Lawrence (et all...)
The problem with Rob Singer is that he misleads people
who don't have the mathematical/scientific background
to assess what he says or what the actual experts say.
And since he yells the loudest and uses ad hominem
attacks, some of them might listen. I am not saying
these people are stupid or uneducated - just that
their
backgrounds/inclinations are such that they could be
misled, and Singer profits from it (by selling books)
and that just makes me sick.
Lawrence's message is an example... he says that you
can't discount luck. But what does that mean? Should I
go home and practice my luck on winpoker? Sorry - you
cannot practice luck. Do a prayer to the VP Gods for
better luck? No such thing.
Perfect play isn't enough? Then what else do you need?
Reality - to be a successful VP player you need two
things. You need to play perfectly on a game with
positive EV, and you need a properly sized bankroll to
account for the inherent variance of the game.
Bankroll
size is a factor of the variance of the game and the
edge you have. That is how you account for the
factor of "luck" - by having enough money behind you
such that the luck will even out without you going
broke. Period.
"Lawrence Boxer" <ljboxer@earthlink.net> writes...
If you discount the role of luck completely, you are
wrong. Even professional card counters know that
they've got to be lucky in addition to being good.
Trying to eliminate luck as a factor is just as
misleading as it is to tell a novice that he can
"bull" his way through a session relying on luck
alone.
There is absolutely no question that correct play is
extremely important because it keeps a player in the
game longer. In a sense, if it makes you feel better
about it, being good helps you make your own luck. But
perfect play, all by itself, isn't enough, and it's
misleading to act as if it is.
···
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/