There is, genuinely, such a thing as luck but not the kind that wishing influences.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
The size (n) of a statistical sample affects the standard error for that sample. Because n is in the denominator of the standard error formula, the standard error decreases as n increases. It makes sense that having more data gives less variation (and more precision) in your results.Distributions of times for 1 worker, 10 workers, and 50 workers.Distributions of times for 1 worker, 10 workers, and 50 workers.Suppose X is the time it takes for a clerical worker to type and send one letter of recommendation, and say X has a normal distribution with mean 10.5 minutes and standard deviation 3 minutes. The bottom curve in the preceding figure shows the distribution of X, the individual times for all clerical workers in the population. According to the Empirical Rule, almost all of the values are within 3 standard deviations of the mean (10.5) — between 1.5 and 19.5.Now take a random sample of 10 clerical workers, measure their times, and find the average,each time. Repeat this process over and over, and graph all the possible results for all possible samples. The middle curve in the figure shows the picture of the sampling distribution ofNotice that it’s still centered at 10.5 (which you expected) but its variability is smaller; the standard error in this case is(quite a bit less than 3 minutes, the standard deviation of the individual times).Looking at the figure, the average times for samples of 10 clerical workers are closer to the mean (10.5) than the individual times are. That’s because average times don’t vary as much from sample to sample as individual times vary from person to person.Now take all possible random samples of 50 clerical workers and find their means; the sampling distribution is shown in the tallest curve in the figure. The standard error ofYou can see the average times for 50 clerical workers are even closer to 10.5 than the ones for 10 clerical workers. By the Empirical Rule, almost all of the values fall between 10.5 – 3(.42) = 9.24 and 10.5 + 3(.42) = 11.76. Larger samples tend to be a more accurate reflections of the population, hence their sample means are more likely to be closer to the population mean — hence less variation.Why is having more precision around the mean important? Because sometimes you don’t know the population mean but want to determine what it is, or at least get as close to it as possible. How can you do that? By taking a large random sample from the population and finding its mean. You know that your sample mean will be close to the actual population mean if your sample is large, as the figure shows (assuming your data are collected correctly).
Variance is one of those statistical concepts which most people struggle to grasp, especially when it comes to connecting it to poker. In this post my goal is to help you understand poker variance and cover three simple adjustments you can make to your game to lower your variance.What is poker variance and why should I care?Variance in poker is nothing more than the difference between your true win rate in the long run compared to your actual win rate in the short run. To explain this in another way, lets say you have a win rate of 5bb/100 at 10NL. This means that over 100 hands you are expected to win 50c. If instead of winning 50c you lose $1.50 then the variance for this sample size is $2.In many ways variance is the most important concept in poker because it is the element of luck that gets the fish coming back to the table. Think about it this way. If you had never played chess in your life but had to take part in the World Chess Championship you would lose every game you played, no matter how many games you are involved in. In a game which has no luck factor skill is the only determining factor. What makes poker one of the most interesting games in the world in my opinion is the combination of skill and a significant element of luck, especially in the short run. Without variance poker wouldn’t survive. You have your doubts? Ask yourself, how many of the chess tournaments I described above would you enter on your own accord before giving up?The three adjustments that will lower your variance instantlyReconsider the types of games you are playingThere are certain formats of poker which have higher variance than others. The main reasons for this higher variance are usually a combination of the number of players at the table and the overall structure of the game. Take hyper-turbos as an example. In hyper-turbos the blind structure is super quick and you are forced to play marginal or weak hands in order to stay alive in the tournament. Knowing when to shove and with what ranges requires skill but many of these spots are forced and result in multiple 50/50 flips. Without having room to maneuver the overall skill factor of the game goes down which in turn raises the variance.When it comes to cash game poker 6-max has a higher variance than full-ring simply because you are forced to play a wider range of hands in order to cover the expense of the blinds. Being forced to play more hands in more marginal spots requires a higher skill level to make up the difference. If a higher skill level is required to maintain the same win rate at 6-max compared to full-ring then you will be lowering your variance if you switch to full-ring.Stop knowingly committing yourself in break-even or -ev spotsThere are a number of common spots in both tournament and cash game poker which are in their nature break-even or close to it. The tough part is when you are in the moment (especially if you are on tilt or been card dead for an extended period of time) it can be very difficult to identify these spots. Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely times when it is worth gambling and you should take that 50/50 flip but doing so over and over again will result in higher variance.Lets look at some examples. The most common example of this is when you are dealt AK and face aggression from a nit. I see that most players are more than happy to ship the 100BB+ stack into the 3 bet hoping that the player doesn’t open KK or AA. Against most nits, especially in tournament poker you are facing an extremely tight range. As part of my analysis of my online poker game over a 500k sample I found that 70% of the time if I got to showdown against a nit he was holding JJ+. Getting AK all in vs a JJ+ range is going to cost you a lot of money in the long run.Another example of such a spot is when you are dealt a mid pocket pair in a tournament and face an all-in from a player that started the hand with 12+ BBs, Against this range in a vacuum you are going to be flipping or way behind the vast majority of the time.These examples are extremely general and are only meant to make you consider the spots where you are constantly committing yourself. You may find that you are being over aggressive with plenty of chips and finding yourself in way too many flips, resulting in extreme variance.Drop the number of tables you are playing and focus on increasing your edgeYour edge (also known as your win rate) has a direct affect on your poker variance. Dropping the number of tables you are playing at any one time is the most dramatic way to increase your win rate as it allows you to better focus on each hand, reduces the chances that you will tilt and increases your showdown win rate.If you are skeptical try dropping down a few tables for a month and see the affect on your standard deviation. Variance is directly influenced by your standard deviation. Lower your standard deviation and you will be lowering your variance.
