poker gods

[kelloggs55]

do you believe in the poker gods or just no luck has to do with winning a tournament or sit n go.is it 100% skill or because it is gambling you have to get lucky,mostly when some tourny,s go on 5 or 6 hours.so is it skill or luck or both,kelloggs55 aka kelloggstomms18 on full tilt

[C8H10N4O2]

I wish your sentences were easier to understand. I'm pretty sure it's obviously both. Skill takes you farther than relying only on luck, but a little luck never hurts. Short term results are more based on luck, while long term results are more based on skill.

[travz21]

Long term is 99.9% skill. Short term can be 100% luck.

[ballboy75]

there should be option 4....cheating
thats 100% skill combined with 100% luck, cant lose!!

[marysgirl883]

Yes, I believe in poker gods...They hate me!!!!!!!

[C8H10N4O2]

kelloggs55,
I just now noticed this thread was posted in the Bonuses and Promotions category.
Therefore, I moved this thread into a category where it will get the type of response you are seeking.

[bsg]

there should be option 4....cheating
thats 100% skill combined with 100% luck, cant lose!!

I'll have you know cheating can be considered as skill or luck, depending on the marks and how good you are.

Seriously do people believe in variant will balance out in the long term? Looking at the gambling aware website it points out correctly that the cards have no memory that after every hand the odds are reset. There's no point in keeping track of roulette numbers since the ball has no memory, grudges or any emotion. Is it not the same with cards?

Watching the Magican and Kid Poker getting bad beat after bad beat in high stakes gave me the cringe.

[C8H10N4O2]

I'll have you know cheating can be considered as skill or luck, depending on the marks and how good you are.

Seriously do people believe in variant will balance out in the long term? Looking at the gambling aware website it points out correctly that the cards have no memory that after every hand the odds are reset. There's no point in keeping track of roulette numbers since the ball has no memory, grudges or any emotion. Is it not the same with cards?

Watching the Magican and Kid Poker getting bad beat after bad beat in high stakes gave me the cringe.

Yes, I believe variance will balance out in the long term.

[travz21]

I'll have you know cheating can be considered as skill or luck, depending on the marks and how good you are.

Seriously do people believe in variant will balance out in the long term? Looking at the gambling aware website it points out correctly that the cards have no memory that after every hand the odds are reset. There's no point in keeping track of roulette numbers since the ball has no memory, grudges or any emotion. Is it not the same with cards?

Watching the Magican and Kid Poker getting bad beat after bad beat in high stakes gave me the cringe.

What? The more hands you play, the more true the odds will turn out to be, clearly. I don't even want to explain it because it's so obvious. Do you play poker?

[bsg]

What? The more hands you play, the more true the odds will turn out to be, clearly. I don't even want to explain it because it's so obvious. Do you play poker?

Now now, don't get too jumpy. I do wonder if it's taken for granted a bit lightly that variance will balance out in the long term. After all, each hand cud worth a different amount whether by stake, situations or different stage of a tourney. Even pros cud win a lot of small tourney and get bad beat in high stake which put a dent to their br.. Even sum pros go total broke once a while and need to be stake to be bk in d action.
Seems rather easy for players to see it as a skill game but maybe viewing luck as 60% minimum is a good mindset to have, especially for those who dream of quitting their day job.

[travz21]

If you're properly rolled for your stake, there is no way you can go broke if you're a winning player. Variance is a short term concept, not long term. People don't go on 1 million hand heaters or coolers.

And why did you even bring up roullette numbers? It's basically like flipping a coin. Are you saying flipping coins won't have almost exactly a 50% breakdown of heads and tails after one trillion flips? The higher the number of flips, the closer the odds should get to 50%. The less amount of flips, the further they can be from the true %. Same goes for poker.

[C8H10N4O2]

Now now, don't get too jumpy. I do wonder if it's taken for granted a bit lightly that variance will balance out in the long term. After all, each hand cud worth a different amount whether by stake, situations or different stage of a tourney. Even pros cud win a lot of small tourney and get bad beat in high stake which put a dent to their br.. Even sum pros go total broke once a while and need to be stake to be bk in d action.
Seems rather easy for players to see it as a skill game but maybe viewing luck as 60% minimum is a good mindset to have, especially for those who dream of quitting their day job.

I recommend this

[bsg]

Play roulette 10,000 times, I'll like to see the odds of an even split on the numbers it land on. Coin flip is one thing but roulette have a lot more variable. And poker, how big a variable is skill in it, I've heard 40% max from sum pros, I've heard of 100% if good bankroll management, but what's really the edge one can expect to achieve.

[C8H10N4O2]

Play roulette 10,000 times, I'll like to see the odds of an even split on the numbers it land on. Coin flip is one thing but roulette have a lot more variable. And poker, how big a variable is skill in it, I've heard 40% max from sum pros, I've heard of 100% if good bankroll management, but what's really the edge one can expect to achieve.

Ok... just for you, I used a random number generator to generate 10,000 numbers between 0 and 39 (where 39=00 since 00 is not a number that can be generated to my knowledge)

I'll be posting my results shortly.

[travz21]

I was talking about the colors, I guess, but the numbers are the same concept. How is this debatable again?

[C8H10N4O2]

I was talking about the colors, I guess, but the numbers are the same concept. How is this debatable again?

I don't know... but I did this anyway.... I'm going to create a new post after this, so sorry everyone for the double post, but it's a lot of pictures and stuff....

[C8H10N4O2]

Here is a chart showing the "number the ball landed on" in column "A" and "the number of times the ball landed on that number out of 10,000" in column "B".



Here is a graphical representation of said column...



And here is the all important histogram of the information I've shown...



You'll notice in the histogram, it is already beginning to take on a bell-shaped curve with only 10,000 "spins."

I think I messed up and basically didn't include "0" in the stats... so "39" will become "0" and there is no "00" on the roulette wheel I generated the numbers for. It's not like it really matters, but it should be noted.

So anyway, on a single "0" roullette wheel, consider this scenario. You and your buddies all decide to crowd around the table and play 10,000 spins. You keep the same number and your buddies all keep the same number and among everyone, the entire table is covered in bets. Even after 10,000 spins, the absolute luckiest person has received $9,940 back on his/her $10,000 investment. The most unlucky person has only gotten $7,840 back on his/her $10,000 investment, assuming a 35:1 payout. Everyone in the scenario has already lost money despite the wheel only being a single "0" wheel.


Anyway, bsg, you say that roullette has a lot less variables, but 10,000 is also a pretty small sample size. Even with this small sample size, the bell shaped curve is already starting to form. I have a feeling you don't really understand any statistics, but when you look at a distrubtion of a situation like a roullette table, you would expect a bell shaped curve to form. This is because the more and more you spin the wheel, the closer and closer all your spins will even out to the odds they "should" be. This concept applies with poker just as much as roullete. Sure there are short term luck fluctuations, but the longterm will yield the expected results. If the expected results haven't shown up, you increase your sample size, and statistically you should start seeing the expected results.

[bsg]

I'm so embar ass thanks for education in simple math.

[C8H10N4O2]

No reason to be embarassed.

One thing I forgot to add to my original post, is that the "expected number" would be 256.4ish, which happens to fall in nearly the middle area of the bell shaped curve.

I also found out tonight that the number of rows in an Excel 2003 spreadsheet ends at 65,536, and when dealing with analyzing random numbers at that large of a quantity, my computer chokes to death.