with it, and is a good topic for poker discussion as well.
I think the "luck has no memory" is a wee bit of a tricky thing.
Because what you say about the 100 coin flips is totally true, even if 99 heads land in a row, on the next one it is still 50/50 of course.
However, if we do a massive sample of 100,000,000 flips, we expect the results will be very very close to 50.0% / 50.0% by the end of it.
So in that way, while its obviously not an actual memory, there seems to be a memory-like evening out function that is implied by this.
For example let's say you set out to flip a coin 100 million times. If you had flipped the first 100 times and got all tails, you would expect some sort of evening out of the function over time, towards correction in the form of heads. It would obviously be so small since 100 is so small in comparison to 100mil that you'd never notice the evening out, but the point is that a "correction" would happen, because the deviation is negated in terms of significance, through sample size.
So, while most poker players massively underestimate the long run, huge sample size does in fact act as pseudo-luck-memory in that it makes it much more likely that the results reflect normal frequencies. If we experience deviation from normal results, we can expect these deviations to "correct themselves" given a large enough sample. The unfortunate thing is that a truly "large enough sample" in poker is beyond most people.
I think it's pretty easy to underestimate luck in poker given the unfortunate nature of how long the long run actually is. Especially when online didn't exist, I think in live tourneys and cash games it is possible for someone who is in theory a slight winner to run bad their entire life and think they just suck. 
ev is always the same, look at ev of coin flips
lets say you make a bet 1$ for tails, you win 2$ at 50% so your ev is obviously 1$.
now you make a bet for a series of N flips with option to stop flippin
before you start fliping your ev is N*1$ right?
so now we start flipin and the first X flips you loose, while your ev of each flip is still 1$ and you have to make N-X flips to finish the bet,
now if you ask for the most probable result at the end of N series of flips, it will be the expected result knowing the first X flips were lost, you obtain:
-X*1$ + (N-X)*1$
We can not "expect" think "it should" or "hope" the N flips will make up for the first X losses.
We can know the posiblity that it will, the posibility that it will stay exactly as EV, and posibility it will provide more losses.
and either accept it or stop flippin.
what can you say about my thinking,lets NOT involve rigged theory.just about outcomes that occure and tend to deviate from "what should be standard"?
i just CUT a part,so where is happening to be spoken that i speak about RIGGED??
second,WHY YOU ALWAYS TEND TO TROLL ALL WHAT I HAVE TO SAY???YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL PROBLEMS WITH ME???spell it out...otherwise,i also noticed your post across forums,and i think that you are a MORON,whom constantly try to berate people for no reasons,ask for closing someones thread or simply just laugh with no reason??thats what you contribute to forum???son,go and watch sheeps,that would suit you much better...
third...hey,ShadDoneWin ...and pls,dont answer if i play million tournies,i will know...
is there anywhere mentioned your name???at any point???let me dont get RUDE more...
It didn't take that long before rigged theories were drawn to this discussion.(KYBERI)
are you reffering to me???
Originally posted by Kyyberi
It didn't take that long before rigged theories were drawn to this discussion.I think most of the problems in thinking comes from the assumption that poker is a 100% skill based game where the better player always wins. Most of us understand that it's not. The skill ensures that we get to those 93% equity situations a lot more than we get to those 17% equities. While bad players tend to find themselves in those 17% equities a lot more.
That's it. The rest is up to variance, luck, rigged rng's, unknown gods, rabbit foots and everything else that is related to randomness.
Poker isn't chess. It's all about flipping and gambling, where good player can swing the odds to his favor. And hope he isn't an unlucky bastard.
FIRST,your 93% and 17% makes 110%
serious,i also dont speak about RIGGED,all i asked and tried was trying to put in context all togheter,as outcomes eventually decide the variance,so all i asked that math wizz from oxford was his opinion on that,and thats it...if poker isnt chess,and good player COME(i dont understand how you can swing the odds in your favor,if we have 93%,thats it,we have that number)to situations where he is miles ahead and should get REWARDED for that,not punished...so,i ask the guy how is the correct way to judge is the outcomes we recive truly random and fair,thats all???as i certainly DONT AGREE that if guy loses billion hands w AA in a row,thats OK??i think that odds that are laid should be more corect;if we have AA and oponnent 22,we should be winning on avg. 4 of 5...PERIOD...
otherwise,i dont make my results,as poker room does it for me,as if my cards dont have REAL VALUE(as they are opposssed to have),then it is FAR away from game of SKILL...and i have little or no influance at all??
