Luck vs. probability theory

[sagefr0g]

Publisher Lyle Stuart (a VERY serious bettor, with a "normal" bet of $2000) wrote a similar description of his experiences with baccarat, and in one of his books, with blackjack. He considered his mood and mental state of more significance than the probabilities involved.

:laugh: if i was betting at such a rate i'd definately be intouch with my feelings.

Specifically, he studied what and how he thought/felt/behaved during sessions in which he won, and in sessions in which he lost. By identifying the difference, he was able to "predict" when his playing sessions would be very positive, average, or negative. By avoiding the "negative sessions" (his mood, not count), and leaning into the "positive sessions" he ran a quarter mil in the black over a couple of trips to Vegas. And wrote a fascinating book about it.

All bull, right? Not so fast in the judgement call. Consider, if you are counting, and you find a particularly advantageous situation, is there a change in your mood? Conversely, when the count goes sour, is there a corresponding change in your mood? The question becomes, which comes first?

some of the most brilliant poster's around are quick to negate modes of decision making that can in anyway be considered superstitious, hunches, intuitive, intelligent guessing or in general impossible or extremely difficult to reproduce scientificaly. i believe they are wise to take such a stance. i'm old school so i have a degree of respect for hunches, intuition, intelligent guessing and how i feel about situations as a barometer for action. conversly i'm for the greatest percentage of the time inclined to take action only as the result of scientifically derived methods.
i agree though regarding using mood as a barometer, the question becomes, which comes first.

In short, is it possible that Stuart "knew," from watching the shuffle, that he was more likely to win the next few hands, increased his bets, and won? Perhaps not consciously, but sufficiently "conscious" to feel a touch of elation, and one of those "I am unbeatable" moments that come all to rarely?

i don't know if it's true or not but i've often heard it said that most people only ever use a small percentage of their mental capabilities. if that is true it makes one think that unconciously our minds may know a lot more than we realize consciously and that such knowing may 'bleed' over into our mood.

I have seen some uncanny events in time dilation experiments in psych research, in which the subject believes that "time" is slowed down. If you are interested, you might look for the time dilation references in Charles Tart's "Altered States of Consciousness" that involved Aldous Huxley and Milton Erickson. If such things can be done in time dilation experiments, it is obviously a capability of normal human function that can be applied to other situations.

Was Stuart "psychic"? Not at all. He just discovered that in particular states--relaxed, confident, and focused--he was "luckier." While some counters may feel threatened at the notion, I think it is more threatening to ignore a possible advantage that can be fairly easily gained with a little introspection.

the problem here is of course we are talking money and we are talking a very difficult situation to reproduce scientifically. but as you say if there is an advantage to be gained one would like to know if there is some way to put it in action. none of us who have a decent understanding of the game want to fall into 'ploppy' ways but i think it is important that we don't ignore ways that may seem similar but really are not.

Of course, all this can be blown off in a flash by recalling those situations in which you felt poorly, broke, busted, never-gonna-win-another-hand, and had an incredible run of cards that was better than anything you have experienced in a "positive" state, and finished the session 50 units up.

exactly such a fact presents a definitie problem.

I think for most bettors, there is a very strong correlation between self-confidence, mood, and winning. Whether it is an uptick in mood because you realize the count strongly favors you, which in turn increases your confidence that you will win, or some other scenario, the bottom line is that emotional states and winning are often correlated. Perhaps not cause-and-effect, but definitely correlated.
Good Luck

i agree with you. being old school i doubt i could ever cast away a reliance upon what i call just plain common sense. using wisdom on top of scientific intelligence is i believe not a bad route to take.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[traynor]

:laugh: if i was betting at such a rate i'd definately be intouch with my feelings.

some of the most brilliant poster's around are quick to negate modes of decision making that can in anyway be considered superstitious, hunches, intuitive, intelligent guessing or in general impossible or extremely difficult to reproduce scientificaly. i believe they are wise to take such a stance. i'm old school so i have a degree of respect for hunches, intuition, intelligent guessing and how i feel about situations as a barometer for action. conversly i'm for the greatest percentage of the time inclined to take action only as the result of scientifically derived methods.
i agree though regarding using mood as a barometer, the question becomes, which comes first.

