[Kalvan14]

hrothgar, on Nov 13 2005, 02:24 PM, said:

I will flip a coin 100 times. Each time that the coin turns up heads, I will give you one dollar. Each time that the coin turns up tails, you will give me one dollar. Prior to the start of the game, the expected outcome is a wash where neither of us owes the other any money. (Its FAR more likely that I'll owe you money or you'll owe me money than the specific outcome where we precisely have 50 heads and 50 tails, however, thats another story). Assume for the moment that its halfway through the game and I've had a run of good luck. After 50 flips, you owe me 6 dollars. During the next 50 flips, we expect 25 heads and 25 tails with you STILL owing me 6 dollars.

50 flips of a coin are statistically not significant. You might have a much higher heads streak (or tails, btw) than in your example.
And you cannot anticipate that next run will be without significant deviations.
Over a truly long run (1 million tosses? 10 millions? 100 millions?) it is reasonable to anticipate a wash-out (or at least very close results).

The same applies to the lottery example. Let's make it simple: you do not choose random numbers, you just buy a ticket. If there are 10 millions ticket on sale, your chance of winning the first prize are 1 against 10 millions. If the promoter sells all of the tickets, someone will have to win (100% chances), but the individual chance of landing the first prize are still 1 against 10 millions.

Poker tournaments are similar. Let's say everyone pays the same fee: 10 dollars.
Let's postulate that there are 3 classes of players: good (5%), average (30%) and poor (65%). The number of wins per class are not proportional to the number of players in that class. My expectation would rather be that wins are inversely proportional to the number of player in a given class, or something similar. This means that a poor player can win, but it is unlikely; more significant is that the poor players class have to invest a very large amount of money for a small return; the good players class would be in the mirror position: small investment for a good return.

Rubber bridge is a classic example: very seldom poor players last long playing for high stakes (unless they are quite rich: but this would not be high stakes for them).
Same with poker. Players tend to gravitate into a table where there skills (or lack of) is close to the table average.

[FrancesHinden]

awm, on Nov 13 2005, 02:03 PM, said:

It's not really that surprising that bad poker players (who very much outnumber good ones) occasionally win major tournaments. I'm sure we see the same thing in bridge, although luck is arguably less of a factor.

A friend of mine who plays poker for money (successfully) and is also a good bridge player claims there is considerably less luck in poker.

[Deanrover]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 14 2005, 09:48 AM, said:

awm, on Nov 13 2005, 02:03 PM, said:

It's not really that surprising that bad poker players (who very much outnumber good ones) occasionally win major tournaments. I'm sure we see the same thing in bridge, although luck is arguably less of a factor.

A friend of mine who plays poker for money (successfully) and is also a good bridge player claims there is considerably less luck in poker.

Well, it depends on the form of poker and form of bridge being played, but in general I strongly believe your friend to be wrong. I asked this question to a recent Bermuda Bowl participant who is a very successful poker professional and he said

"
had that one a few times - i have a much bigger edge playing bridge against average players

"

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

I asked this question to a recent Bermuda Bowl participant who is a very successful poker professional and he said

"had that one a few times - i have a much bigger edge playing bridge against average players"

That's not quite the same thing. He might be saying that the differential between his bridge ability and the 'average player''s bridge ability is much greater than in poker.

But then, it might also be true that my friend is a (relatively) better poker player than bridge player. He knows that he makes more money more reliably playing poker than he does playing bridge.

We're back to the power of perceptions again...

[helene_t]

You can calculate the probabilites you want (binomial distribution) with an online tool available at Dpt of Statistics at University of South Carolina.

For example, if you have observed a lucky player taking 123 fineses, each of which should have 50%, and 83 of them worked, you enter n= 123, p=0.5 (0.5 is 50%), "at least" and 83. Then click "Compute" and the applet tells you that the probability of this (at least 83 succeses) is 0.00007, that is 0.007%. Elementary books on applied statistics may tell you that, as a rule of thumb, if the probability is less than 2.5% (level of significance) you should be vary of accepting it as pure chance.

But 2.5% is probably too high a thresshold in this context. If you allready, before collecting the data, suspected this player of having some information about which fineses to take (this is not necesarily cheating, of course), 2.5% may be reasonable, but if you just picked him because of his finesse luck, a thresshold like 0.1% may be more appropriate. Depends how plausible you think it is that someone might have extra information.

[Deanrover]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 14 2005, 02:38 PM, said:

Quote

I asked this question to a recent Bermuda Bowl participant who is a very successful poker professional and he said

"had that one a few times - i have a much bigger edge playing bridge against average players"

That's not quite the same thing. He might be saying that the differential between his bridge ability and the 'average player''s bridge ability is much greater than in poker.

