If you say that, which you can and did, then you are saying the one guy is skillful, but not in terms of this particular feat. He might as well be skillful at tiddlywinks, all the good it will do him! I was assuming that by skillful, it was meant that he possessed skill that had a bearing on the subject at hand. If not, I agree. If his skill does have a bearing on the feat being performed, I disagree. See, we can come to terms. lol
luck
- Thread starter sagefr0g
- Start date
sagefr0g said:
yeah maybe we should defer to glovsetc or inplay on that one.
Is that a double redundancy or a triple impossibility?
sagefr0g said:
probability of luck, that's a good one.
What about height. 2 guys never played basketball before, they both have the same skill, but one is taller. They do not know how to shoot. One is taller and has a better chance at making the layup. May be luck, but he has a better chance. Has nothing to do with skill.
Again the probability of luck is greater in the taller person.
Actually someone who is not strong enought to make the shot from one end of the court to the other has a 0 probability of getting lucky where as someone who is stronger has a higher probabiltiy. Still again has nothing to do with skill. For example the better the games you choose, the better chance of luck you have.
I know this may be a little over your head sagefrog, but I am trying to make it as simlplistic as possible for you.
However, my statements above would not be considered luck if luck were measurable. Me hitting 10 out of 10 freethrows may be considered luck, but is it outside 2 standard diviations? No probably not. Is it only luck in blackjack when you venture outside 2 standard diviations? In blackjack, most poeple put a mesurement on luck, but in reality luck is not measured.
Talke Wilt Chamberlin for example. Scorring 100 points in one game had luck involved. However no one else has reached that. Becasue of Wilt's height(wich is not a skill but rather an attribute), the team he was playing and the other short players involved, he was able to accomplish scoring 100 ponits in a game. Shaq is twice the player Wilt ever wanted to be and he could not score 100 points. Much of it had to do with the situation.
Talke Wilt Chamberlin for example. Scorring 100 points in one game had luck involved. However no one else has reached that. Becasue of Wilt's height(wich is not a skill but rather an attribute), the team he was playing and the other short players involved, he was able to accomplish scoring 100 ponits in a game. Shaq is twice the player Wilt ever wanted to be and he could not score 100 points. Much of it had to do with the situation.
no, ccibball, i just enjoyed the terminology, probability of luck.
yeah, i'm clueless when it comes to probability. i'm trying to learn the not so mathematical aspect of the thinking that goes into probability problems before tackling all those boring formulas and stuff. i like simplistic.
actually even the guy too weak to chuck the ball that far wouldn't have zero probability but it would be pretty darn close lol. close enough to call it luck if he made it lol.
yeah, i'm clueless when it comes to probability. i'm trying to learn the not so mathematical aspect of the thinking that goes into probability problems before tackling all those boring formulas and stuff. i like simplistic.
actually even the guy too weak to chuck the ball that far wouldn't have zero probability but it would be pretty darn close lol. close enough to call it luck if he made it lol.
I used 2 standard diviataions just because that is what I use and a friend of mine uses to measure our wins and losses. Well always see if it is within 2 standard diviations. It was actually started by my friend. I do not know what everyone uses. If it is outside 2 standard diviations, yes I would say it is luck, however it can still be inside 2 standard diviations and still be luck. Basically outside 2 standard diviations is the unprobable happening.
i'm probably the one that should be sorry, maybe something about how i type this stuff, another guy thought the same thing, the other day when i was meant to agree with him at first he thought i was mocking him.
but i'll admit i fall into being a bit jerky sometime when i get frustrated, lol.
so, but no, i'm not even sure if the statement was an oxymoron or not, lol.
i just think it's an interesting concept, right or wrong. lol.
just guess maybe that's kind of what standard deviation is in the case of blackjack (at least), ie. the probability of luck.
what would that be probability p(E) where E is some event where outcome n happens, p(E)= n/N where N is all the outcomes that are just as likely to happen. this case the event n would be some standard deviation and N would be all the other possible standard deviations plus the expectation?:whip:
lol, i'm not sure if that makes sense cause that N stuff is supposed to be all equally likely outcomes and isn't what standard deviation represents is kind of how unlikely something is? lol, i think i'm lost.
what? SD is the square root of its variance and is used as a measure of dispersion in a distribution. and variance is the mean of the squares of the variations from the mean of a frequency distribution.
hmm, gonna have to think about all this.
but i'll admit i fall into being a bit jerky sometime when i get frustrated, lol.
so, but no, i'm not even sure if the statement was an oxymoron or not, lol.
i just think it's an interesting concept, right or wrong. lol.
just guess maybe that's kind of what standard deviation is in the case of blackjack (at least), ie. the probability of luck.
what would that be probability p(E) where E is some event where outcome n happens, p(E)= n/N where N is all the outcomes that are just as likely to happen. this case the event n would be some standard deviation and N would be all the other possible standard deviations plus the expectation?
:whip:lol, i'm not sure if that makes sense cause that N stuff is supposed to be all equally likely outcomes and isn't what standard deviation represents is kind of how unlikely something is? lol, i think i'm lost.
what? SD is the square root of its variance and is used as a measure of dispersion in a distribution. and variance is the mean of the squares of the variations from the mean of a frequency distribution.
hmm, gonna have to think about all this.
