At some point Everyone runs Hot and then Cold,,, if you think everyone runs Hot all the time you got a lot to learn,, NOBODY wins ALL the Time,,
buck
Correct, but there are people who lose ALL the time. But they're great players, they're just the unluckiest players in the world. Just ask them, they'll tell you (note this isn't a slight to the OP, just people in general who talk of how good they are and the only reason they're not rolling in dough is they're the unluckiest person on the planet, met more than a few of those in real life).
all samples before now have been me being on the underside of the 51-49 split, and that any day now, statistics and nature will force me to the other side!
Because random is random. Take an RNG and run a coin flip 10,000 times. I guarantee you it comes up heads within 49.9% - 50.1%. The RNG doesn't remember who's doing the flipping, hell it doesn't even know what a pair is in poker. So in the past it's possible your coin flips have come out 49%, but in the future you are still 50% to make every single coin flip assuming the site isn't rigged.
To get back to the original question, you are correct in that ALL players will either win more or less than their actual statistical expectation.
However, the larger the sample size, the more their actual winnings/losses will trend towards their actual statistical expectation.
For example, if we play a simple coin tossing game where we each bet $1 on heads or tails, after 100,000 tosses it is incredibly unlikely that we are going to be even – one of us will have earned more and the other will have lost more that we would have expected. In this case, if I win 49.5% of the time instead of the expected 50%, I will be down $500.
What is key though, as Zach has said, is that on the next toss I still have exactly a 50% change of winning.
However, if I find a fish that is willing to give me 1.5:1 odds on a coin toss and I play a sufficient amount of times I am essentially guaranteed to be ahead (but still unlikely to ever be exactly the amount ahead as I would expect)
Example 2:
I bet $10 into a pot of $10 with a pair of aces
Villain calls with a flush draw (he is all in, so this ends the betting on the hand)
My expectation for the bet is $14 (win $20 80% of the time and lose $10 20% of the time)
His expectation for the bet is -$4 (win $20 20% of the time and lose $10 80% of the time)
However, everytime we do this one of us will do better than expected and the other will do worse than expected. The more we play, the closer the results will get to the expected 80% / 20% but they are unlikely to ever be exactly right.
Sorry, got a bit carried away with this. To answer the question, yes some people do lose more than they should, but it will be insignificant over a sufficient number of hands with responsible bankroll management.
So the 49.5% players HAS to steal blinds, find the fish, and be a little more agressive than the 50.5 player (?).
To get back to the original question, you are correct in that ALL players will either win more or less than their actual statistical expectation.
However, the larger the sample size, the more their actual winnings/losses will trend towards their actual statistical expectation.
For example, if we play a simple coin tossing game where we each bet $1 on heads or tails, after 100,000 tosses it is incredibly unlikely that we are going to be even – one of us will have earned more and the other will have lost more that we would have expected. In this case, if I win 49.5% of the time instead of the expected 50%, I will be down $500.
What is key though, as Zach has said, is that on the next toss I still have exactly a 50% change of winning.
However, if I find a fish that is willing to give me 1.5:1 odds on a coin toss and I play a sufficient amount of times I am essentially guaranteed to be ahead (but still unlikely to ever be exactly the amount ahead as I would expect)
Example 2:
I bet $10 into a pot of $10 with a pair of aces
Villain calls with a flush draw (he is all in, so this ends the betting on the hand)
My expectation for the bet is $14 (win $20 80% of the time and lose $10 20% of the time)
His expectation for the bet is -$4 (win $20 20% of the time and lose $10 80% of the time)
However, everytime we do this one of us will do better than expected and the other will do worse than expected. The more we play, the closer the results will get to the expected 80% / 20% but they are unlikely to ever be exactly right.
Sorry, got a bit carried away with this. To answer the question, yes some people do lose more than they should, but it will be insignificant over a sufficient number of hands with responsible bankroll management.