i don't know if it's true or not but i've often heard it said that most people only ever use a small percentage of their mental capabilities. if that is true it makes one think that unconciously our minds may know a lot more than we realize consciously and that such knowing may 'bleed' over into our mood.

the problem here is of course we are talking money and we are talking a very difficult situation to reproduce scientifically. but as you say if there is an advantage to be gained one would like to know if there is some way to put it in action. none of us who have a decent understanding of the game want to fall into 'ploppy' ways but i think it is important that we don't ignore ways that may seem similar but really are not.

exactly such a fact presents a definitie problem.

i agree with you. being old school i doubt i could ever cast away a reliance upon what i call just plain common sense. using wisdom on top of scientific intelligence is i believe not a bad route to take.

best regards,
mr fr0g

I think the most difficult part to get past is that it is a normal human function. Bojack1 refers to estimating remaining cards within a quarter of a deck. I have seen engineers and toolmakers do similar things--estimating tolerances, clearances, and measurements that made them seem almost psychic. It is mainly experience, and practice, and doing the same thing over and over enough times that it is "internalized."

It doesn't "replace" conscious thinking or decision-making, and that is where most go astray. They think, "I'll just sit here and go brain dead, and let my subconscious do all the work." It doesn't work like that. It still takes a lot of conscious effort, with the subconsious occasionally tipping the scales slightly in your favor. That slight tip, over time, can make a big difference in profit.
Good Luck

 

[sagefr0g]

I think the most difficult part to get past is that it is a normal human function. Bojack1 refers to estimating remaining cards within a quarter of a deck. I have seen engineers and toolmakers do similar things--estimating tolerances, clearances, and measurements that made them seem almost psychic. It is mainly experience, and practice, and doing the same thing over and over enough times that it is "internalized."

It doesn't "replace" conscious thinking or decision-making, and that is where most go astray. They think, "I'll just sit here and go brain dead, and let my subconscious do all the work." It doesn't work like that. It still takes a lot of conscious effort, with the subconsious occasionally tipping the scales slightly in your favor. That slight tip, over time, can make a big difference in profit.
Good Luck

what you say makes sense IMHO. much like Larry Byrd in basketball. the guy out practiced everyone. then when it came to the real game he could play as if it were magic. probably the same was true of Jordan and Johnson.
i believe your also right on about not making the mistake of thinking conscious effort isn't necessary to play a part in reaching the 'zone' .
just like the car driving example.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[ScottH]

I think for most bettors, there is a very strong correlation between self-confidence, mood, and winning.

I agree with this statement for games of skill. However I do not think that moods will affect the outcome on games of chance.

 

[sagefr0g]

Quote:
Originally Posted by traynor View Post
I think for most bettors, there is a very strong correlation between self-confidence, mood, and winning.

I agree with this statement for games of skill. However I do not think that moods will affect the outcome on games of chance.

the part that mood and self-confidence could affect in games of chance is the capable application of the skill required to obtain an advantage.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[zengrifter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by traynor View Post
I think for most bettors, there is a very strong correlation between self-confidence, mood, and winning.



the part that mood and self-confidence could affect in games of chance is the capable application of the skill required to obtain an advantage.

best regards,
mr fr0g

Oh yeah? Look at this -

EXCERPT FROM ZG INTERVIEW:

Beyond the intuition factor discussed earlier, we get into some heady stuff that re-acquaints us with the gamblers’ penchant for the so-called ‘superstitious.’ Some readers who have studied quantum-physics will recall the hypothesis of “Dr. Schrödinger’s Cat.” Schrödinger posited that a cat placed into an electrically wired black box which, in turn, was randomly electrified - only sometimes with enough juice to kill the cat, with the random charges unknown to the observing experimenter - would result in neither a dead nor a living cat until the box is opened and the animal’s state observed. Along similar lines, the next card dealt from the shoe is not pre-determined, at least not in ‘quantum-reality.’ Thus a gambler’s beliefs may very well indeed affect his results.