But then, it might also be true that my friend is a (relatively) better poker player than bridge player. He knows that he makes more money more reliably playing poker than he does playing bridge.

We're back to the power of perceptions again...

This guy's skill levels in poker and bridge are analagous.

WE can go some way towards solving this by using some simple maths. Does BridgeBrowser have an option to find out the standard deviation of a player's IMPswon/board?

[FrancesHinden]

And are the "average players" skill levels also analogous.

I don't know what country your friend comes from, but the average playing-for-money punter in bridge vs poker in one country might be very different than in another. And tournaments might be different to turn-up-and-play casinos.

There's obviously more prize money around in poker than in bridge. Does that attract a higher overall quality field of people playing for money, making it harder to win big?

[Al_U_Card]

Jlall, on Nov 14 2005, 12:27 PM, said:

I play a lot of poker (more than I play bridge) and imo there is more luck in poker. This could simply be because I'm a better bridge player.

I watched a Hold-em championship on TV last night (Phil Ivey won). These guys have got sterfs of neel! I imagine that there are lots of considerations (pot size, his stash, etc) but do they sometimes "feel" lucky and raise on dreck several times in a row to get the other guy to fold or have they calculated the odds and it is pretty much scientific?

[tysen2k]

Deanrover, on Nov 14 2005, 08:51 AM, said:

WE can go some way towards solving this by using some simple maths. Does BridgeBrowser have an option to find out the standard deviation of a player's IMPswon/board?

I think I read somewhere that the standard deviation of bridge deals is about 5.5 IMPs/board.

So in a 64-board match, you are looking at about +44 IMPs. So you would need to win by ~88 IMPs for it to be significant.

[tysen2k]

Al_U_Card, on Nov 14 2005, 11:20 AM, said:

I watched a Hold-em championship on TV last night (Phil Ivey won). These guys have got sterfs of neel! I imagine that there are lots of considerations (pot size, his stash, etc) but do they sometimes "feel" lucky and raise on dreck several times in a row to get the other guy to fold or have they calculated the odds and it is pretty much scientific?

Depends on the player, but I'd say a combination of the two for most.

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 14 2005, 04:48 AM, said:

A friend of mine who plays poker for money (successfully) and is also a good bridge player claims there is considerably less luck in poker.

I suspect this may be because bluffing is a much bigger factor in poker than bridge. In poker, you can often win huge pots while holding nothing in cards, if you're good at bluffing and reading the other players' tells. Bridge has psyches, and they may talk the opponents out of bidding their games, but they're more likely to backfire because your partner believes your bids as well. And it's hard to bluff your way into a making slam; most of the times slams are bid off cashable aces it has been by mistake, not intentional.

[Deanrover]

tysen2k, on Nov 14 2005, 07:30 PM, said:

Deanrover, on Nov 14 2005, 08:51 AM, said:

WE can go some way towards solving this by using some simple maths. Does BridgeBrowser have an option to find out the standard deviation of a player's IMPswon/board?

I think I read somewhere that the standard deviation of bridge deals is about 5.5 IMPs/board.

So in a 64-board match, you are looking at about +44 IMPs. So you would need to win by ~88 IMPs for it to be significant.

Do you have any idea how much the edge a team of 4 experts would have over 4 average players in terms of IMPs/board? Final piece in the jigsaw!

[SoTired]

One of the parts of probability and statistics is not just the likelihood of an event occurring over the long run, but also the likelihood of the abnormal results over a specific number of trials.

For example, I am sure you have heard them announce election polls as being within 3% accurate. What they really mean is: "Based on our sample size, the probability is 95% that the actual result is within 3% of our limited sample result."

Interestingly, one of the ways that Las Vegas combats blackjack "counters" (professionals) is by having NON-RANDOM shuffles. The professional blackjack player increases his bet based on the probability that the deck is now in his favor. But that assumes a random shuffle that produces correct probability results. If the deck is deliberately non-random shuffled,then the professional can no longer rely on probability as his main evaluation tool.

[tysen2k]

Deanrover, on Nov 14 2005, 11:59 AM, said:

tysen2k, on Nov 14 2005, 07:30 PM, said:

Deanrover, on Nov 14 2005, 08:51 AM, said:

WE can go some way towards solving this by using some simple maths. Does BridgeBrowser have an option to find out the standard deviation of a player's IMPswon/board?

I think I read somewhere that the standard deviation of bridge deals is about 5.5 IMPs/board.

So in a 64-board match, you are looking at about +44 IMPs. So you would need to win by ~88 IMPs for it to be significant.

Do you have any idea how much the edge a team of 4 experts would have over 4 average players in terms of IMPs/board? Final piece in the jigsaw!

