As consumers of gambling information and advice, we need to know the records.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

In video poker you can't win every day. Sorry, even on positive games you will lose some days.

---

It's too bad that we consumers of video poker instruction (and that's what I am -- a consumer) can't subject the experts to an audit of their results. Before we put our money in a mutual fund we can see the track record of the fund. Before we invest with an asset manager we can see their results and even talk to other customers to see how they did following the advice of the manager. Before we enroll in a school, college or class, we can find out the placement results, income of graduates, jobs, test results, etc. of students and grads.

But with video poker authors, gurus, and prophets we are at a big disadvantage. Of course they all claim to be winners but how do we know? And what did they win?

We get little glimpses of information, and some of it is not flattering: Dancer telling us how he lost more than a car was worth to win the car. Singer admitting he lost $35,000 on a single trip but still managed an amazing profitable year of somewhere near $100k on average. And our friend Arcimede$ says he's earned over $100,000 (that's six figures) in a six year period playing quarter to dollar VP games even though he loses more sessions than he wins.

Those of us who are just "consumers" need some reassurance from those who present themselves as professionals and experts.

What reassurance do we get when Bob Dancer says he loses big in a promotion just to win a car that doesn't make up for the losses he suffered?
What reassurance do we get when Rob Singer tells us that dumping $35,000 on a trip is an example of his strict discipline?

We need some reassurance and I'm not sure how it can be given to us to know that when we follow someone's advice, the advice works and the author of the advice practices what they preach.

One thing that should give you more confidence is the fact most winners are more than willing to admit they have lost many times. That is what a mathematical evaluation would tell you. It's when someone claims to win 88% of the time when the math tells you they should win less than 75% of the time that you should be skeptical.

So far this year I've won 13 sessions and lost 13 sessions so I'm slightly above average. However, I've only had one RF so my average win is not as high as it normally would be. Overall I am around $6K ahead at the moment.

Gee Arc, I'd love to see your breakdown by sessions... since there are only 26.

So far this year at video poker, I've had 5 royals including one for $20K, one for $8K and 2 for $4k and one progressive for $4200. Yet, I'm showing a loss.

You've had one royal flush, and you're 50/50 on your sessions and you're up by $6K ?? Wow, those one eyed jack machines must be magical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Gee Arc, I'd love to see your breakdown by sessions... since there are only 26.

---

Keep in mind those values include freeplay, promotional cash wins and cashback. The biggest win is $3300 and the biggest loss is $3200. All the rest are between those two values. You can see it wouldn't take much for me to fall behind if I had a couple of big losses. Or, I could hit a couple of quick royals and get even further ahead (that's the one I'm hoping happens).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

So far this year at video poker, I've had 5 royals including one for $20K, one for $8K and 2 for $4k and one progressive for $4200. Yet, I'm showing a loss.

You've had one royal flush, and you're 50/50 on your sessions and you're up by $6K ?? Wow, those one eyed jack machines must be magical.

---

It's the difference between a positive game with extras and a negative one. This is not rocket science. It is simply the math playing out as it should.

Of course it's all because you are on positive expectation games, and I am on 8/5 bonus or 8/5 aces and faces -- with the exception of the progressive which was on 8/5 double double bonus that I hit with the first $100 bill in the machine.

it's that positive expectation one-eyed-jacks game that allows you to have a six-thousand dollar profit with only one royal... and suckers like me with five royals can't come out ahead on our games that return 99.2%. Yep, it's ALL in the math.

It's pretty clear to me that Arci is enjoying an abnormal high number of decent middling-sized jackpot hands without many royals for OEJ's while Alan is suffering a drought of quads in between all those royals. I've experienced both of those kinds of streaks.

If you went almost 200,000 hands without a royal, Alan, and you've hit five this year...well....there's the math catching up in a way, isn't it?

I should make this clear: While I am not showing a profit, Im not losing that much money this year. And the "loss" is nothing like what I had when I was in that royal flush drought.

I seem to remember Alan stating he did not lose all that much during his royal drought. I think he stated he was doing well on the secondary jackpots. I suspect he's now do less well on those jackpots.

Alan, how many hands have you played? How many at the $5 denom?

