General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Think about the mechanisms, complexities and implications involved if "fortune" operated in the way you're suggesting.

Forget mechanics, if "miss fortune" operated that way, that would mean there is a supreme being dedicated to doling out luck evenly to everyone on the planet, and watching our every move...and keeping score...kind of creepy imo (also, what a boring job for her...)

Forget mechanics, if "miss fortune" operated that way, that would mean there is a supreme being dedicated to doling out luck evenly to everyone on the planet, and watching our every move...and keeping score...kind of creepy imo (also, what a boring job for her...)

Yeah that seems right. Life is supposed to be fair.

We should try to destroy her imo.

"All of my good streaks and all of my bad streaks of every length and depth have had one thing in common. They did not exist in your mind. They only existed in my mind. And this is true for everyone's winning and losing streaks. None of them actually exist. They are all mental fabrication, like past and future. Everything that ever happens happens in the present tense. But how can you have a "streak" in the present tense? You can't. And therefore, if you are in the present tense, which, in fact, at this time, you are, then at this moment there is no streak in your life. There is no inherent existence to streaks. The streak is there when you think about it, and when you stop thinking about it, it goes away. It blossoms and withers, all in your mind. And when your mind invents a streak, you believe it exists, because you believe what your mind tells you. But the truth is there is only the hand you are playing."

-- Tommy Angelo

There is more to running good/bad in NLHE than AIEV imo.

You could try sacrificing a lamb, or maybe a goat might work too. You have to do it under a full moon though, and you have to use a sharpened silver blade that has been rubbed with garlic.

If I recall correctly 3 cows equal 1 lamb if you don't have a lamb around. A stag actually equals two lambs so that could quell miss fortune for this and your next streak- kind of a two for one deal.

Never check your AIEV.

Good post, Tecmo.

i only ever check my AIEV to prove to myself that the poker sites have it in for me



And if im running over EV in this stat then theres a glitch in the HEM software

"All of my good streaks and all of my bad streaks of every length and depth have had one thing in common. They did not exist in your mind. They only existed in my mind. And this is true for everyone's winning and losing streaks. None of them actually exist. They are all mental fabrication, like past and future. Everything that ever happens happens in the present tense. But how can you have a "streak" in the present tense? You can't. And therefore, if you are in the present tense, which, in fact, at this time, you are, then at this moment there is no streak in your life. There is no inherent existence to streaks. The streak is there when you think about it, and when you stop thinking about it, it goes away. It blossoms and withers, all in your mind. And when your mind invents a streak, you believe it exists, because you believe what your mind tells you. But the truth is there is only the hand you are playing."

-- Tommy Angelo

Takes a good writer to make a reasonable argument sound so much like bullshit to me, but the main point he makes is correct.

The only thing I don't like are the people who say past variance doesn't effect future variance while at the same time saying that if they play +EV over a large sample they WILL come out on top. It doesn't work both ways..

i only ever check my AIEV to prove to myself that the poker sites have it in for me



And if im running over EV in this stat then theres a glitch in the HEM software

Thankfully the site I play on doesn't display losing hands so my EV is always screwed up and running below. So I always 'expect' to run good every session which helps my mental game.

1.)

past variance doesn't effect future variance

2.)

if they play +EV over a large sample they WILL come out on top.

These are both true and different.

1.) The cards are inanimate objects with no memory. They come out of the shuffle in whatever order they ended up in. They don't know if you're running hot or running cold. They're random.

2.) Having an edge or playing +EV as you say it, is a mathematical advantage that doesn't play out over a single hand or even a few, but over the long term. The advantage is what makes it profitable, not the variance. A roulette wheel is a good example. The house advantage on any roulette bet is 5.3%. For simple red/black bets, their advantage is the 0 and 00 spaces which are neither red nor black. In the short run, there may not be enough spins for a 0 or 00 to come up so they cannot realize their edge, however over the long run those spaces come up and they are able to realize their edge and profit. Their profit doesn't rely on the past variance at all.

[douche]Well you can only say a +EV play WILL make a profit over a sample if it's infinitely large. It's not a certainty that any roulette wheel will ever hit 0 or 00 again.[/douche]

1.)
2.)

These are both true and different.

1.) The cards are inanimate objects with no memory. They come out of the shuffle in whatever order they ended up in. They don't know if you're running hot or running cold. They're random.

2.) Having an edge or playing +EV as you say it, is a mathematical advantage that doesn't play out over a single hand or even a few, but over the long term. The advantage is what makes it profitable, not the variance. A roulette wheel is a good example. The house advantage on any roulette bet is 5.3%. For simple red/black bets, their advantage is the 0 and 00 spaces which are neither red nor black. In the short run, there may not be enough spins for a 0 or 00 to come up so they cannot realize their edge, however over the long run those spaces come up and they are able to realize their edge and profit. Their profit doesn't rely on the past variance at all.

See I don't understand this logic at all. Probably why I never pursued or should have pursued a career in math.