Expert (I'm talking super expert here) against average players I think is like 1.5 IMPs/board.

So that means the average players would win a 64-board match about 1.5% of the time.

That's a huge advange though. Drop that down to 1.0/board and the average players win 7.3%.

[junyi_zhu]

tysen2k, on Nov 14 2005, 08:55 PM, said:

Deanrover, on Nov 14 2005, 11:59 AM, said:

tysen2k, on Nov 14 2005, 07:30 PM, said:

Deanrover, on Nov 14 2005, 08:51 AM, said:

WE can go some way towards solving this by using some simple maths. Does BridgeBrowser have an option to find out the standard deviation of a player's IMPswon/board?

I think I read somewhere that the standard deviation of bridge deals is about 5.5 IMPs/board.

So in a 64-board match, you are looking at about +44 IMPs. So you would need to win by ~88 IMPs for it to be significant.

Do you have any idea how much the edge a team of 4 experts would have over 4 average players in terms of IMPs/board? Final piece in the jigsaw!

Expert (I'm talking super expert here) against average players I think is like 1.5 IMPs/board.

So that means the average players would win a 64-board match about 1.5% of the time.

That's a huge advange though. Drop that down to 1.0/board and the average players win 7.3%.

I really doubt it. in a 64 board match, the winning percentage for average flight B players against a world class team is very close to zero.

[hrothgar]

SoTired, on Nov 14 2005, 11:31 PM, said:

Interestingly, one of the ways that Las Vegas combats blackjack "counters" (professionals) is by having NON-RANDOM shuffles. The professional blackjack player increases his bet based on the probability that the deck is now in his favor. But that assumes a random shuffle that produces correct probability results. If the deck is deliberately non-random shuffled,then the professional can no longer rely on probability as his main evaluation tool.

I'd be VERY interested in seeing documentation to this effect.

Intuitively, this seems flawed. Professional Blackjack counters operate but estimately the 10s density in the deck. Non random shuffling simply transforms the game from simple counting into

I know X
I know you know X
I know you know I know X

Its unclear that this game would give a casino any better edge.

I can believe that a Casino might try seeding decks to detect card counters, but this is another story. I also believe that casinos might want to deliberate back load the 10s and combine this with a low penetration deck, however, this would probably not get by the gambling board.

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Nov 14 2005, 04:45 PM, said:

SoTired, on Nov 14 2005, 11:31 PM, said:

Interestingly, one of the ways that Las Vegas combats blackjack "counters" (professionals) is by having NON-RANDOM shuffles. The professional blackjack player increases his bet based on the probability that the deck is now in his favor. But that assumes a random shuffle that produces correct probability results. If the deck is deliberately non-random shuffled,then the professional can no longer rely on probability as his main evaluation tool.

I'd be VERY interested in seeing documentation to this effect.

Intuitively, this seems flawed. Professional Blackjack counters operate but estimately the 10s density in the deck. Non random shuffling simply transforms the game from simple counting into

I know X
I know you know X
I know you know I know X

Its unclear that this game would give a casino any better edge.

I can believe that a Casino might try seeding decks to detect card counters, but this is another story. I also believe that casinos might want to deliberate back load the 10s and combine this with a low penetration deck, however, this would probably not get by the gambling board.

Counting at blackjack must be 40 to 50 years old as a method.

Read new blackjack book out with methods that are only 15 years old. 3 major methods of placing the "ten cards" in a 6-10 deck shuffle and directing that card without every touching the deck into your hand. Have no idea what the more modern methods of winning Blackjack are.

[Kalvan14]

A 64-board match between an expert team (not even top-class experts, mind) and an "average Joes" team is no contest. I would expect that you would need to give the AJs 1 IMP/board to make it interesting (this assumes that the expert team plays with interest in the game, and that the 64 boards are chosen in a random way).

Finesses are funny things. There are people who succeed in a lot of finesses (much more than average should account for) and people who are ridiculous failure. It's not a matter of luck: people who succeed generally no when and through whom to finesse. Then there is always the classic slam on one-of-two finesses which fails and the slam on 2/2 plus a trump split which succeeds. But this is statistically non significant.

Poker vs. bridge: the "soft" skills (table presence, how to read yr oppos, keep yr nerves, and so on) are very similar. I admit that poker is harder in the sense that you have to read more people, and that bluff has a much more significant impact.

"Hard" skills: even if you include bluffing here, I would submit that techniques at bridge are much more extensive and complicated.

Conclusion: if your game is mostly based on "soft" skills, poker is your game. OTOH, if you can join technical skills to psychological skills, the advantage you gain in bridge is huge.