It is more difficult for me to estimate the number of hands played this year because most of the play is at $2 and a lot at $1 and not as much at $5. So there is no easy calculation using my tier score.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

It is more difficult for me to estimate the number of hands played this year because most of the play is at $2 and a lot at $1 and not as much at $5. So there is no easy calculation using my tier score.

---

One thing that happens when you play multiple denoms is your results are very dependent on your hits at the highest denom. That was why I ask. I see 3 of your royals were at $1 yet you just stated that $2 was where most of your play has occurred. This is probably why you are behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

One thing that happens when you play multiple denoms is your results are very dependent on your hits at the highest denom. That was why I ask. I see 3 of your royals were at $1 yet you just stated that $2 was where most of your play has occurred. This is probably why you are behind.

---

I think that's a reasonable assessment. Thanks.

Well, I thought I'd just add that I'm down about 1K for the previous year, and the only time I touch a negative EV machine is when there's some promotional reason to do so for a very, very brief time. I've had zero royals this year in limited play. My worst beating was on the progressive 10/7 quarters machine at the Four Queens in Las Vegas.

You don't win all the time, dudes. That's reality.

Just need to press the DEAL/DRAW button at the right time more often, that's all. Sort of like swinging a baseball bat at a fast pitch. Just take your time and go with your feeling as to when to press that button. It can't hurt any, right?

EDIT - An argument could be made that it would hurt to take your time and go with the feeling on Positive EV machines as it would slow down your play, yet if it's Negative EV it really can't hurt any and it would slow down the theoretical losses in any case.

I've had some pretty big downswings myself. I always manage to find an upswing to match. The last four months of last year and the first three months this year were pretty bad. My largest downswing ever. But I've now had 4 consecutive winning months and won my first time out in August.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, I thought I'd just add that I'm down about 1K for the previous year, and the only time I touch a negative EV machine is when there's some promotional reason to do so for a very, very brief time. I've had zero royals this year in limited play. My worst beating was on the progressive 10/7 quarters machine at the Four Queens in Las Vegas.

You don't win all the time, dudes. That's reality.

---

I've put in a lot of read time here before joining, and what you say is interesting because you've now joined Alan (and me) in admitting to real-time losing. I also saw where the forum's buddy Singer piled on arcimeds for something like never coming out and saying he had a losing streak unless he could ease things by saying how the winning has returned and profits are in-hand, and he just did exactly that in a post above. There is entertainment to be had he after all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I've put in a lot of read time here before joining, and what you say is interesting because you've now joined Alan (and me) in admitting to real-time losing. I also saw where the forum's buddy Singer piled on arcimeds for something like never coming out and saying he had a losing streak unless he could ease things by saying how the winning has returned and profits are in-hand, and he just did exactly that in a post above. There is entertainment to be had he after all!

---

Well, I guess you missed by comment a few months ago about losing 8 out of 9 sessions. Sounds like you'd rather make nasty comments than participate in the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Well, I guess you missed by comment a few months ago about losing 8 out of 9 sessions.

---

I'm sorry but I missed this. I thought you win 45% of your sessions?

Why is my comment a nasty comment arcimedes? All I pointed out is what I read, and I did not see anywhere that you said you were currently in a losing streak. If you lead me to it then I'll accept it.

I can also answer Alan's question. He'll say he's also won 8 of 9 sessions, or maybe even 9 of 10 so no one gets the wrong idea. I'm sorry arcimedes, but you're laying yourself out here and I'm only compiling an answer from previous information you've provided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I'm sorry but I missed this. I thought you win 45% of your sessions?

---

Yes, you're point? I thought you of all people understood VP is streaky. 45% is the number over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Why is my comment a nasty comment arcimedes? All I pointed out is what I read, and I did not see anywhere that you said you were currently in a losing streak. If you lead me to it then I'll accept it.

---

Your read a couple of posts and came running in making assertions. That is what I would call nasty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I can also answer Alan's question. He'll say he's also won 8 of 9 sessions, or maybe even 9 of 10 so no one gets the wrong idea. I'm sorry arcimedes, but you're laying yourself out here and I'm only compiling an answer from previous information you've provided.

---

No, I didn't lay myself out. You were looking for something to criticize and decided, based on reading just a few comments, to jump in and make a nasty statement. That tells me all need to know about you.

In general I do not comment about my results unless I am asked specifically or it relates to a topic. By the time that comes around I've usually been through many sessions. Sorry if that is beyond your comprehension skills.

