Odds in poker.....

[ajtombs]

People say nowdays the poker pros are seperated by two types

the 'oldern days' - the type who go on gut instincts and so on

and the 'modern players' - the type who play their game based on statistics

But what i want to talk about first is roulette.


People who play roulette also say odds.

Take for example the number zero in roulette. - if zero did not appear for say 20 spins - in theory.... it should be due within the next 16 spins (as there are 36 numbers on a roulette wheel - the odds are one in 36). if it doesnt come out within 36 spins, it should be due any time soon
thats one theory

However....... another theory is.........

Each spin of the roulette wheel is an entirely unique event that is not related, in any way, to previous spins of the wheel
so in theory....... the zero could not come out for a thousand spins..... it could not come out for a hundred thousand spins........

Moving on - take for example red and black on roulette (pretend there is no zero) - it is 50 / 50 to land on either red or black (and this is the bit where it is related to poker)

Yet...... it could land on the black say 20 times in a row. and youd be like 'wtf' its fixed on black it should be 50 / 50.

Because my point is how do you know what scale you are talking about?

When people say 60% of the time you would win with that hand

but on what scale is that? - is that 60% of 10 hands? i.e. so you win 6 times

or is that 60% of a thousand hands i.e. so you lose 400 times

or is it even 60% of 100 million hands!!

(lol your now probably thinking wtf lol)


all im saying is - if you win 60% of the time with a hand - how do you know what scale that is on - that could be 60% of 100 million hands - therefore you lose 40 million hands

tehrefore, if you dont play 40 million hands of poker in your life - in theory - you could spend your ENTIRE POKER LIFE - losing that hand Every Single Time

Did this post make sense....... lol - because, like roulette, each hand of poker is an entirely unique event not related to previous hands (but also this is not taking into account bluffing, chip bullying people, knowing how people tend to play etc... just the odds of the cards)

p.s. but obviously saying that, people are obviously successful using the statistics method!!

[PokerWoody]

Also, i'd suggest that a good % of winning players online are simply running above expectation - or as you put it, managing to hit black 20 times in a row on their 50/50 shots.

I know that I must have run above expectation when I first started playing in order not to lose enough to make me want to quit, and I freely admit I've probably run above expectation for my entire poker career.

Take for example the number zero in roulette. - if zero did not appear for say 20 spins - in theory.... it should be due within the next 16 spins (as there are 36 numbers on a roulette wheel - the odds are one in 36). if it doesnt come out within 36 spins, it should be due any time soon
thats one theory

This is super wrong.

[RevStu]

When people say 60% of the time you would win with that hand

but on what scale is that? - is that 60% of 10 hands? i.e. so you win 6 times

or is that 60% of a thousand hands i.e. so you lose 400 times

or is it even 60% of 100 million hands!!

In terms of mathematical probability, it's the last one. Probability manifests more accurately the closer you get to infinity, something that we've argued about many times on this forum because most poker players don't understand it.

[Dice Man]

Dice Man to the rescue!

Take for example the number zero in roulette. - if zero did not appear for say 20 spins - in theory.... it should be due within the next 16 spins (as there are 36 numbers on a roulette wheel - the odds are one in 36). if it doesnt come out within 36 spins, it should be due any time soon
thats one theory

That's just a terrible theory. If the roulette wheel is perfectly fair (which no real one actually is), then the odds of 0 will always be 1/37. If you span one a million times then I'd guess the largest space between 0s occurring would be about 200 spins. Total guess but a decent mathematician could work that one out. When you start talking about infinity there are conceptual difficulties. We can all agree that over infinite spins you would have gaps where no 0 occurred in a million spins, and gluts where 0 comes in a million times in a row, but it would be equally true to say that you would have gaps of infinite non-0s and gluts of infinite 0s. A similar thought is the one whereby if you gathered 100 immortal monkeys and let them mess around on typwriters forever they would eventually write the works of Shakespeare. In fact they would improve upon them, re-write every work ever written, and describe the history of the whole universe. Infinity isn't really a number and you need the premise of mathematical induction to get it and start using it.

However....... another theory is.........

Each spin of the roulette wheel is an entirely unique event that is not related, in any way, to previous spins of the wheel
so in theory....... the zero could not come out for a thousand spins..... it could not come out for a hundred thousand spins........

