General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

i can say another argument:

in the next infinite hands, op's ev will be 0 but if we have in the infinite sample the 400k previous hands his next infinite sample will be -5k for sure because an infinite sample must have 0.

downscaling from this is almost philosophical

in the next infinite hands, op's ev will be 0 but if we have in the infinite sample the 400k previous hands his next infinite sample will be -5k for sure because an infinite sample must have 0.

Exactly.

reading this thread just makes me feel to dumb to be good at poker lol GG

thread has AA++ title btw

Good job you're not a mathematician because that's completely wrong. Whats in the past has no effect on our likelihood to have "run good" or "run bad" in the future.

Wow, just read this again and I owe you an apology snowboard. Didn't mean to be such a dick about it.

Think about it like this- You're standing by a big beautifully clear mountain lake. You have a bottle of vodka. You sample the water in the lake and find it has 0% alcohol content. You pour the bottle of vodka into the lake, wait a minute, then sample the lake again. It still has 0% alcohol content. But how can this be? You put some vodka in it!

Now you don't think to yourself "well my first measurement must be wrong - it must have had minus 1 bottle of vodka worth of alcohol in it so that it now has 0". You just think "well the lake is pretty big, so one bottle of vodka isn't going to make much difference".

The law of large numbers is the same. A small subsample that deviates significantly from the overall sample mean (the bottle of vodka) doesn't make much difference to the true mean of the whole sample (the lake) because the whole sample is big and the subsample is small. In fact you would expect to have lots and lots of subsamples that differ significantly from the true mean of the population.

For this reason your past results don't need to affect your future results for regression to the mean to work. If the full sample is big enough the result will regress to the mean in time just because the sample is big and differences in small samples don't matter.

first of all i took no offense, i love to argue about "fuzzy" things

i get your point but my point is this:

according to infinite sets
"The Cartesian product of an infinite set and a nonempty set is infinite. The Cartesian product of an infinite number of sets each containing at least two elements is either empty or infinite; if the axiom of choice holds, then it is infinite.
If an infinite set is a well-ordered set, then it must have a nonempty subset which has no greatest element."

problem is that in mathematics, infinite is theoretic, you can even argue about it in philosophy.

imagine that as a third person after time, you have an infinite set and you chop it into 3 sectors. you know the outcome of the infinite set which is supposed to be 0.you now can predict outside the sample the outcomes of the next subsets. of course this cannot be done inside the time the infinite set "runs".
of course we cannot predict outcomes, and of course 3 red in roullette doesn't make the next one more probable to be black thats elementary.

what happens if you think about stuff in this way? it gets too complicated with time being a factor,deterministic vs quantum universe and all this stuff.

the only thing i believe in is that when you hit a 49% allin, this will be taken from you at some point in time if you play for an infinite time, so *in a sense this result affects future results*. not in this lifetime though

This thread should have made me smarter but I feel dumb. Thanks guys.

Okay here I go jumping onto the dumbwagon. I judge myself to be fairly well educated about the foibles of randomness and human reasoning despite no real mathematical background due to several factors. 1) I have an honours degree in Philosophy. My fourth year classes were mainly focused on the Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of Mind. 2) In the course of my degree I took logic classes that included probability theory. 3) I have read "Fooled by Randomness" and "Black Swan" and loved them both. I have also read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" which deals with some of these topics as well.
However, I either find myself very subtley falling into this trap myself or I perhaps do not understand yet how I should be looking at this statistic. Or perhaps as many have suggested I should not be looking at it altogether. Here's how I get confused and I am hoping someone can let me know if this is a variation "Gambler's Fallacy" or not. I'll use a thought experiment (philosophy background after all).