Arc, Im not trying to make a point here. Im just getting mixed up with all of the numbers. I really wish when we talked about results that we make it clear what we are talking about.

So, are you saying that you had a losing streak of eight out of nine sessions but you win 45% over the long haul? If that's it, just say so! Thanks.

Baloney arcimedes. You have constantly popped up in LV A videopoker discussions when criticising others about how they play, and always had to add in how the math always pulls you through the rough times as advertised, after talking about how much you've lost. So go ahead my man, please provide your post here that I "must have missed" identifying how you're in a losing streak as of right now. I said I'd accept it, but with you showing nothing but being upset, I guess that tells me all I need to know about YOU. Sheez!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Baloney arcimedes. You have constantly popped up in LV A videopoker discussions when criticising others about how they play, and always had to add in how the math always pulls you through the rough times as advertised, after talking about how much you've lost. So go ahead my man, please provide your post here that I "must have missed" identifying how you're in a losing streak as of right now. I said I'd accept it, but with you showing nothing but being upset, I guess that tells me all I need to know about YOU. Sheez!

---

Like I said, I often bring up events in my personal history when it is appropriate to a discussion. It must really irk you that I'm a consistent winner. Why else would you jump into a forum without reading all the comments and make nasty statements.

BTW, your claim about what I do at LVA is also a lie. All I've ever done on LVA and here is counter claims that are nothing but nonsense. I've never given a hoot how anyone plays, however, if someone tries to claim that they can overcome the math of the game then I will call them on it. If you think relating the truth is wrong then I have little time for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

if someone tries to claim that they can overcome the math of the game then I will call them on it.

---

I also asked this in another thread: the bottom line is you think it's impossible to win at a game such as 9/6 jacks or 8/5 Bonus? If that is indeed what you are saying then there is nothing left for me to discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I also asked this in another thread: the bottom line is you think it's impossible to win at a game such as 9/6 jacks or 8/5 Bonus? If that is indeed what you are saying then there is nothing left for me to discuss.

---

Not "impossible" ... improbable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Not "impossible" ... improbable.

---

Okay, we are now reaching a critical point. It's improbable because the "math" does not account for the human factor which says "Im going to profit the money I have right now." The math only looks at all long term play and removes from it how an individual treats their own session or sessions. It is the difference between someone who thinks on their own and a robot who sits in the seat pushing buttons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Okay, we are now reaching a critical point. It's improbable because the "math" does not account for the human factor which says "Im going to profit the money I have right now."

---

Sorry, the math accounts for all your play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

The math only looks at all long term play and removes from it how an individual treats their own session or sessions. It is the difference between someone who thinks on their own and a robot who sits in the seat pushing buttons.

---

Nope, if a robot uses optimal play then over time the robot will likely do better than you will from an "actual % return" point of view. It might lose more money if it plays more hands, but that's a different issue.

Okay Arc, thanks. I now fully understand your position and there is nothing left for me to say. Best of luck (oops... that's best of math) in the casino!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Like I said, I often bring up events in my personal history when it is appropriate to a discussion. It must really irk you that I'm a consistent winner. Why else would you jump into a forum without reading all the comments and make nasty statements.

BTW, your claim about what I do at LVA is also a lie. All I've ever done on LVA and here is counter claims that are nothing but nonsense. I've never given a hoot how anyone plays, however, if someone tries to claim that they can overcome the math of the game then I will call them on it. If you think relating the truth is wrong then I have little time for you.

---

Please, all you have to do is post where you said you're currently in an 8 out of 9 losing streak and are losing money because of it..is it clear this time? No, I've never believed your stories of always winning every year on LV A because of how upset you get with anyone who talks the slightest bit about their play style being different than yours, just like you're doing here, and how you immediately jump on anyone who ever had anything decent to say about your arch enemy, also just like you're doing here. I've always thought that type of forum behaviour begets a need for building one's image in front of their peers, and such an image is usually built on false representations.

You've got your reply. Please leave it at that, unless you want to HELP the issue by posting what I apparently missed in my readings. One thing I just found out today though, is that the EDIT button doesn't work after about an hour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Please, all you have to do is post where you said you're currently in an 8 out of 9 losing streak and are losing money because of it..is it clear this time?

---

How could I say a streak is "current" if it hasn't completely yet? What nonsense? And, as I stated, I rarely make any claims of any streaks either good or bad. Why haven't I told you what my results are right now? What does that do to your silly theory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

No, I've never believed your stories of always winning every year on LV A because of how upset you get with anyone who talks the slightest bit about their play style being different than yours, just like you're doing here, and how you immediately jump on anyone who ever had anything decent to say about your arch enemy, also just like you're doing here.

---

More lies. You do realize that when you makes claims and don't back them up you look pretty foolish. Show evidence that supports your claims or quit lying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I've always thought that type of forum behaviour begets a need for building one's image in front of their peers, and such an image is usually built on false representations.

---

Which shows what's really bothering you. You are envious of people who have been successful. This is what it usually gets down to. You don't like me because I have been successful. You turn your dislike into a belief system where I must be lying and then add to that belief system some nonsense that I am critical of others when all I do is explain the simple facts. This allows you to accept your own gambling beliefs. Sorry, but it is you with the problems.

Why am I not surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

You've got your reply. Please leave it at that, unless you want to HELP the issue by posting what I apparently missed in my readings. One thing I just found out today though, is that the EDIT button doesn't work after about an hour.

---

Seems to work for everyone else. (EDIT: I just remembered this used to happen to me also. It means the software automatically signed you off. All you need to do is sign on again and check the box that says to keep you signed on.)

And, don't look for me to do your homework for you. If you haven't done the necessary work then maybe you should consider not making claims you don't know anything about.

Arcimedes, Lets see if you can keep your word and really have little time for me.

Please stop your attempts at slick-wording your 8 out of 9 claim and relate it to where you said you were currently behind or losing money because of it. From what I've seen here and on LV A, you have no problem searching and searching archives until you find something that you can make the slightest spin with to help make your points. So why not do that here and show how you have said your are behind or losing because of the bad streak? We all have them you know, and some of us don't need to be seen as hopping along to the math. Is it that embarrassing a chore for you? And let me relate your own words above to your to-date failure to provide an answer to this: Do you realize when you make these claims and don't back them up that you look pretty foolish?

I don't envy anyone who says they are winning. I would like to see proof of it once in a while, that's all. But please don't condemn others for not thinking like you do, whether they lose like Alan and me or they win like Singer. You seem to make a career out of jumping on others who don't believe what you do. That's unnecessary.

Let's try something unique here and stop the bickering. How about somebody, anybody, get back to supplying the information that Alan brought up in his original post here. That's a very interesting point of view and one that many videopoker players deserve an answer to but may never get, at least we haven't so far.

I agree in that something like bowling involves skill and only skill, and results can only be altered by mistakes. You cannot get lucky in bowling, as you either make your shot or you don't. I also cannot think of any other profession besides gambling that has a rng in it. That's why I believe in luck so much and why skill is a factor but not much of a one. All the skill in the world cannot change the path of the rng, whatever that means, while luck can move videopoker mountains.

Then why can't the videopoker biggies provide anything for our comfort before selling or telling? I know Bob Dancer teaches his math related videopoker classes, but has anyone ever asked him to submit either backup results somehow or play with the class as his witness? You can't expect anyone to be confident about something because of as open and wide an explanation as "the math says so" because there's so much losing going on that something much more solid is needed. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I know Bob Dancer teaches his math related videopoker classes, but has anyone ever asked him to submit either backup results somehow

---

I attended one of Bob Dancer's lectures -- and it goes back quite a few years. Maybe 7 or 8 years ago. I was just getting started with video poker.

In the class Dancer said his annual income from video poker (not books, endorsements, etc) was $250,000 per year but half of that came from "cash back." He said his game of choice back then was $25/coin, three line deuces for $375 per push of the button. I've always wondered and questioned whether that was a good risk/reward ratio?

I have never seen anything else about "results" or even testimonials from players. Has anyone besides Arc and Singer earned a substantial return from video poker? I'm not talking about the "royal flush count" on LVA -- because I know for a fact that the leaders of that royal flush count may have hit a lot of royals but they were not making much money (or any money) doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I agree in that something like bowling involves skill and only skill, and results can only be altered by mistakes. You cannot get lucky in bowling, as you either make your shot or you don't. I also cannot think of any other profession besides gambling that has a rng in it. That's why I believe in luck so much and why skill is a factor but not much of a one. All the skill in the world cannot change the path of the rng, whatever that means, while luck can move videopoker mountains.

