luck

[aslan]

so you can guard against a completely unknown surprise by not heavily investing in a bet for which you can only infer the value of the bet rather than know it.

It may not seem like a bet at all. Since the black swan is an improbable event, one might not have clue they are taking a chance, It's like owning a home just before the country is suddenly taken over by a coup and all property is confiscated by the state. Yikes!! Why didn't I sell the house and put all my money in gold or a Cayman Island secret account?! Why? Because I didn't think I was at risk. Hmmm! These swans are devious little birds!

those folks could have known even should have known the level of risk they faced.

Easy for a seasoned gambler like yourself (I didn't say "big") to say. How about a person who never gambled before? They retire to Vegas because of the low taxes and cheap housing and food. They go to a casino for the first time. They think they have a good chance to win. Certainly the State wouldn't let a casino victimize its customers! Besides, I live a good life--God won't let me lose. Or, I know I'm lucky. I'm the guy who breaks the bank! I saw it in a movie. They don't realize how powerful the drag is and they get caught in the undertow. They never realized how strong the gambling emotions can be. They are helpless to pull themselves to safety. All these years of living a sheltered life never prepared them for the temptations of the gambling casino, nor the emotional turmoil when they get their nose open. Lambs to the slaughter!!!

yeah, you'll let it go. and then i'll get my chance again. lol.

If you deserve it, you don't need another chance. It's virtually a sure thing. Never fear, there are more birds where that one came from. But, you'll probably give it back yourself. Although, from recent posts, I know you are no more ready to catch one than I am. lol

I'll give you another clue on how to catch a black swan. You have to become a black swan yourself in an allegorical sense. Then they will think you are one of them and you can swim right up to them. Don't tell me how I know this. A higher power must have whispered it in my ear. But do you know how hard it is to become a black swan? They are rarer than...er... swan's teeth. If you do become one, I can assure you that you will deserve to catch one. It's a done deal!! A slam dunk!! Happy hunting!! View attachment 1757

 

[sagefr0g]

It may not seem like a bet at all. Since the black swan is an improbable event, one might not have clue they are taking a chance, It's like owning a home just before the country is suddenly taken over by a coup and all property is confiscated by the state. Yikes!! Why didn't I sell the house and put all my money in gold or a Cayman Island secret account?! Why? Because I didn't think I was at risk. Hmmm! These swans are devious little birds!

that's why the black swan concept has value. knowledge of something unknowable.:whip:

Easy for a seasoned gambler like yourself (I didn't say "big") to say.

omg thanks for making that distiction, lmao. yep that's me last of the big time gamblers. NOT
scarity cat is more like it. :cat:
more in the vain of the enigmatic one's philosphy. no big deal, nuthin life changing.

How about a person who never gambled before? They retire to Vegas because of the low taxes and cheap housing and food. They go to a casino for the first time. They think they have a good chance to win. Certainly the State wouldn't let a casino victimize its customers! Besides, I live a good life--God won't let me lose. Or, I know I'm lucky. I'm the guy who breaks the bank! I saw it in a movie. They don't realize how powerful the drag is and they get caught in the undertow. They never realized how strong the gambling emotions can be. They are helpless to pull themselves to safety. All these years of living a sheltered life never prepared them for the temptations of the gambling casino, nor the emotional turmoil when they get their nose open. Lambs to the slaughter!!!

all i can say is, sad but you'd almost have to suspect some kind of a personality disorder sort of thing working there.

If you deserve it, you don't need another chance. It's virtually a sure thing. Never fear, there are more birds where that one came from. But, you'll probably give it back yourself. Although, from recent posts, I know you are no more ready to catch one than I am. lol

shish, shish. :angel::whip:

I'll give you another clue on how to catch a black swan. You have to become a black swan yourself in an allegorical sense. Then they will think you are one of them and you can swim right up to them. Don't tell me how I know this. A higher power must have whispered it in my ear. But do you know how hard it is to become a black swan? They are rarer than...er... swan's teeth. If you do become one, I can assure you that you will deserve to catch one. It's a done deal!! A slam dunk!! Happy hunting!!

lol, ok, lemme chew that one for a while, with my beak, erhh, teeth. :laugh:

 

[aslan]

that's why the black swan concept has value. knowledge of something unknowable.:whip:

omg thanks for making that distiction, lmao. yep that's me last of the big time gamblers. NOT
scarity cat is more like it. :cat:
more in the vain of the enigmatic one's philosphy. no big deal, nuthin life changing.

all i can say is, sad but you'd almost have to suspect some kind of a personality disorder sort of thing working there.


shish, shish. :angel::whip:

lol, ok, lemme chew that one for a while, with my beak, erhh, teeth. :laugh:

Well it's a sure thing I'm not a black swan. Just look at these dentures!!!:grin:

In the other hand, what could be more of a black swan than a black swan with teeth??!!

To answer my own question, maybe one with big, floppy ears?

 

[sagefr0g]

it's a zenzone thing

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=12437

 

[sagefr0g]

quantum weirdness

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=111266&postcount=9

Originally Posted by zengrifter
......

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.

....

Originally Posted by sagefr0g
why would a gambler's beliefs affect his results in the scenerio you describe?
would the scientists's beliefs affect the cats outcome in the experiment?
isn't only the act of observation that collapses the probability wave?

i think i like better the idea of luck and quantum mechanical tunneling sort of thing.
the idea of quantum mechanical tunneling where a lesser energy overcomes a greater. a very improbable random event that does happen and we've learned to take advantage of it.
so by analogy, luck the result of a highly improbable unpredictable random event overcomming a greater advantage sort of thing that we learn to take advantage of. :cat::whip:

 

[aslan]

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=111266&postcount=9

i think i like better the idea of luck and quantum mechanical tunneling sort of thing.
the idea of quantum mechanical tunneling where a lesser energy overcomes a greater. a very improbable random event that does happen and we've learned to take advantage of it.
so by analogy, luck the result of a highly improbable unpredictable random event overcomming a greater advantage sort of thing that we learn to take advantage of. :cat::whip:

You always manage to lose me with "that we learn to take advantage of." If it is the result of a highly improbable unpredictable random event, you have by definition ruled out taking advantage of it. If you can't predict where and when it will occur, how will you be there waiting for it when it comes? It means you must be everywhere at all times. So far I no of no one who can do this. If you can do this, forget about taking advantage of luck--I think this power must have far greater benefits than merely taking advantage of luck. Think about it.