the force that causes things, especially good things, to happen to you by chance and not as a result of your own efforts or abilities
a combination of circumstances, events, etc., operating by chance to bring good or ill to a person:
At the core, even a mechanist's universe is random
The nature of reality is irrelevant to the debate
although there'd still be luck in how the human minds around you work if it's Poker
I know you will say even though electrons can be in 2 places at once
What I would like to remind Con is that it's luck anything exists
If you have incomplete information (any being that's not omniscient, then there will inevitably be times where you have to consider probability instead of possibility. For these beings (almost every being other than an omniscient God himself/herself/itself) is going to experience real, actual luck because luck revolves around the less probable outcome (to you) being that one that happens) before your eyes or whatever).
For the being that knows all there is in reality, there is still the luck in that despite the determinism, it is pure luck which original things there were
Luck is genuinely there but it is experienced. The argument against this is that 'but it was inevitable' and I don't deny that, but the experience of luck is such that no matter how much planning one does
Arguments.
Reading pros argument, it’s not wholly clear what pro means by luck, by this I mean that while he touches on the definition as “whenever a less probable outcome occurs”, it’s not structured or presented as such. Most of the open seems only marginally related to the proposition - limiting variance, and talking about the impact of luck is unrelated to the proposition - so pros open is effectively defining what he thinks luck is - and that’s a reasonable open.
Cons initial open was pretty sensible - that “luck” exists as a concept - but isn’t an actual object or force. This seems to be agreeing with pros definition of luck and saying that exists- that’s not a good start. Con appears to argue that pro has to prove the entire deterministic view of the universe wrong to prove luck exists - that’s horrible goalpost moving.
Pro then reiterates his definition - but should have called out con for basically conceding the debate in the second sentence of the first round.
Con then talks about randomness and the argument takes a turn for the esoteric. I’m not detailing this round from con as it largely doesn’t address the point in contention - that luck exists, he claims it is not a real extant thing, but then argues it is a thing. So far this appears to be in line with how pro is defining luck - so con is effectively arguing luck is what pro said.
Pro mostly just reiterates the same problem, and there was a little back and Forth after this that fit the same mould.
The whole point of this debate is that luck exists - pro argues luck exists as an abstract concept - con agreed luck exists as an abstract concept - by default Con effectively concedes the whole debate on that point alone.
Sources to pro - definitions cited effectively demonstrate that luck as he is defining it abstractly does exist - and con agreed. Pro could have just used that definition source and said nothing else.
Conduct; Tie.
This was one of the few debates where Type1 didn't resort to ad-hominem attacks or forfeit half the debate. RM didn't attempt to cite any rap songs or drop the mike. It was surprisingly good conduct on both sides, and thus a tie.
Spelling and Grammar; Tie.
Started out strong for both participants, and then gradually declined for both. Tie.
Sources; Pro.
Pro started out with a strong argument about probability and utilized a lot of legitimate sources to support his arguments, which seemed fairly rational at first. By the end of the debate most of that had been completely tossed out the window in favor of wild speculation about some unidentified deity-like figure that is all-knowing but somehow doesn't know it is all-knowing (which would not count as being all-knowing if you didn't know that you were all-knowing, since that would mean you didn't know something). Con never used any sources and made similarly crazy arguments without any support for them, so sources go to pro for at least using good sources and good arguments for the first few rounds.
Arguments; Tie.
What the hell happened after round two? Pro started out fantastically strong, citing great sources and making very rational arguments about probability in scenarios like gambling. But by round three that had all been tossed out the window in favor of entirely baseless speculation and impossible claims. Con was moderately crazy for the entire debate, but at least stayed consistent on it. Neither argument made any sense by the final round, so I suppose it is a tie.
Summary; A very slight victory for Pro for starting out strong with good sources, even though it crashed and burned by the end.
Powerbump
I can't believe anyone actually thinks this.