---

All sports have a luck factor. If you were watching the golf tournament yesterday you saw a good example on the 18th hole. Luck was a major factor in deciding the eventual winner. And bowling, that's got be one sport where luck comes into play continually. However, over time the luck in sports averages out and we end up with a golf handicap or a bowling average that is a good indicator of our skills.

When I talk about results over time playing VP it is exactly the same. The good times and bad times tend to average out and we are left with our own personal results. Those results give a good indicator of the skill of the VP player just like a bowling average or a golf handicap gives a good indicator of those skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Then why can't the videopoker biggies provide anything for our comfort before selling or telling? I know Bob Dancer teaches his math related videopoker classes, but has anyone ever asked him to submit either backup results somehow or play with the class as his witness? You can't expect anyone to be confident about something because of as open and wide an explanation as "the math says so" because there's so much losing going on that something much more solid is needed. What do you think?

---

What the math tells you is ... if the games are random then the results are predictable. The math involved is very simple. I don't blame people for not accepting it immediately. However, all it takes is a little effort to understand the issues and no one should doubt what I'm saying.

So, it really gets down to ... if the games are random. If you don't believe they are then I question why anyone would play at all. If you do believe it, then the rest of it is easily understood mathematical principles and those that might doubt it should take the time to educate themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I have never seen anything else about "results" or even testimonials from players. Has anyone besides Arc and Singer earned a substantial return from video poker? I'm not talking about the "royal flush count" on LVA -- because I know for a fact that the leaders of that royal flush count may have hit a lot of royals but they were not making much money (or any money) doing it.

---

I knew several folks in LV that made much more money than I have. I even helped some of them in understanding the strategies of new games and yes, I even helped Dancer.

Dancer and Scott are the two "names" but there was a good 50-100 other folks who were successful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

All sports have a luck factor.

---

I'll bet my two Varsity letters that thee is no luck in sports. The ball goes in the hoop because of the way you shot it or dunked it or bounced it. You aced the other guy because you hit the corner of the box because you judged he was out of position, or he tripped because he was clumsy or his shoelace was untied.

That's not luck. Those are real events and real factors that can include how the grass was cut on the green, whether there was a divot or not, how the wind caught your drive-- all are real factors.

I am really surprised that you, Arc, who lives by the math in video poker, would use a term called "luck" in sports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I'll bet my two Varsity letters that thee is no luck in sports. The ball goes in the hoop because of the way you shot it or dunked it or bounced it. You aced the other guy because you hit the corner of the box because you judged he was out of position, or he tripped because he was clumsy or his shoelace was untied.

That's not luck. Those are real events and real factors that can include how the grass was cut on the green, whether there was a divot or not, how the wind caught your drive-- all are real factors.

I am really surprised that you, Arc, who lives by the math in video poker, would use a term called "luck" in sports.

---

Well, I have participated in sports my entire life. I know when I make a horrible shot bowling and the ball crosses over and strikes that it was not "skill". I also know when I throw an absolutely great shot and hit the pocket perfectly only to leave a stone 8. Those are all part of the game and they are pure luck.

On the 18th hole yesterday the golfer who lost hit a ball a little off line. It skipped over a bunker and left him an almost impossible chip shot from a horrible lie. Had the ball gone in the bunker it would have been an easy shot for someone of his skill. That was all luck. BTW, the person that did win had his ball go into that very bunker. If anything he was less accurate because he was closer to the green.

I really can't believe that anyone thinks there is no luck in sports. That doesn't mean that skill does not win out over time, it simply means there are times where a simple bounce can make the difference between winning and 2nd place. It took a great deal of skill by both players to be in position to win.

The "bounce" happened because you rolled the ball, hit the ball, threw the ball in such a way. If you scored because of the bounce then sure, call it luck. But if you start to claim that the bounce robbed you of a score then you're making an excuse because youre a klutz.