I once employed my friend and best-selling ‘higher-consciousness’ author Marilyn Ferguson (The Aquarian Conspiracy, Brain-Mind Bulletin) to channel the late Kenny Uston.

Marilyn channels many “gone-yonders,” as she refers to them, including Joseph Kennedy, John Rockefeller, Buckminster Fuller, Timothy Leary, and even ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ whom she endearingly calls “the J of N.” Her son is a semi-pro poker player, so at his urgings she has even channeled the late poker legend Johnny Moss.

During the channeling session, Kenny stated that since the time of his “last incarnation,” he has become “increasingly convinced” of the “connection between state and luck.” Such connection between ‘state’ and ‘luck’ has been suggested by many mystical and scientific types, alike. This suggests that a gambler may actually be able to ‘invoke’ a ‘lucky-state’ through meditation, prayer, self-hypnosis or even neuro-linguistic-programming, perhaps. I don’t know, but I’ll ask my friend Tony Robbins the next time I see him.

---END EXCERPT -----

 

[sagefr0g]

Oh yeah? Look at this -

EXCERPT FROM ZG INTERVIEW:

Beyond the intuition factor discussed earlier, we get into some heady stuff that re-acquaints us with the gamblers’ penchant for the so-called ‘superstitious.’ Some readers who have studied quantum-physics will recall the hypothesis of “Dr. Schrödinger’s Cat.” Schrödinger posited that a cat placed into an electrically wired black box which, in turn, was randomly electrified - only sometimes with enough juice to kill the cat, with the random charges unknown to the observing experimenter - would result in neither a dead nor a living cat until the box is opened and the animal’s state observed. Along similar lines, the next card dealt from the shoe is not pre-determined, at least not in ‘quantum-reality.’ Thus a gambler’s beliefs may very well indeed affect his results.

I once employed my friend and best-selling ‘higher-consciousness’ author Marilyn Ferguson (The Aquarian Conspiracy, Brain-Mind Bulletin) to channel the late Kenny Uston.

Marilyn channels many “gone-yonders,” as she refers to them, including Joseph Kennedy, John Rockefeller, Buckminster Fuller, Timothy Leary, and even ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ whom she endearingly calls “the J of N.” Her son is a semi-pro poker player, so at his urgings she has even channeled the late poker legend Johnny Moss.

During the channeling session, Kenny stated that since the time of his “last incarnation,” he has become “increasingly convinced” of the “connection between state and luck.” Such connection between ‘state’ and ‘luck’ has been suggested by many mystical and scientific types, alike. This suggests that a gambler may actually be able to ‘invoke’ a ‘lucky-state’ through meditation, prayer, self-hypnosis or even neuro-linguistic-programming, perhaps. I don’t know, but I’ll ask my friend Tony Robbins the next time I see him.

---END EXCERPT -----

yea heh heh i've thought along the same lines except the part about channeling. just the fact that quantum mechanical tunneling is a real phenomenon allows me to accept that things in the macroscopic world such as parting of the red sea, Jesus walking on water , mountains being moved by faith and me winning a hand of blackjack can happen. not too probable but at least physically possible . i've not had much luck bringing about results though.... for example the numerous times i've prayed like a saint that i just come out even tonight ect. still one has to wonder if there might be something legitimate to these lines of thought.
imagine the analogy quantum mechanical tunneling to some how tunneling through a statistical advantage a game of chance has over you. i should think that for macroscopic events to mimic sub-microscopic events is almost infinitely unlikely but for purely statisticly driven phenomenon perhaps such mimicry is more on a par. thing is i don't think slot machines, craps, roulette and blackjack are truly statisticaly driven. close perhaps but in actuality affected more by the macroscopic world than we can understand.
when it comes to blackjack and considering the plus minus values we assign the various cards i've pondered but never realized anything significant strategywise considering the similarity to the two card starting hands and the likelyhood of those hands holding ++ or -- or -+ valued cards and the Pauli Exclusion Principle which holds that electrons are forbiden to share orbitals unless they have opposite spins. the pertainent (i think) orbitals are pictured below:
View attachment 62
but like i say i can't make any sense of the idea .

