I frequenly find that at certain tables I may make 3 or 4 buy-ins, and I seem to hit my outs and draws repetitively at these tables. On the other hand there are tables at the same level and type where nothing I do can ever work: at these tables I lose my boats to better boats or quads, my 2-pairs are always beaten by straits, my opponant always has the nut flush, etc. I understand that some opponants are better than others, but still i have to wonder how the results can be so different and how it can be a random event that my cards always result in a second-best hand at certain tables.

You play at FTP, huh

level?

do you understand the meaning of the word random?

wow, that is strange man

1) play more hands at tables that are rigged in your favor.
2) ????
3) Profit!

its too bad you keep losing to straits

doubtful consider recent evidence

evidence

My reaction after reading this post..............

Psychologists have found out that humans can not accurately determine whether a series of events is random or not. Specifically, we are biased to see random patterns as non random. Personally, I think there is an evolutionary advantage in that - if we think we see a pattern where antelopes are at watering holes at dusk, and they are not thare - no big harm. But if we have such a theory about a nonrandom pattern and we are right - we get to eat an antelope and live long enough to have children.

There is an unfortunately bad book called Fooled by Randomness which discusses this bias in the context, mainly, of investments. My favorite example of this error is the "hot hand" in basketball. We all "know" that at times a player will get a "hot hand" such that he is more likely to make his next shot than he would normally be. But a careful statistical analysis shows that this is false. The probability of making the next shot is independent of whether you have made or missed a sequence of preceding shots. But damn it sure LOOKS like there is a "hot hand" effect. But there isn't. So too the cry - "it's rigged" It sure looks that way - but it isn't. You might look up Amos Tversky to find more stuff on this sort of thing.

Yes, but what about the tables where he loses to straits all the time?

Lori

Your thoughtful, eloquent and cogent post was wasted on an absolutely worthless topic. I commend you.

h11,

Could you explain why many scientific breakthroughs are found by noticing patterns? To say that humans cannot accurately pick out patterns is an intellectual insult. I'm not saying the OP is correct, I'm just curious.

It means that if I lose five coin flips in a row I will have a better chance at winning it the sixth time because losing six coin flips is SO improbable.

I've never played as low as 10nl - but I would have assumed that the problems players had at that level were being unable to fold ANYTHING. Talk of folding KK pre - flop or sets post flop shocks me.

You should practice better table selection and only play on those tables where you hit your outs and draws.

Yeah I don't know about that. A couple days ago I was testing out a new style at NL 10 that involved mostly open shoving pre with the occasional open limp followed by a flop shove for hand balancing purposes. One guy playing a half stack claimed to have folded jacks preflop because calling would be too dangerous to his br. I think op made a good laydown with the kings there.

Simple Explanation: Online poker is rigged.

Seriously though, online poker IS rigged at Absolute, but if you're playing poker on a different site, then it's just randomness.

Scientists have studied humans and found that humans simply CANNOT understand randomness and that they always look for patterns or create patterns. I.e., there is a famous experiment where humans are asked to pick out what list of "Head-Tails" is the random one from two lists. One a human made up and "randomly" wrote down some long list of "H, H, H, T, T, H, T, H, T, T, T, T, H, H, ..." and the other list is ACTUAL RECORDED DATA of a fair coin being flipped. The people almost always pick the wrong list, because the actual recorded data has a few parts that go something like this: "H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, H, ..." and the people that look at it go "That simply CANNOT be random!"

In the off chance that this was a serious question for a serious response in an otherwise dismal thread, I would point out that h11's point was that humans are biased towards seeing patterns whether they are there or not.

When a pattern is there and seen, we profit. Go Science!

When we see a pattern that isn't there, the only downside is a lack of antelope steaks. No biggie.

In this case, 2nd pair are the antelopes at the watering hole. Straits are the lions hiding in the weeds.

Thanks math! I realize the thread was ridiculous but it was a serious question. I've always wondered about it when the study was brought up.

So what you're saying is, sometimes you hit your draws, and make more money then, and sometimes you don't, and you lose money then?

...how is that not random?

"My favorite example of this error is the "hot hand" in basketball. We all "know" that at times a player will get a "hot hand" such that he is more likely to make his next shot than he would normally be. But a careful statistical analysis shows that this is false."

The hot hand effect is real and is many other similar events. The player's form is really in tune at the moment and his confidence is at a high, which is key to success in any physical act. So I disagree with your example.

And not that this has any validity to the converstaion, but last session I got dealt QQ and AA within fifteen hands and flopped quads both times. Go me.

if you made the same amount on every table.... that wouldn't be very [censored] RANDOM would it?

Most scientific theories don't pan out as correct. Linus Pauling had a very smart theory - Vitamin C will cure the common cold. It so happens that was not true. But it's good that Pauling had that theory because if even one in ten of his theories pan out - we cure a disease. The cost of "spotting" a pattern which is not there is low. The gain from spotting one which is there is great. So we "overspot." We are rich in false positives, and that's not a bad thing.