Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="STL FAN, post: 2474932, member: 120788"] Your response and the approach to the subject has led me to thinking about how to use existing information then trying to create new information that goes beyond the old information. This is where new hypothesis and theories are born. Your questions are being asked for a solution to a topic that is not concrete. Majority of people will give solutions to a topic as a response to a question instead of asking questions before a person knows exactly what the answer could be without researching the topic first (I do this too frequently); I believe your questions are aimed in the direction of you already knowing your thoughts about this topic. You are asking us a question that we do not have the exact solutions so, we have to know the right questions to ask to give a solution to the topic that we do not have the answer yet because a there is no research that supports the topic of “luck” in the game of poker because there are only opinions. Again this is just my opinion because I know there are people reading this that will disagree, but this is what makes poker fun to talk about. Because I gave abstract information above just like your questions and comments that leave the reader wondering where you stand within your response about the subject. So, I believe you wanted us to think rather than have a definite answer to questions that are abstract in thought just like the word “luck”. In school we are learning about research and researchers. Research of existing information that is gathered from one source then apply this information in the same way it was researched. For example, researching heart transplants then taking the information from website and then either copy and pasting or paraphrasing the information. In poker I would read the book by Dan Harrington and then apply his information as close as possible at the table from researching the book. Researchers however, take existing information and formulate new hypothesis from old information. However, researchers do not have an exact process because of the realm of the abstract; this will lead researchers to going round and round trying to formulate new theories before they come up with their intended solutions. I am currently doing this with bad information and trying to formulate new theories about people and their perception of bad players, how to counter their play profitably with existing old information about weak players. Then go beyond to make weakness my strength against stronger players who play with emotion and ego. I am going through trial and error just like a researcher; I gather the proper information to formulate a positive solution through observation and the chat box. Then adjust my play from the study of the table from observation and taking detailed notes. Research is straight line thinking (imagine a straight line or a golden retriever) because people who research are looked on as retrievers of existing information and transferring it back in the same way. Researchers tend to go in circles before going beyond the existing information to formulate new theories. Most poker players including myself are great at retrieving information but I have improved my researcher’s skills better than my opponents from the observations at the table. The topic of” luck” is not an empirical topic, meaning you cannot test this through scientific research to formulate a mathematical solution that would support any theories a person might come up with when researching information about luck in the game of poker because the topic is too vague or opinionated. I will ask a final question and I believe I know your response already. Do you believe in luck? This not much of a stretch to reach a conclusion; I say you do not and you just want the reader to think abstractly about your response because you are a researcher in the game of poker because of how you presented the information. This is one part of why I do not believe luck exists especially in the game of poker because each person has the ability to gain skill in areas others are not working on presently enough, and the observation this player has made, the information gathered supports the ability to change an outcome post flop by my skillful play vs. my opponents skillful play and the addition of chatting to them as we play, this helps to keep the edge going against the entire table whether their chat is on or not. Through observation and research a researcher could formulate a theory about an opponent(s); and how to gain a skillful advantage to take their chips without showing my cards or always produce the winning hand at a higher percentage than my opponents that are paid off on the river or any previous streets of play. How profitable a person can be is dependent on how well a player is at being a researcher and using their problem solving skills. Glad to have met you and thank you for your reply to my post; hope all is going well and liked your thought process for making me think because of how you approached the abstract topic of “luck”. How would a person gain a skillful advantage from luck? How would a player use the information researched on the topic at the table through a study of observation or any other study of their choice at the table? Would a person know how to apply the information properly from what was researched on the topic at the table? Could a player be profitable with the existing information about luck? This is my second post within this thread about this topic. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us