I doubt you think I am a troll.

Lets use logic to communicate.

Your argument can be formally expressed as:

Premise 1: Two players play exactly the same.

Premise 2: They have a 40k bb difference in results.

Conclusion: The difference in results is due to luck.

Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions. The inductive logic in your example has a broken back. The premise that "two players who play exactly the same" is false.

If you look at your question from another angle you will see how the mistake in your reasoning was made.

What is the difference between the two players who play exactly the same yet have 40K bb differences in results?

If the players play exactly the same then they are the same. So why ask what is the difference between them? The difference is in their results, not them. It is contradictory to ask what is the difference between two things that are defined as having no difference.

It would make sense to ask why the results are different. But that is not what you asked.

I suspect you are a troll, but I hope I'm being unkind and am mistaken. Did you follow my link? It was to a simulator where you enter WR and SD. You put in the number of players and the number of hands. Out of a cohort of 100 players over 1 million hands, there were two players with exactly the same WR who ended up 40k bb different. I didn't put the graphs here b/c I believe there are rules about rehosting photos on high traffic forums. Anyone willing to help out a NVG n00b here? I probably should read the FAQ.

I'll posit that the player who did the best out of the 100 was the most lucky and the one who did the worst was the most unlucky. What will happen the next million hands? Each will play at their 4bb/100 WR. The game has no memory. However, the guy who ran hot for his first million hands is still up 40k bb. His PTR graph is still near 10bb/100. He's still a rock star. The other guy is still the "barely beats limit X" guy.

What I'm trying to point out to you is that looking for superstars is largely a pointless exercise in practical sample sizes. If 100 or 1000 new guys with similar skill start playing today. One of them will be the most lucky in X hands, an observation made after the sample is done. When you look at a cohort of unknown size, find the "best" and then say "we know luck doesn't exist", you're ignoring the selection bias inherent in how you identified and then confirmed his genius.

Due to the fact that in the simulation they were exactly the same player, the only reason their results were different was luck. Variance helped one and hurt the other.

You're missing this key fact about the situation I laid out, they were the same player because the simulation stipulated that at the beginning.

I wonder why you assume that I'm an idiot to start, when I've been over-the-top reasonable with you? The mild accusation of troll starts here. You may have a valid axe to grind with some video coaches you've seen. I have no opinion, I don't watch NL vids. I'm suggesting that you underestimate variance/luck/what-have-you in looking at the realizable results of poker players. The statement about luck (variance, if you wish) having a lot to do with the observed results of a poker player is more than defensible.

I asked you politely to be logical. To be logical (reasonable) you need to provide the premises that lead to your conclusion. Being logical means having two premises. You only have one. If you are not going to be logical then we cannot have a conversation. We can only understand each other by using logic.

By the way I have no axe to grind with any video instructors. I do my own study and only watch them to see what other players are getting fed. I don't see the relevance it has to a conversation about luck.

I believe people like to believe their results are influenced by luck because they are lazy, preferring to make excuses instead of properly analysing data. It is not intelligent to tell bad bead stories. These simulators are simply an excuse for lazy minds to deceive themselves they are being analytical when in fact they are indulging in pseudo scientific bad beat stories.

I mean Sklansky Bucks and G Bucks are essentially nothing more than that: cowardly attempts to refuse cutting the apron strings and stand up like a man and take responsibility for their own actions.

Be logical.

You understand that I gave you a computer simulation of 100 players, and that all of the players had identical edge, right?

I knew I had a problem, thanks for pointing it out so clearly. It may help my recovery.

DougL, my point is very simple.

1. The term 'luck' means different things to different people.
2. Not all video instructors take account of this when they use the term 'luck'

leading to

3. Some video instructors are poor communicators.

Personally I cannot even remember what the first post in this thread says. And I disagree totally with the title of this thread.

If you want to use the term 'luck' to mean something specific then that is exactly imo what you should be doing. But can you not see that it is like beating a dead horse to keep repeating it when you know that those listening don't understand what you mean as they have already their prejudiced notion of that the concept means?

If variance and luck are the same thing then why keep hammering the word 'luck'. It makes no sense. New poker players will not understand, and you just end up preaching to the converted. What is the point?

Whats going on in this thread and whats wilneedheart talking about...

Cliffs please?, seems like a big derail.

Cliffs?

Some people are just TOO picky, they'd complain about training sites for petty reasons and if those were to be improved they'd find something else to fume about.

2nd-year law student trolls DougL, hilarity ensues.

well at least you have the integrity to admit our conversation is over your head.

Hey, looks like my read was right. I can always spot the lawlyers.

lawl...

I think it's over most peoples heads wilneedheart, mainly because your obsession with logic would be extreme even if you were a Vulcan.


Although it's very likely that you are one......

That is offensive to the Vulcan community. Although I guess they don't feel outrage, so no harm, no foul.

Unless you're really good then I'd be surprised if you couldn't learn from videos from people like Galfond and Selbst

Poker has always been a giant con game. Before the con was cheating. Then it was people understanding the math and fleecing the uneducated. Now it's about making poker players into heroes/sports stars. Selling the dream. Selling books. Selling coaching.

Rake is outrageous. It's the giant ripoff.

OK and the people who teach you at school are pretty much always people in your field of study or closely related, therefore they are educating minds which will soon be competing in the same field of study as they do. Sounds a lot like when people coach poker or pretty much anything else when people are paid for their knowledge. I was just making a flip statement about how ridiculous it is of Jacko to say coaches would never give you any worthy advice because they have no incentive to make anyone better in a field in which they also compete, because it happens all the time with many things not just poker.

Yes I do realize that you can play poker and not be qualified never having practiced or studied the game before, you will almost certainly lose and not make any money unless you have a natural talent for it. This would often be the outcome in life if you jumped into something without having studied/practiced/ect. Though in poker your failure would manifest itself as you losing money, while in a different field it would result in you not getting hired because you don't know what you're doing.

People actually win at poker? I thought it was rigged and the house always wins. Golly gee I guess I learn something new everyday

I dont see how you can compare poker to something like a doctor or electrician.

I think the comparison made to trading fits much better.