Let's say for the first 100k hands of my poker career I am a winning 10bb/100 player. However, I have only ever gotten it in bad. For example, AQ vs. AK or TT vs AA or flush draw vs set and yet I have won every single one of my all ins. If I checked my poker graph it would show that I am running significantly above EV. Should I not adjust my game here? I am not saying that I should expect a downswing because of an expectation that my luck is going to "even out" but nonetheless - if I continue to play the same way, should I not reasonably expect to lose money. Isn't the 10bb/100 illusory in a sense and I should expect to be losing money long term all else being equal. In other words if the OP is playing bad poker? Isn't he doomed after all? Not because of fate but more likely due to bad poker decisions.

Perhaps it is wrong to bring OP into this because this is a more general question. If you are a break even or marginally winning player and you are running way above expectation does it not show you that you need to adjust your play? Since poker EV is a product of our decisions as well as our cards, ie when to go all in or not go all in, couldn't a large disparity between our expected and our actual be an indication of not only our luck but also the quality of our decisions? Can this be an appropriate use of the EV stat or am I falling into the same trap?

grunching...

this post on 2p2 made me understand regression to the mean:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=15431278&postcount=3

tbh i dont understand ur question

of course if u play bad u will lose no matter how many bb/100 u gain right now
of course ev stat is usefull to know about the quality of ur play many pros use only this stat

of course ev stat is usefull to know about the quality of ur play many pros use only this stat

What do you mean?

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but it is

streaks exist in the past, not the future. going forward, you are "expected" to neither be lucky nor unlucky regardless of how lucky you've been.

don't fall into this trap. it's a subtle form of tilt. luck never owes you anything and it doesn't comes back to collect debts, even if it seems like it does at times.

I guess I am asking about this quote. OP asks if he is doomed because he is running above EV. I am completely confident in the accuracy of sthief09's response. OP is falling into a classic Gambler's Fallacy where he believes that past good results will lead to future bad results because his luck will "even out". No problem there. But then there is quite a bit of discussion about how EV adjusted should not be used to adjust your game and is somewhat worthless. I am asking if this is true. If you are winning soley through being above expectation, can you not somewhat expect something of a crash coming. Not because luck will "even out" but because your mistakes - that you have been lucky enough to not cost you will eventually catch up to you. In the sense that if you continue to make the same mistakes you will be likely to fail to be as lucky as you have been till now. Hopefully, this makes sense. I realize that if it is not Gambler's Fallacy it might be a truism.

I guess I am asking about this quote. OP asks if he is doomed because he is running above EV. I am completely confident in the accuracy of sthief09's response. OP is falling into a classic Gambler's Fallacy where he believes that past good results will lead to future bad results because his luck will "even out". No problem there. But then there is quite a bit of discussion about how EV adjusted should not be used to adjust your game and is somewhat worthless. I am asking if this is true. If you are winning soley through being above expectation, can you not somewhat expect something of a crash coming. Not because luck will "even out" but because your mistakes - that you have been lucky enough to not cost you will eventually catch up to you. In the sense that if you continue to make the same mistakes you will be likely to fail to be as lucky as you have been till now. Hopefully, this makes sense. I realize that if it is not Gambler's Fallacy it might be a truism.

If you are running above all-in EV that does not mean you are running *above EV*, since all-in EV is only measures one small aspect of how you are running. Other areas include how often your +EV cbets have been working, how often someone has had a value hand when you 3bet and 4bet bluff, how often a +EV river bluff runs into the nuts, how often a +EV river call runs into the nuts, how often a +EV turn semibluff gets called and bricks on the river, etc. etc.

Now if over a large sample your all-in EV is negative, then that indicates that you are getting the money in bad in all-in situations and need to tighten up your range for stacking off in a lot of spots.

Now if over a large sample your all-in EV is negative, then that indicates that you are getting the money in bad in all-in situations and need to tighten up your range for stacking off in a lot of spots.

It means that you have been unlucky in the situations where the money went all-in before the river. Nothing more nothing less.

What do you mean?

i mean that evbb/100 is the only stat that tells u how good u play in large number of hands.

bb/100 is just a random stat not useful other than substituting the cashier button