Hey mate. Yeah the concept that I'm trying to put across is measuring EV from the very first hand you play. Starting from hand 1 yeah? So essentially I'm trying to say that I believe that down swings and upswings all follow a long term trend of 'ironing out'. However if you were to measure your EV after hand 38459, then your previous hands would have already undergone variance from the mean. So to say that EV starts again from this hand and that you're not guaranteed to run good/bad after running good/bad is wrong.
Bro I'm at LSE, this crazy maths PHD student was just doing an open day talk. I'm not a big enough geek to do Maths at Oxford (They are legit the biggest but coolest weirdos you'll ever meet!!)
First of all, put 0.93^Billion into most calculators and you'll get 0. I know it doesn't, but it actually just does. It's just an iterative equation which will = 0. I would suggest that the end of the universe will occur before AA are cracked a billion times in a row.
When the poker room support says that all player have a 50% chance of wining pre. They're saying over the Long run, all gamers will get a similar range of hands therefore its arguably fair to say that during each and every hand the mean% of you winning if you were to get it in pre, is 50%. Yeah? That's why poker is a 0 sum game over how ever many hands.
@Tommy
Short term you're looking at anywhere between 6-20 thousand spins at a hugely non researched mega guess. - white/green. If after 8 spins they all hit red, it's wrong to assume it will hit black, because it could be 450 red spins - ev? In a longer term trend? I would bet that over a life time of a roulette, there would be a very small error margin and the amount of red and black spins. Literally less <0.1%
Yeah this is what I'm saying. If there was no green and you kept on betting on red, no matter how long it took, you would eventually BREAK EVENNNN. Which I hear is more than most are making at NL25 nowadays.
As both of you have said, in the short term and probably in real life terms this isn't a reality. Given a larger sample it is. Just because maths says so.
Also to people saying that EV restarts after every hand. That's so wrong, it's like a bacon sarnie without brown sauce
all that matters is how are you going to play the cards that have been dealt to you, everything else is just pure randomness - no matter how much you whine,understand or think about it
Originally posted by zilltine
your hands have "real value". When you get it in AA vs 22, you have 93% chance to win and thats all about it. Luck has no memory or similar sort of things. Chance of winning AA vs 22 is not affected by outcome of last flip you won/lost. You dont owe luck anything and luck doesnt owe you anything. If you had downswing it has no impact on future run, and so on...Less you care about these things, more time you have to care about something that matters.
Luck has no memory if you approach every time you push AA vs 7-2o as an indipendent event. .
If you take all of the occurences that you shove AA vs 7-2o then statistically you should win 93% of those.
The truth is that the same number of times people will suckout on you, you will suckout on them.
So yes, if you take every event independently then in the next infinite hands you should just expect to run normal and not above EV, but if you take all the situations you shove as a collective statistical sample then you should expect EV to even out. That will happen by running above EV in the short term.
The problem is that nobody knows how much is how much in infinite time. I have heard of a person that runned 400buy ins below EV for more than a million hands.
Try not to confuse indepentent events with collective events though.
Great topic btw.
El Chipriota
<moderator hat on>
Please keep the discussion civil and polite
</moderator hat off>
In my life I have played the following for money:
Pool (8-ball, not snooker)
Hearts (card game)
Backgammon
Poker
In all of them except poker and hearts, I could beat up to the mediocre players, but got owned by anyone who was genuinely good.
In hearts, I crushed.
In poker (so far) I GET crushed.
Pool is not luck at all -- pure skill. Let's leave that out.
In the other 3, your skill comes from:
♦ knowing the opponents and exploiting their weakness
♦ avoiding danger
♦ controlling your emotions
That is it. Any skill you name falls into one of those categories.
No matter how skillful you are, you will be wrong a large percentage of the time.
The more skillful you are, the smaller that percentage.
If everyone has equal skill, then luck is the determining factor.
What (almost) everyone in this discussion is saying is:
Since luck is the same in the long run for everyone, then skill is the determining factor.
You must believe this. If you cannot grasp this, then poker is not your game.
Nor is backgammon, nor hearts, nor bridge.
Originally posted by VorpalF2F
<moderator hat on>
Please keep the discussion civil and polite
</moderator hat off>In my life I have played the following for money:
Pool (8-ball, not snooker)
Hearts (card game)
Backgammon
PokerIn all of them except poker and hearts, I could beat up to the mediocre players, but got owned by anyone who was genuinely good.