In BJ it's easy. If it isn't skill, we say it's luck. There are no physical requirements. But in BB, is tall luck? If you are taller than the other guy, you might say, lucky I was taller than him when we bet. Or lucky I was strong enough to get the ball all the way. But when it comes to betting, these physical attributes are discerible before you bet, so we should assume for the sake of discussion, that in our ball throwing event that both persons are equal in every way except one is a skilled BB player, and the other is a rank novice. Then we could attribute the better performance of the BB player to be from skill. Over a billion throws by each, lol lol we would have a pretty good idea just how much one's luck contributes to making such a shot. If there is a height difference, then we cannot really measure the difference between luck and skill, because one may have a built in advantage over the other. Height is like the house rules--if you change the rules, the house's advantage changes. If you change the throwers height, it may no longer be an even bet, skill aside. Course, height may not prove to be an advantage, I'm just saying if it is.
Nest thing, if it turns out that the BB player makes it 5 times out of a hundred, and the novice makes it one time out of a hundred, is it a lucky shot or a skill shot when the BB player makes it? We use the terms loosely. You might say for the BB player that it is 95% luck and 5% skill--close to that anyway, and for the novice it is near 100% luck. Does the BB player have to make it 1 out of 3 before you'll concede it's a skill shot? I prefer to say that the BB player wins the bet because he is more skillful. If he makes it 5 out of a hundered, it takes skill to do so. A single shot is mostly lucky, but not strictly a lucky shot. It's still a 96% luck, 4% skill shot (because he can make it one time out of 100 with no skill at all lol). He should get 19 to one odds on each shot and the novice should get 99 to 1 odds. Am I wrong?
Nest thing, if it turns out that the BB player makes it 5 times out of a hundred, and the novice makes it one time out of a hundred, is it a lucky shot or a skill shot when the BB player makes it? We use the terms loosely. You might say for the BB player that it is 95% luck and 5% skill--close to that anyway, and for the novice it is near 100% luck. Does the BB player have to make it 1 out of 3 before you'll concede it's a skill shot? I prefer to say that the BB player wins the bet because he is more skillful. If he makes it 5 out of a hundered, it takes skill to do so. A single shot is mostly lucky, but not strictly a lucky shot. It's still a 96% luck, 4% skill shot (because he can make it one time out of 100 with no skill at all lol). He should get 19 to one odds on each shot and the novice should get 99 to 1 odds. Am I wrong?
You make some good points, but not every person at the blackjack table is on the same level. Some people are smarter and more disciplined. Is it luck that one player is smarter than the other? Is it luck that one player was good enough to pick up a more difficult count whereas the other player could not? My point is circumstances can change your frequency or should I say magnitude of luck. Someone who is capable of keeping a perfect insurance count while counting useing zen is more likely to have more extremely large wins. However if you measure luck then it changes the equation.
For example. If you have 2 players, one using zen and keeping exact insurance count and he wins 200 units in his session, he might consider that luck. Whereas the other person only uses hilo with no indexes can reach the 200 units, but would have a more difficult time doing it. However if you measure it the Standard diviations would be different for both and 150 might be equivelent to 200 of the expert player. The problem is, luck is not measured. What you think is luck might not be luck to someone else.
I have actually thought about this since I was in Junior High. My thoughts are not set and I do understand your points. I am just arguing the side of what I came up with all my life and have never seen much of an arguement against it. This is making me think much more about the subject. However for now my mind is not altered.
For example. If you have 2 players, one using zen and keeping exact insurance count and he wins 200 units in his session, he might consider that luck. Whereas the other person only uses hilo with no indexes can reach the 200 units, but would have a more difficult time doing it. However if you measure it the Standard diviations would be different for both and 150 might be equivelent to 200 of the expert player. The problem is, luck is not measured. What you think is luck might not be luck to someone else.
I have actually thought about this since I was in Junior High. My thoughts are not set and I do understand your points. I am just arguing the side of what I came up with all my life and have never seen much of an arguement against it. This is making me think much more about the subject. However for now my mind is not altered.
of course your wrong, but it's a sweet platitude
one thing in BJ it could be skill applied but luck realized either north or south.
and what would you call it if the BB wanna be made more shots across the whole court than the BB pro? the wanna be won the contest cause of luck and the pro lost cause of skill?
lol, the wanna be would be thinkin he was Michael Jordan.:whip:
one thing in BJ it could be skill applied but luck realized either north or south.
and what would you call it if the BB wanna be made more shots across the whole court than the BB pro? the wanna be won the contest cause of luck and the pro lost cause of skill?
lol, the wanna be would be thinkin he was Michael Jordan.
:whip:
sagefr0g said:
one thing in BJ it could be skill applied but luck realized either north or south.
and what would you call it if the BB wanna be made more shots across the whole court than the BB pro? the wanna be won the contest cause of luck and the pro lost cause of skill?
lol, the wanna be would be thinkin he was Michael Jordan.:whip:
and what would you call it if the BB wanna be made more shots across the whole court than the BB pro? the wanna be won the contest cause of luck and the pro lost cause of skill?
lol, the wanna be would be thinkin he was Michael Jordan.
:whip: