luck

[sagefr0g]

Of course I felt bad when the cards weren't going my way. But honestly it was more being flabbergasted at losing several in a row with a TC+7! Annoyed, surprised, flustered - yes - but I never did have that sinking heart feeling of defeat, and I never once thought of quitting when I had the advantage. I never even considered giving up. I know, and trust, the mathematics.

Instead, as you suggested, I took breaks (only at TC<0), had a nice meal, went dancing, flirted, and focused on enjoying myself, which is really what it's all about for me.

Near the very end, with a small BR left, I played at smaller stakes, and considered it practice for both counting, play, and cover, and just went along for the ride.

The only lingering question for myself is whether I was *really* doing everything 100% correctly, or whether there is room for improvement. That requires some careful introspection and, of course, benefits by others opinions here in the community.

John, thank you for your reply.
what i wrote previously was as much a part of my own battle with the issue as it was in consideration of yours.
as difficult a pill as it is to swallow, that kind of stuff where nothing seems to work as desired even when we do have the advantage can and will happen, as we all know.

the point you make about " *really* doing everything 100% correctly, or whether there is room for improvement" is interesting to me. i rarely ever even attempt to do everything 100% (or even close) correctly. the voodoo that i do to combat such inaccuracy of play has me making decisions as to whether or not i want to continue a raised bet and that can be true whether i win or lose a hand in question. reason being, is that i know i'm very likely to have an inaccurate perception of the advantage. so i'm on the look out to try and see if the cards are falling as i would expect them to if my perception of the advantage is correct. if they are not falling as i'd expect them to do with said perceived advantage, i might just drop that bet.
well, voodoo i know, but thank you for listening.
may the advantage be with you.

 

[johndoe]

so i'm on the look out to try and see if the cards are falling as i would expect them to if my perception of the advantage is correct. if they are not falling as i'd expect them to do with said perceived advantage, i might just drop that bet.
well, voodoo i know, but thank you for listening.
may the advantage be with you.

Indeed, this is an issue we all face at some point, and I'm glad we're all talking about it.

But I don't think I agree with your dropping bets, etc.; if you aren't putting real money on the table in favorable conditions, you're no longer playing with an advantage. (Or at least, not enough to matter.) That's the flip side to this issue - the self-doubt in abilities can have a real impact on your win rate, when it may be entirely undeserved. You've let them beat you even when they haven't.

That's why sim software, or someone looking over your shoulder, is so helpful as a check to keep your confidence up. Without putting the $ on the table when the opportunity arises, you've already lost.

 

[sagefr0g]

Indeed, this is an issue we all face at some point, and I'm glad we're all talking about it.

it certainly is for me for two reasons.
1. i don't like the pain. i mean heck i might pay good money to avoid pain instead of recieve it in exchange for my money and on the flip side the feel good stuff has a monetary value to me as well.
2. i hate it that, ok your up some astronomical point only to drop to some low of lows, sort of thing. and the crazy thing is that it's often enough just luck your up to that astro high and you end spiraling down on some advantage situation where your betting max's or there about and things just don't work out. like the well worn saying, 'two steps forward, three steps back', lol.

But I don't think I agree with your dropping bets, etc.; if you aren't putting real money on the table in favorable conditions, you're no longer playing with an advantage. (Or at least, not enough to matter.) That's the flip side to this issue - the self-doubt in abilities can have a real impact on your win rate, when it may be entirely undeserved. You've let them beat you even when they haven't.

That's why sim software, or someone looking over your shoulder, is so helpful as a check to keep your confidence up. Without putting the $ on the table when the opportunity arises, you've already lost.

yeah, it's pretty much voodoo. just, might have any sense to it if you really doubt your abilities or distrust the advantage for what ever voodoo reason one might have. did you ever read that stuff in Blackjack Attack by Schlesinger on risk averse stuff? ' why give a dead man chicken soup? answer, it couldn't hurt'.

 

[sagefr0g]

fluctuation vs profits & redundancy

..
But I don't think I agree with your dropping bets, etc.; if you aren't putting real money on the table in favorable conditions, you're no longer playing with an advantage. (Or at least, not enough to matter.) ...

agreed and that said i brought this back up, as i thought the statement abstracted from the post below would be of interest.