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[zengrifter]

Now thats what I call some serious voodoo thinking! All of what you ponder is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE BECAUSE the world is NOT EXTERNAL - it is a plastique dream realm holographic illusion! zg

 

[ScottH]

If that were true wouldn't "hunch" players do extremely well at blackjack?

To hell with basic strategy!

Oh yeah? Look at this -

EXCERPT FROM ZG INTERVIEW:

Beyond the intuition factor discussed earlier, we get into some heady stuff that re-acquaints us with the gamblers’ penchant for the so-called ‘superstitious.’ Some readers who have studied quantum-physics will recall the hypothesis of “Dr. Schrödinger’s Cat.” Schrödinger posited that a cat placed into an electrically wired black box which, in turn, was randomly electrified - only sometimes with enough juice to kill the cat, with the random charges unknown to the observing experimenter - would result in neither a dead nor a living cat until the box is opened and the animal’s state observed. Along similar lines, the next card dealt from the shoe is not pre-determined, at least not in ‘quantum-reality.’ Thus a gambler’s beliefs may very well indeed affect his results.

I once employed my friend and best-selling ‘higher-consciousness’ author Marilyn Ferguson (The Aquarian Conspiracy, Brain-Mind Bulletin) to channel the late Kenny Uston.

Marilyn channels many “gone-yonders,” as she refers to them, including Joseph Kennedy, John Rockefeller, Buckminster Fuller, Timothy Leary, and even ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ whom she endearingly calls “the J of N.” Her son is a semi-pro poker player, so at his urgings she has even channeled the late poker legend Johnny Moss.

During the channeling session, Kenny stated that since the time of his “last incarnation,” he has become “increasingly convinced” of the “connection between state and luck.” Such connection between ‘state’ and ‘luck’ has been suggested by many mystical and scientific types, alike. This suggests that a gambler may actually be able to ‘invoke’ a ‘lucky-state’ through meditation, prayer, self-hypnosis or even neuro-linguistic-programming, perhaps. I don’t know, but I’ll ask my friend Tony Robbins the next time I see him.

---END EXCERPT -----

 

[supercoolmancool]

If that were true wouldn't "hunch" players do extremely well at blackjack?

To hell with basic strategy!

Well in order for people to change their realities they have to be operating in an altered state of consciousnes. Or make their subconcious believe something is true or what they are doing works. It is one thing to believe you should hit and another for you to subconsiously believe you should hit.

 

[sagefr0g]

If that were true wouldn't "hunch" players do extremely well at blackjack?

To hell with basic strategy!

hunch players often do outplay advantage players right at the same table. i've sat stodgily minding my bets and playing strategy according to proper advantage play while virtually mindless players are laying out the big bets winning hand over fist with the kookiest of plays while i am steadily going downhill. the thing is though this only seems to work in the short run. at the end of the day or after a few weeks or so it's the advantage player that ends up with the biggest pile of chips.
wanted to add here <edit>...
the key seems to be knowability. phenomenon can be either knowable or unknowable. advantage players essentially use statistics to come up with knowable information. hunch players use intuition and sometimes hook into knowable and unknowable information. uknowable information is unreliable (ie. nonsense). unfortunately for the AP statistics contains some unknowable information but at least there is always some knowable information in it. thats the edge the AP has over the intuit.
hole card reading excellent knowable info
shuffle tracking good knowable info
card counting fair knowable info
intuit play unknowable mixed with knowable info
end <edit>
best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[TENNBEAR]

I have two older friends who I travel with to the casinos who are hunch Blackjack players. They have been playing BJ for many years and do much better than the average basic strategy player. They have numerous strategys they use, coupled with strict disipline, some are borderline casual counting. Their goals are to play all weekend, break even, and work the comps.

