One thing does not follow from the other. One is a past event, one is a prediction about the future.

72o vs AA = 11.8%

72o vs QQ+ AK = 21.35%

Yes it happens, but can only be judged in hindsight - that's the point. Running bad is only a fact of history - not in the present or future. Sure, some will run bad in a specific time period and others will run good, but past "luck" is not a predictor of future "luck".

And I'm not picking an argument for the sake of it. Look at your original statement that "memory bias be damned - some people just run bad and that's the way it goes" and consider how it's easy to interpret that as clearly fatalistic and, therefore, irrational and just plain wrong. Such assertions need to be challenged and corrected, especially in BQ, because they get in the way of learning to approach poker rationally.

Memory bias, including selection bias and confirmation bias, is a fact. And it explains fully and precisely how people like OP build up superstitious and fatalistic views of the probabilistic outcomes in poker.

If you meant something else, then make that clear. But it seems to me in each subsequent post you are further emphasising exactly the same point.

Now that I know 72o is 11.8% against AA, if I actually won this match up about 10% of the time - I would think thats about right. I am not running bad. As I said in various other places, most people claiming to be running bad are actually just playing bad for instance your player shoving 72o 100B deep "only" winning 10% against AA isnt running bad, he's a terrible, stupid player.

Good luck with your Dr's appointment.

It's not a prediction. Some people who have run bad will continue to run bad. Not all. Not any particular one. But some will. Those are the ones who run bad.

Rather than jumping on the lazy bandwagon, instead of saying "that statement must be wrong", next time ask yourself "how can that statement be right?" Because it is right. Some people run bad.

You can only tell which ones by waiting until the future comes, but you know some will run bad. Saying that all the people who have run bad last month will not run bad this month makes about as much sense as saying that no one will be dealt aces next month. You know some will, you just don't know which ones or when.

Some people who have run bad will continue to run bad. That's just the way the universe works. By claiming otherwise, you're making a prediction about the future that has no basis in math, especially in a zero sum game like poker (ignoring rake) where it's not physically possible for everyone to get lucky.

you are still wrong spike. run good and run bad arent personal. no one runs hotter or colder than anyone else on average. how you "ran" on previous hands has absolutely nothing to do with the next hand you will be dealt. I dont understand why you cant see that but gl at the tables anyway

Your statement is only true if everyone plays an infinite number of hands.

Straw man.

i did say on average.

the_spike: He's really lucky - he just won $30 million in the lottery!
chad0x00: On average, everyone's equally lucky and has the same chance of winning the lottery.


jackiechan.gif

It's true that how you ran on previous hands has nothing to do with how you will run in the future.

It's false that no one runs hotter or colder than anyone else on average.

Some people can flip coins for their entire lives and be lifetime losers. You can bet the farm on that. In fact, after 1 coin flip, about half the people will start negative. All those people are now -EV for the rest of their lives, at that point in time (because they are playing a 0 EV game, and are starting down). And a large percentage of those people (close to 50%) will actually be losers at the end of their lives. Those are the people who run bad. We can't predict either before or after the first flip who they will be, but they will be there at the end of their lives, standing there pathetically, unlucky as hell, wondering how this could have happened to them, while some of the winners will think they're "good" or "smart".

Same thing happens in poker. The difference being that most poker players lose money (*) and some of the losers run good (determined at the end of their life), and some of the winners run bad (determined at the end of their life). In other words some losers should have lost more and some winners should have won more. And likewise some slightly bad players will have won money and some slightly good players will have lost money (the effect is stronger the fewer hands a person plays in their lifetime.) This is why it's so hard to tell how good you are.

All this assumes a non-infinite number of hands, as Cry Me A River said, which is true for life here on Earth.

*if poker were a zero-sum game (or in any zero-sum game) it's still possible that most people (more than 50%) end up winning, or most people end up losing, due to the nature of any particular game and the players who play. But even assuming that the nature of poker were that half the people lost and half the people won without counting rake, the rake makes it non-zero-sum and therefore most players would lose under this assumption. Without that assumption it would still be possible to have a raked game where most players win money (the few losers lose a lot and the winners only win a little), but this doesn't seem to be how poker works, empirically speaking. It seems to average out that because of how the majority of people play, the wealth tends to spread out, and the rake causes most people to be on the losing end, but there's no theory that proves this must be the case.

Fine. If you flip coins and call 40% right, that's "about" right and you are not running bad. Good luck.

Language is hard.

What is the utility of the last statement I quoted ? Some people will be unlucky in the future who have also been unlucky in the past. Of course this is so, and after it has happened you will be able to say that they ran bad over those combined periods.

Can you tell me, according to your criteria, which out of 10 people who have run bad will continue to run bad ? Because 'those are the ones who run bad'. It follows that you can only identify these after the events have unfolded. It only makes sense to say that they ran bad, or have been running bad.

So saying about someone that they run bad may or may not be true according to your definition, and we will only know if it is true when the events in question are in the past rather than in the future.

This is where precise terminology is important. In poker, the term "on average" is used in two different ways. Firstly, as a summary statistic of past performance - in which case it is a fact based on observed data. And secondly, as a predictor of future expectation - in which case it is a shortcut for "on average across an infinite number of trials". The second meaning does not make any promises about the actual future, which is finite and in which trials are not repeated (you only get one turn card in a given hand).

You state that some players will run good and others will run bad. But another possible outcome is that all players will run average. You can't know until it actually has happened and becomes a past statistic of fact.

What you're doing is confusing the two uses of "on average", which is imprecise and misleading. The concept of "on average across an infinite number of trials" being different from "what will happen over N hands" (hence the number of threads about what N is enough) is often misunderstood in poker, and simply getting your head around that is a big step towards getting away from being results-oriented and improving your game.

It is an important and fundamental semantic. Semantic = meaning. It's kind of key to the purpose of language.