Seriously????????? You all must be kidding. Are you really trying to say that there is no luck factor involved in sports? If some of you are really saying this then I can only see one reason for it: you want the bickering between you and Arci to continue. You need it to continue! Completely ludacris to state that luck isn't a factor in sports. No luducris is not the right word, actually I can't even find the right word to express how far from reality this whole discussion is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

The "bounce" happened because you rolled the ball, hit the ball, threw the ball in such a way. If you scored because of the bounce then sure, call it luck. But if you start to claim that the bounce robbed you of a score then you're making an excuse because youre a klutz.

---

Alan, how do you explain the difference in skill when two players missed the green in almost the exact same way yet one had a reasonable shot and the other had an almost impossible shot? What was the difference in skill?

Vegas_lover: I am just guessing here, but I wonder if you are on the young side of things and maybe you like rap music?

Ludacris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Alan, how do you explain the difference in skill when two players missed the green in almost the exact same way yet one had a reasonable shot and the other had an almost impossible shot? What was the difference in skill?

---

I'm sorry, I can't visualize this example. But from what you say both missed the green. So what's your point? LOL

I do not believe there is any luck in any sport. In the bowling example, the ball is rolling and it is going to either hit the pins or it isn't. If it hits the pins then there's many things that can happen, and whatever does has nothing to do with luck. You threw the ball and try your best, but the result is up to the action occuring afterwards. If you throw the ball and get it into the gutter but it suddenly pops out and strikes, it's all a part of the game you know so well, and most certainly because of the skilled "english" with which you throw the ball.

In golf, no one expects luck to play a part because they know there's so many expected other factors that can and do occur after the ball hits the ground. A hole in one is not luck. A bounce off a tree is not luck. A sudden gust of wind that puts a slice onto the fairway is nothing but one of the many interesting facets of the game that everyone who plays expects every once in a while. Anyone who alls that luck should not be playing the game.

There is no luck in baseball, football, soccer, and so on.

Actually its the same in craps, though we use the word "luck." When the shooter throws the dice his action (throwing the dice) has a reaction with everything on the table, including gusts of air, chips on the table, someone knocking the table, wet spots on the felt, etc. There is no luck. The shooter and only the shooter is the reason why the dice landed on hard 6 or six-one.

Luck in video poker? Maybe. You can't influence the RNG. you can make the best possible choice for the cards given to you but ultimately its up to the RNG. You can call that luck, if you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I do not believe there is any luck in any sport. In the bowling example, the ball is rolling and it is going to either hit the pins or it isn't. If it hits the pins then there's many things that can happen, and whatever does has nothing to do with luck. You threw the ball and try your best, but the result is up to the action occuring afterwards. If you throw the ball and get it into the gutter but it suddenly pops out and strikes, it's all a part of the game you know so well, and most certainly because of the skilled "english" with which you throw the ball.

In golf, no one expects luck to play a part because they know there's so many expected other factors that can and do occur after the ball hits the ground. A hole in one is not luck. A bounce off a tree is not luck. A sudden gust of wind that puts a slice onto the fairway is nothing but one of the many interesting facets of the game that everyone who plays expects every once in a while. Anyone who alls that luck should not be playing the game.

There is no luck in baseball, football, soccer, and so on.

---

Totally hilarious. I guess it all gets down to what luck is.

BTW, if a ball goes into a gutter and comes out, none of the pins knocked down count. They must be reset when it happens on the first ball and subtracted from the score on either ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Totally hilarious. I guess it all gets down to what luck is.

BTW, if a ball goes into a gutter and comes out, none of the pins knocked down count. They must be reset when it happens on the first ball and subtracted from the score on either ball.

---

I'm sorry but what does this have to do with a discussion about luck in sports?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I'm sorry but what does this have to do with a discussion about luck in sports?

---

Alan, did you read what jatki said? He claimed that a ball bouncing off a tree and back into a fairway was not lucky. I guess his definition of skill is much more precise than mine. I rarely try to bounce balls off trees but I guess I just haven't developed enough skill.

I thought his explanation was just fine. No luck involved. There are various pros who do these trick shots and its because they have the skill to do it. Perhaps you don't have the skill but if you throw a ball a certain way it will pop out of the gutter. That's not luck -- that's because you threw the ball a certain way.

Now the golf ball. It bounced off the tree and into the fairway because the golfer hit the ball in such a way that it hit the tree and bounced back into the fairway. It's not luck. It's physics, it's geometry.