​

 

[sagefr0g]

If it is the result of a highly improbable unpredictable random event, you have by definition ruled out taking advantage of it.

maybe but not necessarily. and maybe the qualitative 'highly' could of been left out of the statement for stuff that happens in casino's. maybe just say the random events unpredictable and that don't happen as often over the long run as expected events as far as blackjack goes. standard deviations that can be considered good luck and bad luck, sort of events.
we know those events are going to happen, just not when. we even have in the case of blackjack a quantitative handle on such events. so such events are quite recognizable with mathematical precision once they do happen. since those events are recognizable when they happen one can make decisions predicated upon those events. being able to make an informed decision has it's advantages, at least in the short run.
let's say we're hungry, real hungry and we want two hamburgers as soon as possible. they cost one dollar each. now we know that if we play blackjack for one hour we can expect to make two dollars (maybe). so lets say we play four or five rounds and just happen to make five dollars. should we play on for a full hour in hopes of making two dollars or should we just go get a hamburger? does the maybe part of making the two dollars after an hours play have any bearing on the decision?
perhaps a less silly example, one that really happened. i started my illustrious lol, blackjack career with a three hundred dollar bankroll. some how after a couple hundred sessions i managed to get the bankroll up to seven thousand dollars. can you in your wildest imagination convince your self that i managed to do that with no luck? but do i not now (if i use proper AP) have a greater advantage than i started out with? that's an example of obtaining an advantage from luck.

If you can't predict where and when it will occur, how will you be there waiting for it when it comes? It means you must be everywhere at all times. ...

no need to be every where at all times, all that's called for is being knowledgeable about the nature of what has transpired. then you can make a decision about what you want to do about the event having transpired.
maybe if playing blackjack you decide to play on with an advantage, maybe not. it's your money, you decide what you want to do with it.:grin:

You always manage to lose me with "that we learn to take advantage of."

yeah, it was just an analogy and i guess analogy's are inheirently troublesome to begin with.
like it's hard to argue against the fact that we've "learned to take advantage" of quantum mechanical tunneling when it comes to transistors for instance.
http://www.sandia.gov/media/quantran.htm
thats an example of our taking advantage of a highly improbable unpredictable(once thought impossible) event where a electron with insufficient energy never the less overcomes a barrier of greater energy.
the analogy i wanting to push is the idea of our playing blackjack where we are against the 'barrier' of the house advantage but over come that barrier with luck.

 

[aslan]

maybe but not necessarily. and maybe the qualitative 'highly' could of been left out of the statement for stuff that happens in casino's. maybe just say the random events unpredictable and that don't happen as often over the long run as expected events as far as blackjack goes. standard deviations that can be considered good luck and bad luck, sort of events.
we know those events are going to happen, just not when. we even have in the case of blackjack a quantitative handle on such events. so such events are quite recognizable with mathematical precision once they do happen. since those events are recognizable when they happen one can make decisions predicated upon those events. being able to make an informed decision has it's advantages, at least in the short run.
let's say we're hungry, real hungry and we want two hamburgers as soon as possible. they cost one dollar each. now we know that if we play blackjack for one hour we can expect to make two dollars (maybe). so lets say we play four or five rounds and just happen to make five dollars. should we play on for a full hour in hopes of making two dollars or should we just go get a hamburger? does the maybe part of making the two dollars after an hours play have any bearing on the decision?
perhaps a less silly example, one that really happened. i started my illustrious lol, blackjack career with a three hundred dollar bankroll. some how after a couple hundred sessions i managed to get the bankroll up to seven thousand dollars. can you in your wildest imagination convince your self that i managed to do that with no luck? but do i not now (if i use proper AP) have a greater advantage than i started out with? that's an example of obtaining an advantage from luck.

What you describe is not really luck.

When we say a person is lucky, we mean that he has something special whereby he overcomes the laws of probability. What happens to most people doesn't happen to him. He is a lucky person. He wins at games of chance more than his share. I believe this is a myth.

What you described was a person decidng to quit when he was ahead. That is not luck. That is not even turning luck into an advantage. It's the same thing that I did when I played roulette. I played four times, one time one day and three times another day. I am $2,500 ahead. You may perceive me to be lucky. People say that I was lucky. I am not lucky. What happened was normal. If a thousand people did what I did, a large number of them would have the same result. Winning a near even bet four times in a row is not luck. It happens often. I don't have an advantage, because I can not apply it going forward. If luck gave me an advantage, I would continue playing and break the bank. I will always be ahead $2,500 ONLY IF I never play again. No I am not lucky. That is why I quit playing. Guess what will likely happen if I decide to resume my roulette career? My so-called advantage springs NOT from luck, but from my decision to quit playing. It is an advanage in retrospect only--not usable for future play.

In the same way. your blackjack player is not lucky. If he continues to be a blackjack player, this will be borne out. He can only keep his "luck" advantage if he decides never to play again. He has not beaten the odds. He simply has not allowed enough time for the odds to play out. It is not only short run, it is not repeatable at will. He is just as likely to wind up on the wrong side of luck the next time around. If you can't lock it in, it's not luck. If you can't continue to beat the odds, you're not lucky.

no need to be every where at all times, all that's called for is being knowledgeable about the nature of what has transpired. then you can make a decision about what you want to do about the event having transpired.

I thought you were talking about acquiring a black swan IN GENERAL. Then you would have to be everywhere at all times to catch the next one down the line. Since they are unpredictable, you won't know where to be or when to be there. But you were talking about an event that I wouldn't call a black swan at all. You were limiting your improbable event to blackjack. Therefore, you know exactly where to find it. Furthermore, while it may be rare, it is probable to occur sooner or later. Your real obstacle to finding it is that it may not occur in within your lifetime. You can do nothing whatsoever to encourage it to appear sooner, other than playing more blackjack which will continuously expose you to risk of losing your money unless you are playing with an advantage. In fact, the number of hands within which it will appear cannot be changed in any way. It will appear when it will appear and not a hand sooner. When it finally does appear, if it ever does appear, you may already be losing far more over time than you gain by it, or you may decide to continue playing for a second black swan and thereby lose it. Again, your advantage, if you insist on calling it that, results not from luck but from your decision to stop playing.


I didn't quite understand your example and not sure how a discovery relates to a gambling advantage.

 

[sagefr0g]

your just gonna have to wait for your hamburger

What you describe is not really luck.

When we say a person is lucky, we mean that he has something special whereby he overcomes the laws of probability. What happens to most people doesn't happen to him. He is a lucky person. He wins at games of chance more than his share. I believe this is a myth.

well i would tend to agree with you. however, standard deviation and luck are commonly used inter-changeably in the orthodox AP community as you well know. but i can agree since nothing i know of overcomes the laws of probability. especially the kind of luck found in casino's where there are just 'fortunate' interludes that for a time can dwarf the expectation of what's probable.
the question though that is interesting imho, is how? by what procedure of behavior did one stumble upon said 'fortunate' interlude? by skill or i hesitate to say dumb luck. and then what does one do with the proceeds of said 'fortunate' interlude?

