vpFREE2 Forums

"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).

LUCK is "short hand" for many people to equal short term variability.
Depending on the length of the term, which will be short term for all of us
since we can to play into infinity which is "long term", there will be
degrees of variability. When the variability is bad it is bad luck, and
when positive it is good luck.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "mkl54321" <mkl54321@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:30 AM
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).

Here I respond - in part - to the poster below (a.k.a.<mk154321>). In
part I agree with this person who says, in effect, let's take an
unsentimental, straight-edged view of this process and see it as
something which demonstrates - nothing more,nothing less, than the
mathematical principles which are involved. I also agree with others
who say, so if we wish to put magical labels on this process (e.g.
luck, and so forth) "What's the harm?" I believe that a bit of
whimsy never hurt anyone - and at times make things fun and
entertaining. To wit, one LV trip shortly after the death of my
father some eyars back, my mother and sister and I gathered around a
slot machine. As we plowed a bit of money into the thing we beckoned
the spirit of my deceased father to come to our assistance and make
the machine pay us. We all knew the idea was ludicrous (well, maybe
not my mother) but it was great fun during a difficult time. (Did we
win? Don't ask.)

Now, to my question. A few notes back there was a discussion about
changing machines after a win. I gathered that this is an issue that
may have been discussed (perhaps beaten to death) in the past, and
there were advocates and detractors alike. Am I missing something?
Could there be ANY justification to switch to a different machine
since the machine upon which one has won certainly has no memory. Is
there any reason to think that the odds are a better or worse on
another machine or is this just plain magical thinking? It seems
that it would be just as effective after a win to do a rain dance,
sing "Wild Thing" and chortle like a sex-starved moose than to switch
machines. Thanks for your input. deuceswildbill36

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

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mkl54321" <mkl54321@y...> wrote:

willing to kill for religion/Godism, for example).

There are lots of reasons to switch machines...
1. Superstition.
2. Smoky area.
3. Noisy area.
4. Just need a break.

The thing is there is nothing wrong with changing machines, and if someone believes that it is a good thing , then it becomes a good thing, because the person will play better with the positive attitude that the change will create.
Conversely, is there any evidence that says that staying with a machine that has been sucking your money for a couple of hours, is better than moving ?

I have done both, and both work (amazing) . I usually quit a machine after it has eaten a predetermined amount of money, if I have hit a Royal or multiple big quads or deuces, it doesn't matter, I still move after it has sucked up my limit for the machine.
I feel better for doing this, therefore it is a correct move.

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: deuceswildbill36
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:22 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] a Question regarding changing machines

  Now, to my question. A few notes back there was a discussion about
  changing machines after a win. I gathered that this is an issue that
  may have been discussed (perhaps beaten to death) in the past, and
  there were advocates and detractors alike. Am I missing something?
  Could there be ANY justification to switch to a different machine
  since the machine upon which one has won certainly has no memory. Is
  there any reason to think that the odds are a better or worse on
  another machine or is this just plain magical thinking? It seems
  that it would be just as effective after a win to do a rain dance,
  sing "Wild Thing" and chortle like a sex-starved moose than to switch
  machines. Thanks for your input. deuceswildbill36

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]