What is so ironic here is that you, Arc, are accepting the term "luck"???? And you accept luck when everything in your video poker world is defined by the math? Geez. We've come full circle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Alan, did you read what jatki said? He claimed that a ball bouncing off a tree and back into a fairway was not lucky. I guess his definition of skill is much more precise than mine. I rarely try to bounce balls off trees but I guess I just haven't developed enough skill.

---

Where I bowl, the auto-scorer always counts pins knocked down if the ball hops out of the gutter. Where did you get that one from?

A tree is part of the open course. If the ball disappeared after hitting the tree, would you call that BAD luck? Not. You'd say it was a terrible shot and the guy had a skill lapse. So why is it GOOD luck if it bounces onto the fairway? You have to be consistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Where I bowl, the auto-scorer always counts pins knocked down if the ball hops out of the gutter. Where did you get that one from?

---

The rules of bowling. The scorer does not realize the ball went into the gutter. It's up to knowledgeable and honest players to make the correction. Ask the people at your bowling center what the rule requires.

I've only been bowling for almost 50 years so you might consider trusting me on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

A tree is part of the open course. If the ball disappeared after hitting the tree, would you call that BAD luck? Not. You'd say it was a terrible shot and the guy had a skill lapse. So why is it GOOD luck if it bounces onto the fairway? You have to be consistent.

---

The use of the term luck is a value pronouncement. I hope we can all agree that a ball hit into the trees was not the intent of the golfer. If the ball remains in the trees then that is expected and no value change has occurred. However, if the ball bounces back into the fairway the golfer has now achieved the same value as a skilled shot. He did not earn that value hence the pronouncement of good luck.

Had the ball hit a tree and disappeared down a gofer hole then an even worse result than expected occurred and the golfer could rightly claim it was bad luck.

Luck is simply a value judgement of comparison to an average expected result. Not at all unlike how it is used in gambling.

Since both you and Alan claimed there is no such thing as luck in basketball, tell us what it is when a player has his shot partially blocked only to have it deflect off the backboard and go in the hoop. Was that skill?

Arc wrote: Since both you and Alan claimed there is no such thing as luck in basketball, tell us what it is when a player has his shot partially blocked only to have it deflect off the backboard and go in the hoop. Was that skill?

That happened to me many times. What happened was that the force of my drive and shot offset the partial block of the player. Luck wasn't an issue at all. When I made a "flying layup" outside the key (we didn't have three point zones then) I estimated the force I would need to get the ball to the net and my estimate was correct. Two points. All net. The crowd went wild. LOL

EDITED TO ADD: Actually that happened in 9th grade when I made the flying lay up. The defending player said "no way" and the spectators called out "Alan Mendelson Veltidi" because that was something that Alan Veltidi (one of the star athletes at my school) would do. In the locker room after the game Mr Laughlin, our coach, said with a smile "that was quite a dramatic shot," but he was old school and didn't like us to take risky shots.

Anyway Alan V. married Janice and my sister Leslie ran into them at her high school reunion party at the Nanuet Restuarant, and.... LOL.

Concerning throwing a gutter ball that rebounds into the pins: it must be that Jatki doesn't know that it's possible to change the pin count on an auto scoring system. As a long time bowler and President of our league for about 15 years know, I can tell you he wouldn't get away with not changing his score.

Concerning luck in sports: luck is an integral part of sporting events. It happens whenever intention is altered (whether it's a basketball shot, a baseball hit or a golf shot), and then depending on whether or not you benefited from that alteration, you deem it "good luck" or "bad luck". It's the final outcome that gets labeled.

In VP, luck (good or bad) happens every time we push that button. The initial intention is to have a winning hand. On the draw, with properly applied card selection, we may strengthen our intention to have a winning hand, but the final results are always pure luck.

Right you are Vegas Vic. I have a feeling that some of us might have a different definition of "luck" and that is the problem. I don't see how anyone can deny that their are times in almost all sports where the results are better than expected given the situation. Or, the results are worse than expected. I call these good and bad luck. Maybe Alan has another word for them.

I like the part where arc accepts that each push of the videopoker button summons luck of some kind. Good for you for getting that far in the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I like the part where arc accepts that each push of the videopoker button summons luck of some kind. Good for you for getting that far in the discussion.

---

Summons? Good grief, you really do live in la la land.