What you described was a person decidng to quit when he was ahead. That is not luck. That is not even turning luck into an advantage. It's the same thing that I did when I played roulette. I played four times, one time one day and three times another day. I am $2,500 ahead. You may perceive me to be lucky. People say that I was lucky. I am not lucky. What happened was normal. If a thousand people did what I did, a large number of them would have the same result. Winning a near even bet four times in a row is not luck. It happens often. I don't have an advantage, because I can not apply it going forward. If luck gave me an advantage, I would continue playing and break the bank. I will always be ahead $2,500 ONLY IF I never play again. No I am not lucky. That is why I quit playing. Guess what will likely happen if I decide to resume my roulette career? My so-called advantage springs NOT from luck, but from my decision to quit playing. It is an advanage in retrospect only--not usable for future play.

congradulations, you have the intelligence to know that! now you can take that $2,500 and apply it with further intelligence, hence an advantage.
if you don't want to call winning the $2,500 luck or view it as luck philosophically that's your perogative. it, would be hard pressed to call it skill, but many less informed might. however, i'm open to calling it voodoo skill under certain circumstances, such as your informed decision to call it quits and perhaps your knowledge of your odds and how you personally resolve the risk. i mean it's not inconceivable to me that you could enjoy the luck of winning $2,500 at roulette while being weathy enough to find the propects of the risk involved virtually inconsequential. if that's the case some people, myself included would call you lucky to begin with and even luckier if you won the $2,500. maybe not to bright LMAO, but lucky as hell.

In the same way. your blackjack player is not lucky. If he continues to be a blackjack player, this will be borne out. He can only keep his "luck" advantage if he decides never to play again. He has not beaten the odds. He simply has not allowed enough time for the odds to play out. It is not only short run, it is not repeatable at will. He is just as likely to wind up on the wrong side of luck the next time around. If you can't lock it in, it's not luck. If you can't continue to beat the odds, you're not lucky.

he can't turn around and employ orthodox advantage play with his new found fortune?
but no, yes it's not repeatable at will, only one can allow for the chance of luck repeating and then recognize it for what it is, luck not skill and then decide what to do with the results of it.

I thought you were talking about acquiring a black swan IN GENERAL. Then you would have to be everywhere at all times to catch the next one down the line. Since they are unpredictable, you won't know where to be or when to be there.

ok, yeah i was refering to the 'ludic realm' ie. stuff that happens inside a casino. and yeah, Taleb author of Black Swan would i believe agree with you about the differance between black swans and what goes on inside a casino, with certain reservations. he refers to luck inside of a casino as a 'watered down' mediocre, platonic, gaussian version of it's distant cousin the wild, extreme even unknowable version of luck that resides outside of casino walls, called a black swan. it's my argument that what goes on inside a casino is a subset of what goes on outside the casino wall when it comes to questions about luck and skill.
but no, according to Taleb, even the black swan can be dealt with, taken advantage of and one need not be in all places at one time to do so.
it's a matter of fessing up to what one really knows and can know and what one doesn't know and can't know then making decisions about how to act accordingly, then letting the chips fall where they may. really a matter of how to deal with risk while taking some risk at the same time.

But you were talking about an event that I wouldn't call a black swan at all. You were limiting your improbable event to blackjack. Therefore, you know exactly where to find it. Furthermore, while it may be rare, it is probable to occur sooner or later. Your real obstacle to finding it is that it may not occur in within your lifetime. You can do nothing whatsoever to encourage it to appear sooner, other than playing more blackjack which will continuously expose you to risk of losing your money unless you are playing with an advantage. In fact, the number of hands within which it will appear cannot be changed in any way. It will appear when it will appear and not a hand sooner. When it finally does appear, if it ever does appear, you may already be losing far more over time than you gain by it, or you may decide to continue playing for a second black swan and thereby lose it. Again, your advantage, if you insist on calling it that, results not from luck but from your decision to stop playing.

right, that's what i was tawkin bout.
but whoa there brotha, not gonna happen in my lifetime? well maybe, lol, but heck it's been my experience that standard deviation happens like crazy, man!
so but yeah, quiting can be a part of the equation, not necessarily the rule.
in my mental mind i picture it as a jig saw puzzle. one with a preset picture if one puts all the pieces together just right. me, i'm tryin to decide not to put that puzzle together the way it was intended. instead i wanna make my own picture. probably impossible, definately voodoo i know, but pretty much the story of my life, lol. it's what i do.

I didn't quite understand your example and not sure how a discovery relates to a gambling advantage.

lmao, i'm not sure i do either but it's supposed to be about in essence the transparency of probability maths. probability maths doesn't care if your talking about electrons tunneling through energy potentials for which they have insufficient energy or lucky fools who beat the odds in casino's.
maybe changing the subject will help me wriggle my way out of your crushing argument. lol:joker::whip:
here's another voodoo analogy, physics, biology and gambling.
we have entropy, right? one of them there laws of thermodynamics. the second i think. no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, "heat tends to go from hot to cold, and not the other way around", "energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy". then we have biology, right? all the way from primordial sludge to apes and some where in that mix mankind. can you see something funny when you think about the second law of thermodynamics and biological systems? life when you think about it has the potential to trancend the second law of thermodynamics. especially so when you add intelligence into the equation. just cock roaches are virtually indestructable, lol. imagine if they were to evolve into intelligent, reasoning beings. the second law of thermodynamics would mean nothing to them. but scientifically that's supposed to be impossible. but the question becomes which will out, life or the second law of thermodynamics.
even if life eventually loses, it does pretty good, with intelligent reasoning it may even cop a hamburger. (ie free lunch). could it be, there is such a thing as a free lunch? maybe with a little grace and the good sense to accept it. erhh, take advantage of it. :cat::whip:

well, momma's calling me to dinner so i gotta cut this short. gotta get my hamburger. so if there's anything amiss in this post, well at least i got my hamburger.

 

[aslan]

well i would tend to agree with you. however, standard deviation and luck are commonly used inter-changeably in the orthodox AP community as you well know. but i can agree since nothing i know of overcomes the laws of probability. especially the kind of luck found in casino's where there are just 'fortunate' interludes that for a time can dwarf the expectation of what's probable.
the question though that is interesting imho, is how? by what procedure of behavior did one stumble upon said 'fortunate' interlude? by skill or i hesitate to say dumb luck. and then what does one do with the proceeds of said 'fortunate' interlude?

I don't argue with the fact that sd and luck are commonly used inter-changeably. My point is that it shows a common misunderstanding of what luck really is or if it exists at all. Ever since I came across that author who claims there is no luck, I have been obsessing with the idea. Is it luck that you simply get what the probability forecasts predict? How is it luck that what happens is the normal way things work out? That's not luck, ie, a deviation from the norm. That IS the norm. Deviations from the norm, are NORMAL. If you're going to call two heads or tails in a row, "good luck and bad luck," you are going to find that luck is a 50/50 proposition, and therefore a misnomer--not luck at all.

Example. You decide when to bet a coin flip. You can pass as many flips as you want between bets. You must bet 100 times. Profits are yours, bankroll is Donald Trump's. You do so and discover to your amazement that using your "instincts" about when is the best time to bet, you win 100 straight flips. Are you lucky? Hint: Before answering this question, ponder whether you would be willing to put it all, say a million dollars, on the next flip. If you're anything like me, you'll take the $1 million and run. Why? Because we instinctively know that we are not lucky per se, only lucky in retrospect, ie, when viewing a past event or series of events. It has nothing to do with who we are in essence--the essence of ourselves.

