Of course there is!
But if the only way you'll believe it is if your "challenge" to "show me
just what it constitutes" is answered then I think you're getting into a bit
of a semantics game. If the only real things to you are a "physical force
or object" or something that has a "form" then I assume you do not believe
in emotions of any kind. Your argument could just as easily have been
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOVE/HATE/GREED/HAPPINESS/ETC". But just because
you can't step in a puddle of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 
"Luck" isn't tangible, and it isn't even an emotion, it's just the term
we've come up with to describe the short term fluctuations of randomness
(not because we think that's the way things "should be" but because that's
the way things are, so why not give it a name?). It doesn't "affect" VP
results because the only time you can apply it is after the fact. If I get
3 deuces I can't pull out my "luck" to help me get a fourth. But if I do
get a fourth it's easier to say I was "lucky" than to say "the laws of
randomness and possibility continue to play out and I consider myself
fortunate to have been present when the randomly distributed result I am
witnessing occurred".
I do, however, agree that "short term" means different things to different
people and has little meaning when evaluating the results of VP or any other
"long-term" activity.
Fletch
···
-----Original Message-----
From: mkl54321 [mailto:mkl54…@…com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:30 AM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: "Luck" and "short term": two meaningless, illusory
concepts
Recent posts discussing the above's effect on VP results encourage
me to get on the ol' reality soapbox once more:
First of all, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "LUCK". If you say in
response, "Of course there is!", then I challenge you in return to
show me just what it constitutes; what makes it real. Is it a
physical force or object, some kind of radiation--- if it's REAL,
what form does its reality assume? If you say that it exists in some
manner, then take the instance of the "lucky" poker player who wins
six pots in a row: then "luck" was intelligent and skillful enough
to INTERVENE in the "normal" flow of events to ALTER the
distribution of the cards so as to give the "lucky" man several
winning hands. At the very least, then, we are granting "luck" high
intelligence and telekinesthic powers. Similarly, if I get "lucky"
and hit three royals in an hour at VP, then the "luck" fairy somehow
altered the electronics of my machine in my favor. Powerful indeed!
The fallacy here can be easily illustrated by considering a lottery
with a million entrants and one winner. Everyone would say the
winner was "lucky", but does that mean that some mystical force
guided him to the winning numbers/ticket/whatever? In reality, the
winner is no "luckier" than everyone else is; SOMEONE had to win.
It's hard to let go of this concept, which is so deeply rooted in
our psyches. We observe that life is unfair and random, and we have
to invent some force or power to explain it, because we feel that
unfairness is not the way things "should be". In fact,
mathematically, when the goodies of life are distributed randomly,
the distribution WILL be unfair, and THAT is the "natural order" of
things.
The other concept that we need to get rid of is the idea of
the "short term". Since this idea has a constantly fluctuating
meaning, according to the person using it, it becomes worthless as a
frame of reference. We can arbitrarily stop gambling at any point,
for any period or after any period of time, and assess the results.
The period we choose is likely to be self-serving, as in "I had a
winning day/week/month/year." We can manufacture results to fit any
precooked conclusion we want; for instance, a certain RS uses a
SINGLE HAND to define "short term", in order to produce as
many "short term winners" as possible.
If we get rid of these twin superstitions, we can be more realistic
about assessing our results in gambling and in life. But it's hard
to get rid of irrationality, which still dominates people's thinking
in this supposed age of science (look how many people believe in/are
willing to kill for religion/Godism, for example).
vpFREE Links: http://tinyurl.com/a7ga
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/