"Risk Aversion is a means to reduce your fluctuations"
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=115418&postcount=2

see, John, if your even still bothering to look in this thread, lol, me i think this issue, the one you brought up over in the really AP forums, points to what? risk aversion vs profits? at least in part? and essentially as you point out above, it's a short term issue versus a long term issue.
so probably a lot of truth in Schelsinger's joke, the chicken soup isn't gonna help the dead guy, just won't hurt....... might even make him feel better, lmao.
just me, i can envision, with a little bit of luck, say your in the midst of one of those 'stormy' sessions, maybe you don't get that gut wrenching desperate morose hopeless sense (but i think the more experience you get under your belt you will), but let's just say you recognize things are temporarily going to hell in a hand basket sort of thing. just maybe and again of course it would be luck, but just maybe a little chicken soup wouldn't hurt.
but just as we know those lousy negative fluctuations are gonna happen,we also know sooner or ,maybe unfortunately later the positive ones will as well.
and just maybe after some chicken soup.:laugh:
so but, thinking back on reading Schlesinger on the risk aversion stuff, i believe he stated how the area is 'frontier' sort of stuff.
me i just think this risk aversion stuff points back in a sense to what imho is problematic with orthodox counting stuff, that being the treatment of risk. probably a lot to do with the problem of an individuals utility function theory sort of stuff. long term we might be happy as a lark with orthodox stuff's treatment of ROR but short term we might sometimes wonder what on earth we were thinking.:whip:
an old saying is, 'if you keep on doing what you've been doing, you'll keep on getting what you've been getting'. makes sense, thing is in orthodox counting methods, that redundancy leads to profits and fluctuation, just hopefully the risk barrier is never breached.

 

[Katweezel]

Diamond Neil

I felt I had to tell you guys, I just watched "An Audience With Neil Diamond" from the UK, here on the ABC. He sang many old favs like 'I am I said' 'Sweet Caroline' etc. The large audience loved it... There was something coming off him and coming through the TV, so thick you could cut it with a knife... his powerfulShakti. :grin:

 

[aslan]

I felt I had to tell you guys, I just watched "An Audience With Neil Diamond" from the UK, here on the ABC. He sang many old favs like 'I am I said' 'Sweet Caroline' etc. The large audience loved it... There was something coming off him and coming through the TV, so thick you could cut it with a knife... his powerfulShakti. :grin:

He is very charismatic.

 

[sagefr0g]

I felt I had to tell you guys, I just watched "An Audience With Neil Diamond" from the UK, here on the ABC. He sang many old favs like 'I am I said' 'Sweet Caroline' etc. The large audience loved it... There was something coming off him and coming through the TV, so thick you could cut it with a knife... his powerfulShakti. :grin:

how the heck old is he now?
here he is back in the day. so young & serious. did he write that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vnvuF41xJA

 

[ccibball50]

With practice and good execution the % of good luck can happen more frequently where as will less practice and execution, the % of bad luck can happen more frequently.

 

[aslan]

how the heck old is he now?
here he is back in the day. so young & serious. did he write that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vnvuF41xJA

Yes, he wrote this one. I believe he wrote all his songs. Enormous talent.

 

[aslan]

With practice and good execution the % of good luck can happen more frequently where as will less practice and execution, the % of bad luck can happen more frequently.

I think you are confusing good luck with good play and bad luck with bad play to some extent. If you play bad you may be a victim of both bad luck and bad play, but playing bad doesn't make you more unlucky, it just adds to your expected negative results. In fact, you could play bad and be lucky--I know, I've done it.

 

[sagefr0g]

..... In fact, you could play bad and be lucky--I know, I've done it.

hmmm :laugh::whip:

 

[ccibball50]

Let me give you an example. Take basketball for example.

1. A kid who has never touched a basketball picks it up and throws it from one end of the court through the hoop at the other end of the court.

2. A kid who has been playing all his life does the same thing as kid one

Both shots were lucky, but who had the better chance of making it?

 

[aslan]

hmmm :laugh::whip:

Ouch!!

That smarts!!