Law 1: There is no luck.

What appears to be luck is merely a short term variation from the norm. In the long run, luck does not exist.

What we call luck is short lived--it has a beginning and an end. In truth, what we call luck merely describes the ebb and flow of positive and negative variance. It is only luck when viewed in the short term.

congradulations, you have the intelligence to know that! now you can take that $2,500 and apply it with further intelligence, hence an advantage.

Looking at it from a long term perspective, it is no advantage at all. It is just one of the many ebbs and flows of variance. In the long term, there is no luck!

if you don't want to call winning the $2,500 luck or view it as luck philosophically that's your perogative. it, would be hard pressed to call it skill, but many less informed might.

It is nothing more than what one should normally expect to experience routinely in both positive and negative directions. It is normal--not lucky.

however, i'm open to calling it voodoo skill under certain circumstances, such as your informed decision to call it quits and perhaps your knowledge of your odds and how you personally resolve the risk. i mean it's not inconceivable to me that you could enjoy the luck of winning $2,500 at roulette while being weathy enough to find the propects of the risk involved virtually inconsequential. if that's the case some people, myself included would call you lucky to begin with and even luckier if you won the $2,500. maybe not to bright LMAO, but lucky as hell.

We use the term lucky as if it were an attribute of a particular person. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever happens to me has the same chance of happening to anyone. If I make a million attempts you should begin to see that my "curve" is the same as everyone else's. If my curve were "skewed" to the left or to the right, then I would agree that I am lucky or unlucky as the case may be. But my curve is no different than yours. Mi curva es su curva!

What we perceive as luck, is really just the working out of the totally neutral long run. Over time, no one is lucky!

he can't turn around and employ orthodox advantage play with his new found fortune?

Yes, he can do that, but so what. He can do that anywhere along the line of betting. The only advantage he has stems from the application of advantage play. In fact, if he got ahead of the curve by not employing advantage play, he had less chance of getting ahead in the first place. I wouldn't try making that a habitual routine, unless you have a bone to pick with, let us say, Mother Nature. But know this, you may have instant satisfaction, but you can't win in the long run. lol

but no, yes it's not repeatable at will, only one can allow for the chance of luck repeating and then recognize it for what it is, luck not skill and then decide what to do with the results of it.

You can decide what to do with your winnings or losings at any point any time, It gives you no advantage, If you continue to gamble without an advantage, you would simply break even in the long run.

ok, yeah i was refering to the 'ludic realm' ie. stuff that happens inside a casino. and yeah, Taleb author of Black Swan would i believe agree with you about the differance between black swans and what goes on inside a casino, with certain reservations. he refers to luck inside of a casino as a 'watered down' mediocre, platonic, gaussian version of it's distant cousin the wild, extreme even unknowable version of luck that resides outside of casino walls, called a black swan. it's my argument that what goes on inside a casino is a subset of what goes on outside the casino wall when it comes to questions about luck and skill.
but no, according to Taleb, even the black swan can be dealt with, taken advantage of and one need not be in all places at one time to do so.
it's a matter of fessing up to what one really knows and can know and what one doesn't know and can't know then making decisions about how to act accordingly, then letting the chips fall where they may. really a matter of how to deal with risk while taking some risk at the same time.

right, that's what i was tawkin bout.
but whoa there brotha, not gonna happen in my lifetime? well maybe, lol, but heck it's been my experience that standard deviation happens like crazy, man!
so but yeah, quiting can be a part of the equation, not necessarily the rule.
in my mental mind i picture it as a jig saw puzzle. one with a preset picture if one puts all the pieces together just right. me, i'm tryin to decide not to put that puzzle together the way it was intended. instead i wanna make my own picture. probably impossible, definately voodoo i know, but pretty much the story of my life, lol. it's what i do.

In an even gamble, or one that is stacked against you, the ONLY way you can win, is to quit before you reach the long run. In the long run, you can only break even or lose. Unless of course, you're lucky, and luck doesn't exist!

lmao, i'm not sure i do either but it's supposed to be about in essence the transparency of probability maths. probability maths doesn't care if your talking about electrons tunneling through energy potentials for which they have insufficient energy or lucky fools who beat the odds in casino's.
maybe changing the subject will help me wriggle my way out of your crushing argument. lol
here's another voodoo analogy, physics, biology and gambling.
we have entropy, right? one of them there laws of thermodynamics. the second i think. no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, "heat tends to go from hot to cold, and not the other way around", "energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy". then we have biology, right? all the way from primordial sludge to apes and some where in that mix mankind. can you see something funny when you think about the second law of thermodynamics and biological systems? life when you think about it has the potential to trancend the second law of thermodynamics. especially so when you add intelligence into the equation. just cock roaches are virtually indestructable, lol. imagine if they were to evolve into intelligent, reasoning beings. the second law of thermodynamics would mean nothing to them. but scientifically that's supposed to be impossible. but the question becomes which will out, life or the second law of thermodynamics.
even if life eventually loses, it does pretty good, with intelligent reasoning it may even cop a hamburger. (ie free lunch). could it be, there is such a thing as a free lunch? maybe with a little grace and the good sense to accept it. erhh, take advantage of it. :cat::whip:

well, momma's calling me to dinner so i gotta cut this short. gotta get my hamburger. so if there's anything amiss in this post, well at least i got my hamburger.

I don't get your argument that somehow life defeats the laws of physics.

Eat well and prosper!

 

[ChefJJ]

Law 1: There is no luck.

What appears to be luck is merely a short term variation from the norm. In the long run, luck does not exist.

Aww, come on Aslan...luck sounds so much better than short term variation. Case in point:

good short term variation (luck) :grin:

 

[aslan]

Aww, come on Aslan...luck sounds so much better than short term variation. Case in point:

good short term variation (luck) :grin:

Better you would say, "Good variance, and may you then quit playing forever!" At least then, you would have something to show for it!

It would not make you a lucky person, but it would make you a smart person, that is, if you are not playing with an advantage. If you are an advantage player, there is no room for luck. With sufficient bankroll, you will continue to play no matter what the short term yields, thereby canceling out any effects of so-called luck.

The correct statement for a well wisher is, "Play well."

In the case of a player who plays without an advantage, the correct statement for a well wisher is, "Have fun (cuz you sure as hell are not going to win in the long run)!" [statement in parentheses unvoiced]

 

[ChefJJ]

The correct statement for a well wisher is, "Play well."

I'll stick with "good luck", but you can definitely take it as "good variance", "play well", or anything positive.

good luck

 

[aslan]

I'll stick with "good luck", but you can definitely take it as "good variance", "play well", or anything positive.

good luck

I reedited the above, You might want to check back.

As just wishing to be positive, I agree. But good luck and good variance have nothing to do with playing well. In fact, the better you play (with an advantage) the less luck you will have. But you will get the consolation prize--the house's money! lol

If I am playing with an advantage, I'd just as soon you wished me, "No luck," meaning either good or bad. That way, I will quickly beat the house out of its money!