In hearts, I crushed.
In poker (so far) I GET crushed.Pool is not luck at all -- pure skill. Let's leave that out.
In the other 3, your skill comes from:
♦ knowing the opponents and exploiting their weakness
♦ avoiding danger
♦ controlling your emotionsThat is it. Any skill you name falls into one of those categories.
No matter how skillful you are, you will be wrong a large percentage of the time.The more skillful you are, the smaller that percentage.
If everyone has equal skill, then luck is the determining factor.
What (almost) everyone in this discussion is saying is:
Since luck is the same in the long run for everyone, then skill is the determining factor.
You must believe this. If you cannot grasp this, then poker is not your game.
Nor is backgammon, nor hearts, nor bridge.
+1
Since luck is the same in the long run for everyone, then skill is the determining factor.
i agree that should be a general rule,but all the reasons i ask about this,is that isnt the felling that i get when playing...and i must say,i am micro player(up to 5$ BI)and cant speak about above levels,but at this micro levels things get pretty awaful...
so,we had examples where was spoken that guy for example have 400 BI downswing,and all concurre that it is posiblle to get it in good w 93% and lost 100 times in a row,for example,and that is what i dont agree with...its just the same as you said you dont have any control of it...and you should in longrun win 97 out of 100??and you lose 97 for example??how is that reflecting actual things and proper hand strenght??and rewarding your good play??so,bassicclly,if you put it 100 times w ACES vs 22,and poker room "decide"(dont know how to put it)you lose 82 times and win only 18 instead other way around,and that should be OK??
i hard disagree,as game is a game,and poker room should just provide service,and if this is like someone said above,for me that means that THEY are "deciding" the winner,despite me being a better player and holding a better hand??
i am not for attacking someone or argue,i ask polite and try polite to explain how i look at things,i hope i am enttiled to have my opinion and ask for others??i never come and attack someone with n o reason,so,please,rihard4,leave me alone,live your life...am i bothering you??can i ask someone something??i am fish or rigged donk w tin foil hat for you??fine...i really dont care,as i always try to think with MY HEAD...
and i am sorry,that i called you a M...,but this isnt first time,you come along after me and start some things without any reason,posting crap or just laughing at me or someone else??you have fun w that??
@Vorpal, I think there's a bit of luck in pool.
My friend once won a pub pool contest without legitimately winning a single game.
In his first game his opponent missed the black when shooting for it.
In the second game his opponent who was bigs accidentally sunk a small while he was on black.
In the third game the opponent sunk the black accidentally before they were supposed to.
In the final game they sunk the white while on the black and he won the contest.
@janushr, the cards are decided randomly. The problem is you have some sort of entitlement to win with AA, when actually you should only win 85% of the time. Sometimes you will run bad and it will be less than 85%. Yesterday AK,KK,QQ were all losing hands for me, but that's just one day. You are not entitled to win just because you are a better player, it is inevitable that sometimes you will lose to worse players. Think of it as feeding the fish so they don't 'starve' and instead redeposit later cos they remember bad beating you. In fact, many better players will not be winning simply because rake is so high, higher than most people's winrates in bb/100 actually, its worth looking at how much you're actually paying in rake, its insane. All you can do is improve your game, which in turn will reduce the likelyhood of losing streaks, since losing is a further deviation from normal expectation the better you are. I guarantee you have not lost 82/100 times AA vs 22, you just feel like you're getting bad beat too often but probably aren't.
Originally posted by janushr
what can you say about my thinking,lets NOT involve rigged theory.just about outcomes that occure and tend to deviate from "what should be standard"?i just CUT a part,so where is happening to be spoken that i speak about RIGGED??
second,WHY YOU ALWAYS TEND TO TROLL ALL WHAT I HAVE TO SAY???YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL PROBLEMS WITH ME???spell it out...otherwise,i also noticed your post across forums,and i think that you are a MORON,whom constantly try to berate people for no reasons,ask for closing someones thread or simply just laugh with no reason??thats what you contribute to forum???son,go and watch sheeps,that would suit you much better...
I don't troll, I was curious about the fact that you blame pokerstars for "stuff". ♦ "Across forums" equals one thread for you?
Man, you need some anger management support.
It all comes down to statistics...