 

[aslan]

Let me give you an example. Take basketball for example.

1. A kid who has never touched a basketball picks it up and throws it from one end of the court through the hoop at the other end of the court.

2. A kid who has been playing all his life does the same thing as kid one

Both shots were lucky, but who had the better chance of making it?

You can't just say a shot is lucky. If you mean it, both would have an equal chance.

But if skill has anything to do with it, then it is partly lucky and partly due to skill; therefore, the more skillful person will do it more often, but only because he is more skillful. It may be 10% skill and 90% luck, but it is still partly skillful.

 

[ccibball50]

You can't just say a shot is lucky. If you mean it, both would have an equal chance.

But if skill has anything to do with it, then it is partly lucky and partly due to skill; therefore, the more skillful person will do it more often, but only because he is more skillful. It may be 10% skill and 90% luck, but it is still partly skillful.

Correct a more skillfull person will do it more ofter but no matter what it is luck. He is luckier more times than the other person. It doesn't have to be even. Every single shot made is luck plain and simple. No one can make it consistantly. Therefore it is 100% luck.

 

[aslan]

Correct a more skillfull person will do it more ofter but no matter what it is luck. He is luckier more times than the other person. It doesn't have to be even. Every single shot made is luck plain and simple. No one can make it consistantly. Therefore it is 100% luck.

Sorry, we'll just have agree to disagree. To me the amount of skill in those lucky shots is measurable. If you can do it more than another, than it's not just a lucky shot. Lucky means that everyone has an equal chance. If you can do it 10% more than your opponent, you have a great edge you can bet on. I agree it's mostly a lucky shot, just like hold'em is mostly a lucky game of poker, but if you have skill at hold'em, you can overcome the luck factor.

 

[sagefr0g]

.... To me the amount of skill in those lucky shots is measurable. .....

but what about the amount of luck? how can you tell if the skillful guy attained the goal by luck or skill?
isn't the expectation for such a shot that it could only be luck?
the unskillful guy you know had to be luck.
but you can't reasonably expect the skillful guy to make it either.

 

[aslan]

but what about the amount of luck? how can you tell if the skillful guy attained the goal by luck or skill?

Well that's what I am saying. You can't really. You can only make it one of your premises. You can say that a goal took 1% skill and 99% luck, even though you can't measure it in real life. It is measurable only in the sense that its part of your premise. I was arguing from the point of view that the goal was performed by one fellow with 1% skill and 99% luck. Therefore, I could not concede that it was a lucky feat, only a mostly lucky feat.

isn't the expectation for such a shot that it could only be luck?
the unskillful guy you know had to be luck.
but you can't reasonably expect the skillful guy to make it either.

I can expect the skillful guy to make it more often than the unskilled guy. In a billion attempts I think the skill would be apparent, just like we do in blackjack.

 

[Katweezel]

Diamond Neil

how the heck old is he now?
here he is back in the day. so young & serious. did he write that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vnvuF41xJA

My wife was so impressed by Neil's extraordinary 'heartful' concert that she ordered a DVD copy from the TV station. It was a very recent performance and Neil still looks great, and sounds even better than ever. His act includes a large group of musicians and backing singers, which enhances his talent. He has matured like a fine wine! He took the time to answer some questions from the audience which reveal how unpretentious, down-to-earth and heartful he is.:cat:

 

[sagefr0g]

Well that's what I am saying. You can't really. You can only make it one of your premises. You can say that a goal took 1% skill and 99% luck, even though you can't measure it in real life. It is measurable only in the sense that its part of your premise. I was arguing from the point of view that the goal was performed by one fellow with 1% skill and 99% luck. Therefore, I could not concede that it was a lucky feat, only a mostly lucky feat.



I can expect the skillful guy to make it more often than the unskilled guy. In a billion attempts I think the skill would be apparent, just like we do in blackjack.

lol, heck if i know. i'd bet on the skilled guy too, mainly cause i'd figure he can at least aim and shoot, the other guy doesn't know one end of the ball from the other. thing is though i'm thinking the shot no matter what is just a matter of luck sort of thing, ie. no hopeful expectation for the skilled or the unskilled.