 

[ChefJJ]

I reedited the above, You might want to check back.

As just wishing to be positive, I agree. But good luck and good variance have nothing to do with playing well. In fact, the better you play (with an advantage) the less luck you will have. But you will get the consolation prize--the house's money! lol

Agreed....kick some ass out there! :grin:

good luck

 

[sagefr0g]

I don't argue with the fact that sd and luck are commonly used inter-changeably. My point is that it shows a common misunderstanding of what luck really is or if it exists at all. Ever since I came across that author who claims there is no luck, I have been obsessing with the idea. Is it luck that you simply get what the probability forecasts predict? How is it luck that what happens is the normal way things work out? That's not luck, ie, a deviation from the norm. That IS the norm. Deviations from the norm, are NORMAL. If you're going to call two heads or tails in a row, "good luck and bad luck," you are going to find that luck is a 50/50 proposition, and therefore a misnomer--not luck at all.

Example. You decide when to bet a coin flip. You can pass as many flips as you want between bets. You must bet 100 times. Profits are yours, bankroll is Donald Trump's. You do so and discover to your amazement that using your "instincts" about when is the best time to bet, you win 100 straight flips. Are you lucky? Hint: Before answering this question, ponder whether you would be willing to put it all, say a million dollars, on the next flip. If you're anything like me, you'll take the $1 million and run. Why? Because we instinctively know that we are not lucky per se, only lucky in retrospect, ie, when viewing a past event or series of events. It has nothing to do with who we are in essence--the essence of ourselves.

Law 1: There is no luck.

What appears to be luck is merely a short term variation from the norm. In the long run, luck does not exist.

What we call luck is short lived--it has a beginning and an end. In truth, what we call luck merely describes the ebb and flow of positive and negative variance. It is only luck when viewed in the short term.

well, i can go along pretty much with all that. a problem i see is the dispensation of the concept of luck. just really can't let go of that. after all the short term exists, just as surely as the long term exists as far as i know. but ok short term in a casino, yes i'll go with that. i'd say that's how it goes. sometimes those stretchs of dare i say it, 'luck' go for a 'while'.
thinking back on it the only problem i have with the author that i think your refering to is his from my perspective lack of humanity with regard to the impact of negative events on human beings. to me it's like he's saying," awe to bad a bus just ran over your foot. get over it, you should feel lucky."
so but other than that i found his perspective interesting.

Looking at it from a long term perspective, it is no advantage at all. It is just one of the many ebbs and flows of variance. In the long term, there is no luck!

this i question. but it's perhaps on my part an over sight in using the term advantage in perhaps an ambiguous way. the math guys in AP stuff have a formula for advantage, i'm pretty sure. that's cool and i'm sure i use it often when i look at sims and Kasi's spread sheet and if i'm tawkin bout orthodox AP stuff. and of course there's the ROR and Kelly stuff, maths.
so i'm maybe guilty in using the term advantage in a way not rigorous for that stuff. i'm not sure. i'll have to think about it. i'm getting perilously close to invoking Katweezle's not guilty by reason of voodoo here. lmao.
not really, but possibly, lol. just lemme say, maybe advantage in street smart sense sort of tawk. lol. or ok maybe advantage not the rigorous maths formula AP's use, but advantage like if i got a heavy rock to move, maybe i get a stick and lever that sucker or maybe i get some buddies of mine to help move it. lol. i dunno, advantage such as ok i can use this situation to improve my lot in life sorta thing. like ok, say i a'int got much money but i wanna play blackjack. i can't use orthodox AP. there's a certain bankroll requirement to have a reasonable chance to make it, otherwise negative variance is gonna wipe me out. well, yeah i could try and use orthodox AP but it a'int supposed to work with a too small bankroll. but it could work, or maybe some voodoo way could work. now all of a sudden i have enough money, a respectable bankroll to work with. how'd i get it? lemme use the voodoo word, luck. ok, so now i can if i choose take that bankroll, play like a respectable orthodox AP and my chances are good.
so but the kind of advantage i'm tawkin bout is how that respectable bankroll came about (theoreticaly). so it's not the term advantage that you can take and stick in an equation and say ok, this is the same thing QFIT tawks about in CVCX sort of thing. still that doesn't negate the utility of the use of the word advantage in the case i'm refering to. infact if you took the broke guys method of gaining that bankroll and used that method (where in the method once again succeeded and just let us say the average amount won per hand was the same as an AP could expect) with a properly sized orthodox AP bankroll you'd be hard pressed to verify how the bankroll increased if your were ignorant of the method employed, voodoo or AP. so in that case you really can't distinquish between my street voodoo advantage and AP advantage.

It is nothing more than what one should normally expect to experience routinely in both positive and negative directions. It is normal--not lucky.

well, despite orthodox AP jargon regarding the term, i won't argue the point.
i prefer to term it 'ludic' as Taleb calls it in his book. just makes sense to me but your argument is so close i can't even squawk like a black swan. lol.

We use the term lucky as if it were an attribute of a particular person. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever happens to me has the same chance of happening to anyone. If I make a million attempts you should begin to see that my "curve" is the same as everyone else's. If my curve were "skewed" to the left or to the right, then I would agree that I am lucky or unlucky as the case may be. But my curve is no different than yours. Mi curva es su curva!

yeah, no, lol. in life, no, maybe. i mean some people start out in such rotten positions they are basically doomed compared to others sort of thing.
so but blackjack yeah unless maybe you do some wild voodoo thing maybe. then maybe the issue becomes clouded.

What we perceive as luck, is really just the working out of the totally neutral long run. Over time, no one is lucky!

lol, yeah, no. i mean ok if there is no luck, then is it skill? if yes, then what about a unskillful player that manages to do as well or better in the long term as a skillful player? what would distinguish that improbable event if not luck?
or is it impossible for a unskilled player to match the results of a skilled player? i'm pretty sure it's not, maybe very unlikely but still it can and has happened. maybe the unskilled player won a hundred grand in one night. it's gonna take the skilled guy a heck of a long time to catch up. the unskilled guy wouldn't even have to play while our hero was busy catching up.

Yes, he can do that, but so what. He can do that anywhere along the line of betting. The only advantage he has stems from the application of advantage play. In fact, if he got ahead of the curve by not employing advantage play, he had less chance of getting ahead in the first place. I wouldn't try making that a habitual routine, unless you have a bone to pick with, let us say, Mother Nature. But know this, you may have instant satisfaction, but you can't win in the long run. lol

well i think the answer on my part goes back to my less than math rigorous use of the term advantage. but i can not see a problem of habitual routine switching back and forth between luck results of a bottom line sort of approach and employment of advantage techniques. except that it may, or may not slow down achievment of desired results when you compare such actions against a pure AP approach. the guy switching may be slowed down by negative results compared to the pure AP player. probably would i'd guess.
and maybe the switch hitter might not see as many positive scenerio's i'd imagine, thus miss out on some juicy stuff. as well the pure AP guy might just have some luck (if i can use that word) that combined with his AP gains might propell him well ahead, where perhaps that may not be as likely for the switch hitter. thing is for me, i'm not really interested in absolute achievment that a pure AP can attain. i just wanna have fun, make a little maybe and be me. lol.
the switch hitter would have to make darned sure he didn't fall between the cracks of that small margin of advantage circa 0.5-2% advantage that a pure AP could muster, i recognize that limitation.