Variance is how much data varies from the mean (which is the expected value) or EV as poker players love to call it.
If you have a higher number of samples for your data, then the variance is lower (this is a proven fact). As you play more hands, you gain more samples and hence lower the variance of your data.
In a distribution, the probability of your actual return deviating from your expected return is proportional to the variance of the data.
So as the variance of the data reduces, the probability of your expected return being close to the actual return increases. This is why as you play more hands your luck evens out.
It's going to be hard for people to grasp who do not have a good understanding of statistics
i am sorry if i overreacted,but last time you also was saying;close this thred,another i saw you just make;hahahaha....and so on...i am not for flaming or arguing,but i honestly asked a guy something,and wasnt speaking about rigged at all,and you ask me why i always ask some 8&5%#"???
what is that for question??i always tried to reason my thinking and explain it the best way i can...i never claimed that i am supersmart or some poker PRO...otherwise,i would be busy collecting and printing money
and further,i never explicitly named STARS,i always mentioned other rooms as well,speaking generally,but tbh,i played across a LOTS of rooms,and STARS isnt prolly at the top of any list...and i dont want to accuse any room,i just try also to determine what is VARIANCE and where it stops...as somebody else said it is OK if you lose hundred times in a row w AA,and i think thats GENUINLY WRONG...this card game have rules and hand strengh accordinglly,so it should be played as thats "standards",not anything else,or it would be criminal,not to use harsher words...
about anger menagment,i am a really honest and open guy,trying always to be nice...but,as every coin have "other" side,yes,you can say that i am a mean mothafuker,when needed ♠_evil:
@OP - Had the same thought several years back.
You should expect to run at EV over inifinity.
You will not necessarily run at EV over 10k.
Therefore: You will not necessarily run at EV over 10k + infinity.
Infinity is not the same as infinity+10k in this context.
Originally posted by metza
@Vorpal, I think there's a bit of luck in pool.
My friend once won a pub pool contest without legitimately winning a single game.
In his first game his opponent missed the black when shooting for it.
In the second game his opponent who was bigs accidentally sunk a small while he was on black.
In the third game the opponent sunk the black accidentally before they were supposed to.
In the final game they sunk the white while on the black and he won the contest.
♦ That is hilarious.
OK -- I'll grant you that there is luck in pool.
I once entered a winner-take-all tournament, and in the final, I sunk the 8-ball on the break. I never did that ever before or since.
If you're playing for money though, you won't be relying on your luck.
I have taken the time to read this thread from start to finish and find this to be a very good topic.
I have been a card player-gambler my whole life off and on.
Like VolparF2F--I put myself through University playing the following games.
Gin Rummy---pure skill and the luck of the draw
Hearts---------pure skill if you can count to 13 4 times and remember what each opponent has played and the luck of picking up your share of good hands
Bridge---------pure skill if you can count to 13 4 times and remember what each opponet has played and the luck of picking up your share of good hands.
Poker----------pure skill if you can pick up your share of good hands.
Kings------------------pure skill if you can count to 13 4 times and remember what each opponent has played and the luck of picking up your share of good hands.
I only mention the above to give you an idea of my thinking.
By your share of good hands I mean;
Probablility states everything in this world will run 60%-40% one way or the other over the course of time.
As long as your luck runs true to as little as the 40% then your skill should be able to over come your less skillful opponents.
The problem we all have is the fact that our memory is selective. Because we feel we should win all the time or at least get the expected value we tend to only remember the bad beats and suckouts. Also when we play stakes such as micros where the quality of play is susceptable at best, our good hands tend to lose more.
AA vrs 22 is 80% vrs 1 opponent but what is AA vrs 9 other random hands?
This is what 3 years of University taught me.
That and never bet on horses you can time with a calender.
Variance doesnt even out in the long term.
Variance is a measure of the spread of a sample of results from the mean expected. If variance is small (Fixed limit) you are expected to perform near the expected mean. If variance is huge (Omaha), you are expected to have results which spread very far from the expected result. The expected result would be the expected winrate considering our skill but no one really knows his exact skill and even variance helps in masquerading it. A very good player can seem really mediocredue to negative variance(unlucky), or a mediocre player can seem a great player due to positive variance (lucky).
In the long run, if the number of hands played tends to infinite (infinite is never reached), then, the real winrate tends to the expected winrate. (this is ambiguous too, because a player's skill is constantly evolving and changing).