Yeah exactly. At least this is the case if the roulette wheel were ideally perfect. In reality all non-quantum events are causally determined. You can't have a second spin without a first spin. You could work out the result of the second spin if you knew and analysed all of its causes. Somebody invented a device that measured the speed of the ball from a distance and was quite accurate at determining what section of the wheel the ball would land at, just at the last moment you're asked to place your bet. So you can beat it by cheating obviously.

Moving on - take for example red and black on roulette (pretend there is no zero) - it is 50 / 50 to land on either red or black (and this is the bit where it is related to poker)

Yet...... it could land on the black say 20 times in a row. and youd be like 'wtf' its fixed on black it should be 50 / 50.

Because my point is how do you know what scale you are talking about?

When people say 60% of the time you would win with that hand

but on what scale is that? - is that 60% of 10 hands? i.e. so you win 6 times

or is that 60% of a thousand hands i.e. so you lose 400 times

or is it even 60% of 100 million hands!!

It's 60% of infinity hands. If somebody's AKs beats your QQ, the right reaction is "Over infinite hands I would've won that 52% of the time (or something like 52%)", not "I will get lucky against them next time then". It's highly likely that there are 2 professionals out there, call them Ann and Bob, who have played each other 100s of times and Ann has bad beat Bob every single time they've played. And yet if Ann has played 100,000s of hands then she could still easily be a slightly unlucky player overall.

People often get annoyed if they're dealt AA in a live game and then the cards have to be re-dealt because of some dealing error. I've seen people annoyed that they had good-mediocre hands like AJ and 77, but they've got as much chance as being re-dealt those hands as they had getting them previously. It's not like every player only gets AA one time in every 221 hands and now they've lost their AA for this section of 221 hands.

That reminds me of an experiment that was done last year to determine whether the best computer could beat some pro players at limit holdem. They had 2 pros playing heads up against the same computer programme at different times, and they organised it so that the cards that one player was dealt would be dealt to the computer in the next game against the second human opponent, so overall luck was taken out of the game. The humans won in the end, which shows that there is still skill when there is no luck, but I bet the game would be a bit shitter without luck.

tehrefore, if you dont play 40 million hands of poker in your life - in theory - you could spend your ENTIRE POKER LIFE - losing that hand Every Single Time

Yeah clearly. It's possible but very unlikely.

[PokerWoody]

That reminds me of an experiment that was done last year to determine whether the best computer could beat some pro players at limit holdem. They had 2 pros playing heads up against the same computer programme at different times, and they organised it so that the cards that one player was dealt would be dealt to the computer in the next game against the second human opponent, so overall luck was taken out of the game. The humans won in the end, which shows that there is still skill when there is no luck, but I bet the game would be a bit shitter without luck.

This one was done this year, and make for quite an interesting read.

Stoxpoker.com - Man vs Machine Poker Championship

[The Menace Ennis]

The skill element in poker is not only the odds but aggression, nerve and the ability to read a player/ give faulse reads etc. Try teaching that to a computer

[S6TAV]

Somebody invented a device that measured the speed of the ball from a distance and was quite accurate at determining what section of the wheel the ball would land at, just at the last moment you're asked to place your bet. So you can beat it by cheating obviously.

I remember hearing about this. They installed it on a camera phone and took the casino for quite a bit of dollar. Strange really as the betting pattern would always be sections of the wheel which you think the casino would pick up on quite easily?

[reevio]

I remember hearing about this. They installed it on a camera phone and took the casino for quite a bit of dollar. Strange really as the betting pattern would always be sections of the wheel which you think the casino would pick up on quite easily?

A lot of people bet on sections don't they? Usually there is a separate section of the layout where you can place neighbours bets which seem pretty popular with the hard core sickos

[S6TAV]

I know people always bet on sections but if that section is constantly changing and winning you would think they would pick up on it quickly.

Makes you think that all these films and programs like Las Vegas which revolve around casino security are just bullshit. How the hell did they make $4m (Security must of been asleep)

I thought they past a law in the 70's about electronical devices within casinos after that guy invented a primative card counting device and neither the casino or FBI could work out what it was of how it worked. Strange how mobile phones are ok