You can decide what to do with your winnings or losings at any point any time, It gives you no advantage, If you continue to gamble without an advantage, you would simply break even in the long run.

well in the case of our not so rich AP wanna be i think i made my point, but yeah gamble without an advantage or with out knowledge, right disaster is waiting in the long run.

In an even gamble, or one that is stacked against you, the ONLY way you can win, is to quit before you reach the long run. In the long run, you can only break even or lose. Unless of course, you're lucky, and luck doesn't exist!

is that the end of my thread? :whip::laugh:

I don't get your argument that somehow life defeats the laws of physics.

essentially the second law of thermodynamics points toward the idea that the universe is going to poop out. kaput. wind down, end to the point of absolute zero. no mas. if that happens, living things have a problem. a problem so serious that it would be the end of the phenomenon we call life.
from my own perspective (not original to me but borrowed from the thinking of Buckmaster Fuller) it's interesting that in a universe where the second law of thermodynamics is law that life even exists, even more so that it flourishes.
so the question becomes can life with it's capability to employ reasoning and intelligence transcende the second law of thermodynamics?
in my personal philosophy it's almost lifes duty to fight the unbeatable foe (as the song goes from Man of La Mancha lol) ie. fight entropy with our last ounce of courage, lol. maybe a few windmills on the side too.:grin::whip:

 

[sagefr0g]

..... If you are an advantage player, there is no room for luck. With sufficient bankroll, you will continue to play no matter what the short term yields, thereby canceling out any effects of so-called luck.
..

conversly if you are an advantage player there is even less precious room for bad luck. let's not even consider such voodoo should that bankroll prove not so sufficient.

 

[aslan]

well, i can go along pretty much with all that. a problem i see is the dispensation of the concept of luck. just really can't let go of that. after all the short term exists, just as surely as the long term exists as far as i know. but ok short term in a casino, yes i'll go with that. i'd say that's how it goes. sometimes those stretchs of dare i say it, 'luck' go for a 'while'.

In the casino setting, for simplicity's sake, long term luck cannot exist.

thinking back on it the only problem i have with the author that i think your refering to is his from my perspective lack of humanity with regard to the impact of negative events on human beings. to me it's like he's saying," awe to bad a bus just ran over your foot. get over it, you should feel lucky."
so but other than that i found his perspective interesting.

I don't think one should feel lucky or unlucky. $hit happens. But it's just random results, except to the extent that you were negligent in contributing your own misfortune. In this regard, paying attention to buses and foot placement could be considered advantage play. lol

this i question. but it's perhaps on my part an over sight in using the term advantage in perhaps an ambiguous way. the math guys in AP stuff have a formula for advantage, i'm pretty sure. that's cool and i'm sure i use it often when i look at sims and Kasi's spread sheet and if i'm tawkin bout orthodox AP stuff. and of course there's the ROR and Kelly stuff, maths.
so i'm maybe guilty in using the term advantage in a way not rigorous for that stuff. i'm not sure. i'll have to think about it. i'm getting perilously close to invoking Katweezle's not guilty by reason of voodoo here. lmao.
not really, but possibly, lol. just lemme say, maybe advantage in street smart sense sort of tawk. lol. or ok maybe advantage not the rigorous maths formula AP's use, but advantage like if i got a heavy rock to move, maybe i get a stick and lever that sucker or maybe i get some buddies of mine to help move it. lol. i dunno, advantage such as ok i can use this situation to improve my lot in life sorta thing. like ok, say i a'int got much money but i wanna play blackjack. i can't use orthodox AP. there's a certain bankroll requirement to have a reasonable chance to make it, otherwise negative variance is gonna wipe me out. well, yeah i could try and use orthodox AP but it a'int supposed to work with a too small bankroll. but it could work, or maybe some voodoo way could work. now all of a sudden i have enough money, a respectable bankroll to work with. how'd i get it? lemme use the voodoo word, luck. ok, so now i can if i choose take that bankroll, play like a respectable orthodox AP and my chances are good.
so but the kind of advantage i'm tawkin bout is how that respectable bankroll came about (theoreticaly). so it's not the term advantage that you can take and stick in an equation and say ok, this is the same thing QFIT tawks about in CVCX sort of thing. still that doesn't negate the utility of the use of the word advantage in the case i'm refering to. infact if you took the broke guys method of gaining that bankroll and used that method (where in the method once again succeeded and just let us say the average amount won per hand was the same as an AP could expect) with a properly sized orthodox AP bankroll you'd be hard pressed to verify how the bankroll increased if your were ignorant of the method employed, voodoo or AP. so in that case you really can't distinquish between my street voodoo advantage and AP advantage.

When you have next to nothing to start with, risking it all is hardly a gamble. I have seen it in the pool rooms for years. The guy with $50 risks it all for a chance to win money from a guy with $50 thousand. Whereas, the guy with $50 thousand may be reluctant to gamble $50 because he has a lot to lose of things don't go well. The bettor who does not have enough money to play like an advantage player, still has an opportunity to benefit by the normal outcomes of a disadvantaged player. I don't mind you calling this hope to benefit by short term variance, luck. So long as you acknowledge that continued attempts to benefit by short term variance or luck will get you broke in short order. The reason that it will get you broke if you continue this behavior is obvious--you're playing at a disadvantage, and in the long run, you must lose.

I know gamblers who always try to parlay their money. They know that 3 or 4 consecutive wins come up enough times to take the chance for winning a sizable amount of money, even though in the long run they will wind up loser. For example, bet $100, win, let it ($200) ride, win, let it ($400) ride, win, let it ($800) ride, win. You now have $1,500 plus your orgininal $100 bet, or $1,600. They do this because they would rather make a big score, than piddle around and make or lose a $100. It's not luck. It's a mindset that doesn't mind losing more often than it wins, so long as it wins a sizable amount when it does win. In the big picture, it's a losing strategy. But not for those who don't mind risking $100 to win $1,500, even if it's 7 to 1 odds. Is it luck when they win? Not really. How can you call someone lucky who loses on average 7 times for every 1 time he wins? If you only look at the one time he wins, boy! does he seem lucky! But if you step back and see the whole nine yards, you might say, "This smuck is an idiot. He'd be ahead of the house edge if he would just save his $100's instead of gambling them." Of course, there's no adreline rush associated with saving your money. lol That's why you don't see people flocking to their bank lobbies to listen to the sound of their money earning interest. lol

well, despite orthodox AP jargon regarding the term, i won't argue the point.
i prefer to term it 'ludic' as Taleb calls it in his book. just makes sense to me but your argument is so close i can't even squawk like a black swan. lol.

