S
SolaRoe
Enthusiast
Silver Level
How about this proposition: "The closer to the edge you play, the more at the mercy of dumb luck you are."
"Luck" is originally a Far Eastern concept analogous to our Western concept of randomness. "Dumb luck" is a Westernization of that eastern concept, because it includes the claim that randomness is totally mindless and stupid, hence luck is totally mindless and stupid, while the Far Eastern concept of luck involves a kind of intelligent design and good sense. (This is of some help in understanding the psychology of culturally Asian players.)
Now, "closer to the edge" can probably be interpreted in a million ways, but I can think of two off the top of my head:
1) bankroll management. The smaller your bankroll, the closer to the edge you are, and the more at the mercy of dumb luck you are. This does not mean only that variance leads all the more easily to ruin the smaller your bankroll is, but rather addresses the notion that dumb luck or randomness are at the core of variance, and have broader implications than variance itself does. Dumb luck constitutes approximately 99.9% of any single poker hand, and the percentage decreases with sample size. At the extreme, if your entire bankroll is $12 and you are playing 50/1 limit holdem, your entire bankroll depends on one hand that gets capped on all streets, so you're essentially buying a lottery ticket in which the draw must match all 25 digits of the ticket number in order for you to win ANY prize. (Something like that was actually the case with the Olympic Lottery back in 1976 here in canada, where there was only one winner per prize, and the winner's ticket had to match all 10 digits of the drawn number. I believe there were about 10 numbers drawn per TV draw show, and it was all very ceremonial, with a game show host and an audience and all.)
2) Risk taking in play. This is more closely related to variance itself, because the riskier your style of play, the more at the mercy of dumb luck you are. Those with a 15% shoving range experience higher variance than those with a 3% shoving range. It's really a trivial concept with extremely deep implications that I lack the poker knowledge to puzzle out, but can just barely sense. Maybe someone else could help.
"Luck" is originally a Far Eastern concept analogous to our Western concept of randomness. "Dumb luck" is a Westernization of that eastern concept, because it includes the claim that randomness is totally mindless and stupid, hence luck is totally mindless and stupid, while the Far Eastern concept of luck involves a kind of intelligent design and good sense. (This is of some help in understanding the psychology of culturally Asian players.)
Now, "closer to the edge" can probably be interpreted in a million ways, but I can think of two off the top of my head:
1) bankroll management. The smaller your bankroll, the closer to the edge you are, and the more at the mercy of dumb luck you are. This does not mean only that variance leads all the more easily to ruin the smaller your bankroll is, but rather addresses the notion that dumb luck or randomness are at the core of variance, and have broader implications than variance itself does. Dumb luck constitutes approximately 99.9% of any single poker hand, and the percentage decreases with sample size. At the extreme, if your entire bankroll is $12 and you are playing 50/1 limit holdem, your entire bankroll depends on one hand that gets capped on all streets, so you're essentially buying a lottery ticket in which the draw must match all 25 digits of the ticket number in order for you to win ANY prize. (Something like that was actually the case with the Olympic Lottery back in 1976 here in canada, where there was only one winner per prize, and the winner's ticket had to match all 10 digits of the drawn number. I believe there were about 10 numbers drawn per TV draw show, and it was all very ceremonial, with a game show host and an audience and all.)
2) Risk taking in play. This is more closely related to variance itself, because the riskier your style of play, the more at the mercy of dumb luck you are. Those with a 15% shoving range experience higher variance than those with a 3% shoving range. It's really a trivial concept with extremely deep implications that I lack the poker knowledge to puzzle out, but can just barely sense. Maybe someone else could help.