Can I just say this? The original post essentially only really asks one thing. Does luck exist? Not you know, "oh you got lucky that time, Jimbo," kinda luck. I'm talking about, that is a LUCKY DUDE. So I guess there's really only one thing you gotta ask yourself.
Do you feel lucky, punk?
Well do ya?
I have 55,211 hands in my database. Maybe the sample size isn't large enough, but it's got to be a good representation of expected results I'd think.
I've been dealt AA, 212 times. The expected value is 250.959 times.
Do your math and tell me if this is within a normal range statistically speaking.
I had a statistics class in Pharmacy school, but that was so long ago that I only have a basic understanding left.
What if you sit down and then get up and someone else sits there.
What if the 49.5 and the 50.5 player switch seats? Does that change anything?
What if you bet 15 reds, they all came black and you leave, could the next person betting red hit the next 15 in a row... sure. Will they, not sure, but they could. You could be dealt strong hands that keep getting cracked, get up, next players is dealt strong hands that hold up.
Since the person betting black hit 15 and you lost 15, now you switch, could the person betting black now hit 15 reds and you lose 15 again... sure.
I know probability and statistics and that what has happened has no effect on what will happen. That's why my thread title isn't, how will a cold player run in the future, it's "can some people just run cold (period)."
I guess it's like the saying "it's in the cards", maybe some people just won't get dealt winning cards in the long run and some will. Why can't this be the case? Basically you're saying if we all played equal we would all be winning players... nope. It's the cards we're dealt. And some people may just be dealt worse cards (by that I mean board as well) than others.
If I am in a coinflip situation, and lose 32 out of 37 times (which happened btw), yes I know the next time I'm still 50% to win, but how long would it take to even out?
All things considered though with "luck" is that I firmly believe that skill can overcome this. I deposited $100 2 years ago, and am still up despite running worse than whats expected. There are so many terrible players out there that it is possible to win despite getting outdrawn and getting bad cards. I'm proof of that and I'm far from being great at poker.
What? A main principle of poker is that luck is short-term. If you think a "dude" can be inherently lucky or feel lucky than perhaps poker isn't the game for you. It's possible to have a lucky session, but if you're a losing player you won't be up after you've played a significant amount of hands.
But poker is not about winning coin flips. If you rely on coin flips the rake kills you anyway. We want to be BETTER than our opponents, and that's where the difference comes in.
lol, luck exists but luck does not recognize which player it's dealing cards to and actually doesn't even recognize which cards are good/bad. A person can not be inherently unlucky, I thought we'd gone over this. Basically what you are saying is just like me saying that the person with the first name who's second letter is closest to the 5th letter of the person in seat 5's middle name (and if that person's middle name isn't 5 letters long take the 1st letter of the first name) or else wearing red underwear gets good luck, but anyone with a yellow car or else a red wig gets bad luck. Luck doesn't differentiate among people or hair color or name though, so both theories basically are nowhere near true.
Quoted from This is why pokerstars is terrible...
So, when it comes to slot machines, no one is lucky because the machine knows no different? Look at poker/HE as a slot machine, 1 player sits for 4 hours and loses every hand, gets up, next player sits and hits the jackpot (royal flush) and cleans up the table because every1 else had boats, str8's, flushes, but they had the royal. It has been said "so if player 1 gets up and player 2 sits down, player 2 will get better cards?" Well, if I get up from a slot and someone else sits down... they could start winning, or heck just breaking even or losing less in that session on the same slot I just lost my paycheck on. BTW, I'm not talking about the skill aspect at all in this, strictly dealt cards. Some may argue slots are on a RNG and every milisecond makes a difference, but when you get up from a table more than likely the next person to sit down will not get the very next hand you were supposed to be dealt. Live, they probably have to get their chips in order, get their seat comfy, maybe order a drink... OL, the hands are dealt so fast that after you've lost your hand and are leaving the next hand is dealt before the second player sits. Both live & OL would be just like a RNG on a slot and completely change the dynamics of the hands being dealt before the next player gets their cards.