Which term should ludic replace? What does it mean? Random results, plus and minus? Luck?

yeah, no, lol. in life, no, maybe. i mean some people start out in such rotten positions they are basically doomed compared to others sort of thing.
so but blackjack yeah unless maybe you do some wild voodoo thing maybe. then maybe the issue becomes clouded.

I think I have already commented on this enough.

lol, yeah, no. i mean ok if there is no luck, then is it skill? if yes, then what about a unskillful player that manages to do as well or better in the long term as a skillful player? what would distinguish that improbable event if not luck?

It is not luck. It is random results. (My only resistance to the use of the word "luck" is what people mean by it. If they thought of it as random results, no part of which was skill, I could live with it. But often they think of it as some special gift, or magic, or voo doo, or special quality that you either have ir you don't.

or is it impossible for a unskilled player to match the results of a skilled player? i'm pretty sure it's not, maybe very unlikely but still it can and has happened. maybe the unskilled player won a hundred grand in one night. it's gonna take the skilled guy a heck of a long time to catch up. the unskilled guy wouldn't even have to play while our hero was busy catching up.

Anything that the skilled player can do, is possible to be achieved by the random player--it's just not likely. Guess what kind of life you will "probably" have if you base it on random behavior? lol

well i think the answer on my part goes back to my less than math rigorous use of the term advantage. but i can not see a problem of habitual routine switching back and forth between luck results of a bottom line sort of approach and employment of advantage techniques. except that it may, or may not slow down achievment of desired results when you compare such actions against a pure AP approach. the guy switching may be slowed down by negative results compared to the pure AP player. probably would i'd guess.

The more you switch to reliance on random results (luck), the more chance you will have of losing your shirt. Of course, if you don't have enough to play AP, and you are adverse to saving your money, you have little choice. Don't expect great things. Well, maybe once in a while. lol

and maybe the switch hitter might not see as many positive scenerio's i'd imagine, thus miss out on some juicy stuff. as well the pure AP guy might just have some luck (if i can use that word) that combined with his AP gains might propell him well ahead, where perhaps that may not be as likely for the switch hitter. thing is for me, i'm not really interested in absolute achievment that a pure AP can attain. i just wanna have fun, make a little maybe and be me. lol.

If you just want to have fun and make a little maybe and just be yourself, I suggest you find a 50 cent game, play advantage all the time, and sit back and let yourself go! If you find the discipline of counting is bumming you out and robbing you of your fun and ability to be yourself, forget counting--use BS alone. You won't win as often, but the price of fun and being yourself is easily affordable in a 50 cent game. And when you do win larger than you would have using AP techniques, you can imagine that you have discovered some new principle that you can't quite put into words, but for the sake of talking about it, you might call it "fuzzy" playing.

the switch hitter would have to make darned sure he didn't fall between the cracks of that small margin of advantage circa 0.5-2% advantage that a pure AP could muster, i recognize that limitation.

Well, the switch hitter is sure to reduce his advantage over time, the amount of reduction depending on the frequency and duration of his dependence on random results.

well in the case of our not so rich AP wanna be i think i made my point, but yeah gamble without an advantage or with out knowledge, right disaster is waiting in the long run.

is that the end of my thread? :whip::laugh:

Not as long as there are people who firmly believe in luck. Evolution of thought is slow. I'd say you have another thousand years or so.

essentially the second law of thermodynamics points toward the idea that the universe is going to poop out. kaput. wind down, end to the point of absolute zero. no mas. if that happens, living things have a problem. a problem so serious that it would be the end of the phenomenon we call life.
from my own perspective (not original to me but borrowed from the thinking of Buckmaster Fuller) it's interesting that in a universe where the second law of thermodynamics is law that life even exists, even more so that it flourishes.
so the question becomes can life with it's capability to employ reasoning and intelligence transcende the second law of thermodynamics?
in my personal philosophy it's almost lifes duty to fight the unbeatable foe (as the song goes from Man of La Mancha lol) ie. fight entropy with our last ounce of courage, lol. maybe a few windmills on the side too.:grin::whip:

I don't think you can apply laws that apply to physical things (rocks) to non-physical things, mind/spirit/soul. But I'm taking as a believer in spiritual things that cannot be reduced to matter or energy as many scientists believe.

 

[sagefr0g]

In the casino setting, for simplicity's sake, long term luck cannot exist.

well, i dunno even at your N0 where at one standard deviation is the same as your expectation, for that many hands played you still might have made zero dollars or on up to as much as your EV represents
but then you still have possibilities for two, three even four standard deviations. even 2xN0 you still could be losing or winning more money than your expectation in the two, three even four standard deviation points. i mean heck i'm just drawing those sort of possibilities from a game where a player has an advantage. but even a flat better playing the same game, same number of hands as the N0 for the advantage player could be ahead as much as he might be behind EV-wise if he's one standard deviation to the good.
so but i dunno what you wanna call the long run maybe just say that's the point where luck can't help you no matter what i guess.
that's what ever number of hands it would be is gonna be one heck of a lot of hands, even for a flat better. i've not seen a precise number of rounds or hands played figure for the long run ever published that i know of such as N0 has. maybe the long run is more a theoretical concept than it is a actual number you can hang your hat on sort of thing.
if anything in my hazy understanding of how it goes for luck or standard deviation in the long run is that the significance of it becomes less and less when compared to EV as more and more hands are played. like i read Sonny say anything can happen in the short term but the long run is where the advantage plays out, words to that effect. when i think about that statement, it's like to me luck is a more potent phenomenon in the short term and less potent, maybe impotent in the long term.

I don't think one should feel lucky or unlucky. $hit happens. But it's just random results, except to the extent that you were negligent in contributing your own misfortune. In this regard, paying attention to buses and foot placement could be considered advantage play. lol

no, but didn't the author in question infer that some how people should just be able to get around the normal miserable feeling one is bound to have when such an event occurs and no mention regarding fault? in essence the implication being that if people viewed such events properly they wouldn't see it as bad luck. they'd just be happy go lucky. just seems like hog wash to me. i believe most folk are hard wired more or less to suffer when the chips are down and celebrate when the chips are up, reason and rationalization be dammed the bodys chemistry rules when it comes to feelings or emotions especially i believe this is so when complex matters requiring probability to understand the matter correctly is involved. just, it's to hard to understand fully intellectually other than in abstract covouluted terms such that the body and conscious mind ends up scared sh!tless even if the situation is relatively harmless. that's where i think the author is off base and for his conclusion to hold it would be like you say below, probably would take a 1000 years of mental evolution for such a capability to take hold.

When you have next to nothing to start with, risking it all is hardly a gamble. I have seen it in the pool rooms for years. The guy with $50 risks it all for a chance to win money from a guy with $50 thousand. Whereas, the guy with $50 thousand may be reluctant to gamble $50 because he has a lot to lose of things don't go well. The bettor who does not have enough money to play like an advantage player, still has an opportunity to benefit by the normal outcomes of a disadvantaged player. I don't mind you calling this hope to benefit by short term variance, luck. So long as you acknowledge that continued attempts to benefit by short term variance or luck will get you broke in short order. The reason that it will get you broke if you continue this behavior is obvious--you're playing at a disadvantage, and in the long run, you must lose.

