The Fundamental Theorem of Poker

TangledUpinBlue

Suffered a bad beat tonite with my AA being beaten by 22 on the bubble in a SNG on PPP, which got me thinking about my fundamental theorem of NLHE poker

Lets define a bad beat as a situation where a player is 80% ahead in a race and loses

Lets assume that a good player (not saying for a minute that I am) would have an 80% chance to win 15% of the times that he is in a race and a 20% chance 5% of the time.

Lets also assume that a weaker player (not saying I am one of those either) would have an 80% chance to win 5% of the time and a 20% chance 15% of the time.

I think this means that a so called good player will suffer bad beats 3 times in every 100 races whereas he enjoys a win when he is behind once in every 100 races. On the other hand, a weaker player will suffer a bad beat once while enjoying a win when he is behind 3 times in every 100 races. In other words the weaker player is fundamentally more likely to be luckier than the good player.

The %s are not as important as the principle, by the way. Anyway, thats my fundamental theorem of NLHE poker. Any views??

Hitman Actual

What the hell are you talking about?

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

sikes

its hardly a fundamental theorem of anything.

the weaker player will get it in behind more so he will suckout more.

valor

Give the man a nobel prize

Lazare

valor wrote:

Give the man a nobel prize

Valor, king of the one liners.
Normally your less than 25 letter responses annoy me, but this one is a genuine cracker.

cooker3

Well I will try not to be sarcy for once. The good player will be ahead much more then a bad player hence a bad player can't get lucky as much because he is usually always behind

Hitman Actual

cooker3 wrote:

Well I will try not to be sarcy for once. The good player will be ahead much more then a bad player hence a bad player will be luckier because he is usually always behind

FYP, I assume this is what you mean i.e. he draws out more than the good player. The OP is obviously drunk, or licking toads, or high on goofballs, though.

Goodluck2me

valor wrote:

Give the man a nobel prize

Which one?

valor

Not literature anyway

Richard W

This guy makes like, zero to no sense.

nicnicnic

TangledUpinBlue wrote:

Suffered a bad beat tonite with my AA being beaten by 22 on the bubble in a SNG on PPP, which got me thinking about my fundamental theorem of NLHE poker

Lets define a bad beat as a situation where a player is 80% ahead in a race and loses

Lets assume that a good player (not saying for a minute that I am) would have an 80% chance to win 15% of the times that he is in a race and a 20% chance 5% of the time.

Lets also assume that a weaker player (not saying I am one of those either) would have an 80% chance to win 5% of the time and a 20% chance 15% of the time.

I think this means that a so called good player will suffer bad beats 3 times in every 100 races whereas he enjoys a win when he is behind once in every 100 races. On the other hand, a weaker player will suffer a bad beat once while enjoying a win when he is behind 3 times in every 100 races. In other words the weaker player is fundamentally more likely to be luckier than the good player.

The %s are not as important as the principle, by the way. Anyway, thats my of NLHE poker. Any views??

brilliant and insightful definetly a fundamental theorem, have you anything on PLO

ocallagh

I actually understood this theory quite well from the OP. Maybe it's because I'm drunk right now!

Anyway, I agree. **** players find themselves in more situations where they need to get lucky, which means they get lucky more often than good players.

lazlo

We have Ireland's answer to gigabet

phantom_lord

TangledUpinBlue wrote:

Suffered a bad beat tonite with my AA being beaten by 22 on the bubble in a SNG on PPP, which got me thinking about my fundamental theorem of NLHE poker

Lets define a bad beat as a situation where a player is 80% ahead in a race and loses

Lets assume that a good player (not saying for a minute that I am) would have an 80% chance to win 15% of the times that he is in a race and a 20% chance 5% of the time.

Lets also assume that a weaker player (not saying I am one of those either) would have an 80% chance to win 5% of the time and a 20% chance 15% of the time.

I think this means that a so called good player will suffer bad beats 3 times in every 100 races whereas he enjoys a win when he is behind once in every 100 races. On the other hand, a weaker player will suffer a bad beat once while enjoying a win when he is behind 3 times in every 100 races. In other words the weaker player is fundamentally more likely to be luckier than the good player.

The %s are not as important as the principle, by the way. Anyway, thats my fundamental theorem of NLHE poker. Any views??

cardshark202

This thread needs to be stickied.

steve-o

Wow - this is pure genius. The guy who is probably behind is more likely to pull a lucky win out if his ass than the guy who is probably ahead. You must've needed a degree in astrophysics to work that out

Mr.Plough

no such thing as a bad beat in a race IMO, 50-50.

unless you have another understanding of the word race

5starpool

Mr.Plough wrote:

no such thing as a bad beat in a race IMO, 50-50.

unless you have another understanding of the word race

Pedants of the world unite!

ntlbell

dyslexics of the world untie!

hotspur

I think this has been received poorly due to a combination of a somewhat bathetic calling of it a "fundamental theorem of NLHE poker" and the boards poker forum having a few too many ignorent and / or obtuse people.

The point was very clear and a revelation to a beginning player. In fact I know people who play all the time who don't sufficiently appreciate that luck doesn't even out for poker players and have tilt problems because of their frustration at getting unlucky.

Why jump down the guy's throat? It is a genuine revelation for a novice player when they realise it. Rather than use your time making this forum a less inviting one for newer players why not spend it thinking about extrapolationing from this simple poker insight to the non-poker world. Life is full of things you don't get by knowing the probablity of success and I think the successes of the naive people who get lucky have interesting lessons to teach about behaviour. The naive not the meek shall inherit the earth! (damn those toads are trippy! )

Hitman Actual

Yeah, but his previous posts here were normal. This one is just... weird... like he's taking the piss.

DeVore

I stopped reading when I got to the "an 80% chance to win 15% of the times that he is in a race and a 20% chance 5% of the time".

This is like saying "say a player has a 60% chance of winning a coin flip". If the player really DOES have 60% chance to win then by definition it ISNT a coinflip.

This reminds me of a student in a physics class I was in marvelling at the complexity of the laws of motion and gravity and finally saying "its amazin how nature works it all out so fast you dont even notice any lag..."

DeV.

Hectorjelly

DeVore wrote:

This reminds me of a student in a physics class I was in marvelling at the complexity of the laws of motion and gravity and finally saying "its amazin how nature works it all out so fast you dont even notice any lag..."

DeV.

I started noticing the lag recently

imalegend

i agree with hotspur...just cos the guy doesnt make much sense. you all have an idea of the point he is trying to make and yet still proceed to take the piss..
any1 who posts here and makes a mistake is an outcast it seems..if you have no valid comment, post nothing its that simple!!keep your high and mighty smart comments to yourselves.

Hectorjelly

Your absolutely right imalegend, everyone who posted in this thread should be banned.

ianmc38

imalegend wrote:

i agree with hotspur...just cos the guy doesnt make much sense. you all have an idea of the point he is trying to make and yet still proceed to take the piss..
any1 who posts here and makes a mistake is an outcast it seems..if you have no valid comment, post nothing its that simple!!keep your high and mighty smart comments to yourselves.

imalegend have you met Harold?

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Hitman Actual

imalegend wrote:

i agree with hotspur...just cos the guy doesnt make much sense. you all have an idea of the point he is trying to make and yet still proceed to take the piss..
any1 who posts here and makes a mistake is an outcast it seems..if you have no valid comment, post nothing its that simple!!keep your high and mighty smart comments to yourselves.

In fairness, when DeVore comes out and comments on a newbie post, you know it's out there in the twilight zone. Dont fall off that horse, yourself.