 

[zengrifter]

I have two older friends ...They have numerous strategys they use, coupled with strict disipline,...

Oxy-moronic logic. zg

 

[ScottH]

hunch players often do outplay advantage players right at the same table.

That would be variance at work, not the players actually changing their realities or something like that.

 

[sagefr0g]

That would be variance at work, not the players actually changing their realities or something like that.

probably so. they may accidently perform the most intelligent decision or actually have a brilliant realization. but your right as far as advantage play their results would be summed up as good fortune or variance.
it's interesting that variance is a factor for advantage players as well. over time the edge the AP has kicks in. can't say the same thing for the intuit unless you say his edge is the house edge :eyepatch: .
whats interesting to me is that the intuit deals with unknowable information or at least poorly correlated knowable information while the advantage player employs knowable information that is well understood.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[sagefr0g]

Now thats what I call some serious voodoo thinking! All of what you ponder is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE BECAUSE the world is NOT EXTERNAL - it is a plastique dream realm holographic illusion! zg

yes from cradle to grave what we think we know is the result of explainations nested within exlplainations. some of the explainations are not so accurate. all it would seem are illusions. maths and the scientific method at least give us something reliable with which to grope around in the dark with. so far maths and science lead one to believe that anything is possible, the question IMHO becomes ok but how practical and probable. it's fun though....

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[jomoats]

If a player plays differently his reality is also different

That would be variance at work, not the players actually changing their realities or something like that.

A hunch player is playing to a different expectation which may or may not be better than a counter's expectation. You and I may hit a 15 against a face knowing we'll probably break but also knowing our chances of winning the hand are slim if we don't. A hunch player's outcome would be difficult to simulate because he only makes the decision when the hand appears and is inconsistent when the same hand reappears. No doubt variance is at work in his reality too. It also might be something as simple as the table as a whole is right on expectation although one player is taking all the losses.

 

[sagefr0g]

A hunch player is playing to a different expectation which may or may not be better than a counter's expectation. You and I may hit a 15 against a face knowing we'll probably break but also knowing our chances of winning the hand are slim if we don't. A hunch player's outcome would be difficult to simulate because he only makes the decision when the hand appears and is inconsistent when the same hand reappears. No doubt variance is at work in his reality too. It also might be something as simple as the table as a whole is right on expectation although one player is taking all the losses.

wow i think thats an interesting slant. especially the part where you state, "It also might be something as simple as the table as a whole is right on expectation although one player is taking all the losses".
it's phenomenon like that, that for me makes statistics so hard to make sense of.
but looked at from the perspective of Zengrifters statement: "Now thats what I call some serious voodoo thinking! All of what you ponder is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE BECAUSE the world is NOT EXTERNAL - it is a plastique dream realm holographic illusion! zg" i suppose it has some underlying logic.....

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[jimpenn]

I understand that continued doubling of bets will wipe you out eventually. Once I spent a two day trip to AC and decided to attempt to wong games with at a +7 count or better. Just jump from table to table doubling bets if I lost. The first night I was up $400. I was betting green off the start and would jump to $50 with loss,etc. The next night I started off winning about $200 in the first two hours. It was all down hill from there. I lost 6 bets in a row and was down $175, called myself an asshole and quit. It was fun while it lasted, but deep down I knew I would eventually lose in the end. Today if I start playing and lose the first day I don't attempt to get it all back. I just grind it out at a min table attempting to lessen my initial night's losses. For example, this past couple day I lost a three team teaser for $70/50 and I played two additional games to win thereafter for $33/30 and won both. I reduced my loss of $70 to $10 and today will bet against the Steelers/Balt. for $33/30 thus winning $20 for weekend when the Steelers get their ass kicked.

 

[taipafan]

Stanford Wong – What about luck