I know gamblers who always try to parlay their money. They know that 3 or 4 consecutive wins come up enough times to take the chance for winning a sizable amount of money, even though in the long run they will wind up loser. For example, bet $100, win, let it ($200) ride, win, let it ($400) ride, win, let it ($800) ride, win. You now have $1,500 plus your orgininal $100 bet, or $1,600. They do this because they would rather make a big score, than piddle around and make or lose a $100. It's not luck. It's a mindset that doesn't mind losing more often than it wins, so long as it wins a sizable amount when it does win. In the big picture, it's a losing strategy. But not for those who don't mind risking $100 to win $1,500, even if it's 7 to 1 odds. Is it luck when they win? Not really. How can you call someone lucky who loses on average 7 times for every 1 time he wins? If you only look at the one time he wins, boy! does he seem lucky! But if you step back and see the whole nine yards, you might say, "This smuck is an idiot. He'd be ahead of the house edge if he would just save his $100's instead of gambling them." Of course, there's no adreline rush associated with saving your money. lol That's why you don't see people flocking to their bank lobbies to listen to the sound of their money earning interest. lol

yeah, well maybe if those dudes worked it right they could make some of those not so slick plays into the kind of street smart advantage i'm tawkin bout. do you think they could learn how to employ AP?
if they could they could take some of that money they lucked out and won and do something with it instead of continuing in their ways and squandering it all on more risky bets. i mean heck one could take the kind of money they maybe won and just flat bet some low amount a while and maybe win some fair amount of loot but at least not lose a heck of a lot trying.
but really what your saying about those guys and how they gamble, i agree that's maybe not so swift.
thing is what i think i'm saying is that done a certain way, with knowledge and AP capability when needed, that gambling need not be such a noxious overly risky proposition and with luck, leverage (if you will taking advantage of luck) one might even come out ahead and not just in the short run.

Which term should ludic replace? What does it mean? Random results, plus and minus? Luck?

essentially luck, and random results (a more complex randomness than fits the gaussian curve for which gaussian randomness is a subset in which variance is well behaved according to the bell curve) to where the concept of luck would be tossed out of the casino and just standard deviation (the kind that fits the bell curve) in place of luck and the more complex form or randomness that allows for fat tails and black swans sort of thing.
thats a mouthful for me and i don't understand all the math but thats how i view it.
so in that sense you would be right no luck in blackjack, nada, not even in the short term, just variance and standard deviation.

I think I have already commented on this enough.

what that voodoo actions might skew the results on the bell curve?
maybe remove whole sections of the bell curve at one point and put it back in latter maybe.
cloud the issue so to speak, open opportunities to apply leverage?
yeah we been agreeing to disagree on that stuff i guess.
truth be known, i'm not even sure what this part of the thread is tawkin bout.:laugh:

It is not luck. It is random results. (My only resistance to the use of the word "luck" is what people mean by it. If they thought of it as random results, no part of which was skill, I could live with it. But often they think of it as some special gift, or magic, or voo doo, or special quality that you either have ir you don't.

well i agree no magic, no voodoo (excepting in nomenclature only), no special quality that you either have or don't. but skill in dealing with luck or just say in dealing with random results yes, i'm still going there. i believe that is possible. it should only take normal observation, knowledge, decision making and thought. nothing strange or quirky like a savant or something. but i dunno maybe such strange stuff might be possible as well.

Anything that the skilled player can do, is possible to be achieved by the random player--it's just not likely. Guess what kind of life you will "probably" have if you base it on random behavior? lol

right, thing is though it's not a point to base your dreams on random behavior,only to realize, hey it's going to happen and to take advantage of it rather than it have it's way with you.
even the bad element of randomness, take advantage of that aspect as well.
you know it's comming, be prepared, you know it's nature even to a quantifiable degree, recognize it for what it is and base your decisions on that knowledge.
it's like the weather. we know it's gonna rain some day but we aren't to good as to just when it's gonna rain. so but it you don't wanna get wet maybe you might want to carry an umbrella. that sort of thing, just common sense applyed to perhaps not so common knowledge.

The more you switch to reliance on random results (luck), the more chance you will have of losing your shirt. Of course, if you don't have enough to play AP, and you are adverse to saving your money, you have little choice. Don't expect great things. Well, maybe once in a while. lol

once, i know of in my case, thank goodness over a period of a couple of years.

i'd just say, it's a simple matter of using good sense as to how you gamble, just like how an AP uses good sense to gamble on an advantage situation. just the prior case the advantage may or may not be known but the results could be held up against a yardstick so that one could understand those results in a meaninful way, so that intelligent decisions regarding those results could be made. and furthermore these sort of decisions could be made with regard to AP results or voodoo results.

If you just want to have fun and make a little maybe and just be yourself, I suggest you find a 50 cent game, play advantage all the time, and sit back and let yourself go! If you find the discipline of counting is bumming you out and robbing you of your fun and ability to be yourself, forget counting--use BS alone. You won't win as often, but the price of fun and being yourself is easily affordable in a 50 cent game. And when you do win larger than you would have using AP techniques, you can imagine that you have discovered some new principle that you can't quite put into words, but for the sake of talking about it, you might call it "fuzzy" playing.

was there ever a 50 cent game? with what max bet? wowser i'd slaughter that sucker. lol
fuzzy playing, i like that but hey it could still involve counting, even other AP stuff. ok if i use the term?
i might change my tag line.

Well, the switch hitter is sure to reduce his advantage over time, the amount of reduction depending on the frequency and duration of his dependence on random results.

yeah hopefully he'd have the good sense to switch before it's to late.

Not as long as there are people who firmly believe in luck. Evolution of thought is slow. I'd say you have another thousand years or so.

wheww, i'm safe. lol.

I don't think you can apply laws that apply to physical things (rocks) to non-physical things, mind/spirit/soul. But I'm taking as a believer in spiritual things that cannot be reduced to matter or energy as many scientists believe.

well don't try any of Zen's LSD then you might find that the chemical reactions that occur in your brain may work through physical laws that will end up applying to your mind, spirit and soul. witness what drug abuse has wrought with some of the celebraties on that TV show Intervention or worse check out some of our prisons.
but really the mind/spirit/soul wasn't the point. the point was the question of the second law of thermodynamics and living beings. is the potential there for the phenomenon of life to end as a result of the implications of the second law of thermodynamics? and if so is it possible that life can overcome such an outcome through intelligence and reason?

 

[aslan]

conversly if you are an advantage player there is even less precious room for bad luck. let's not even consider such voodoo should that bankroll prove not so sufficient.

I question seriously whether you are an advantage player if you play with insufficient bankroll. It is one of the foundations of advantage play. Your risk of ruin is just as important as your estimated win rate. It's like playing football without a field goal kicker. "Who knows," you say, "We may never need one." You don't have to be Glovesetc to know how that will work out--I don't care how good your offense is!