Luck

From Wikipedia.com:

Luck as lack of control

Luck refers to that which happens beyond a person's control. This view incorporates phenomena that are chance happenings, a person's place of birth for example, but where there is no uncertainty involved, or where the uncertainty is irrelevant. This is the view of luck as contingency. Within this framework one can differentiate between three different types of luck:
Constitutional luck, that is, luck with factors that cannot be changed. Place of birth and genetic constitution are typical examples.

Circumstantial luck, that is, luck with factors that are haphazardly brought on. Accidents and epidemics are typical examples.

Ignorant luck, that is, luck with factors one does not know about. Examples can be identified only in hindsight.

Luck as a fallacy

Another view holds that "luck is probability taken personally". A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability, and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck commits the post hoc logical fallacy which argues that because something is sequentially connected it is connected otherwise as well:

A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;Therefore, A caused B.
In this particular perspective, probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections. A brick falling on a person walking below, therefore, is not a function of that person's luck, but is instead the result of a collection of understood (or explainable) occurrences. Statistically, every person walking near the building was just as likely to have the brick fall on them.
The gambler's fallacy and inverse gambler's fallacy both explain some reasoning problems in common beliefs in luck. They involve denying the unpredictability of random events: "I haven't rolled a six all week, so I'll definitely roll one tonight".

Luck is merely an expression noting an extended period of noted outcomes, completely consistent with random walk probability theory. Wishing one "good luck" will not cause such an extended period, but it expresses positive feelings toward the one -- not necessarily wholly undesirable.

Luck as an essence

There is also a series of spiritual, or supernatural beliefs regarding fortune. These beliefs vary widely from one to another, but most agree that luck can be influenced through spiritual means by performing certain rituals or by avoiding certain circumstances.

One such activity is prayer, a religious practice in which this belief is particularly strong. Many cultures and religions worldwide place a strong emphasis on a person's ability to influence their fortune by ritualistic means, sometimes involving sacrifice, omens or spells. Others associate luck with a strong sense of superstition, that is, a belief that certain taboo or blessed actions will influence how fortune favors them for the future.

Luck can also be a belief in an organization of fortunate and unfortunate events. Luck is a form of superstition which is interpreted differently by different individuals. Carl Jung described synchronicity: the "temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events". He described coincidences as an effect of a collective unconscious.

Christian and Islamic religions believe in the will of a supreme being rather than luck as the primary influence in future events. The degrees of this Divine Providence vary greatly from one person to another; however, most acknowledge providence as at least a partial, if not complete influence on luck. These religions, in their early development, accommodated many traditional practices. Each, at different times, accepted omens and practiced forms of ritual sacrifice in order to divine the will of their supreme being or to influence divine favoritism. The concept of "Divine Grace" as it is described by believers closely resembles what is referred to as "luck" by others.

Mesoamerican religions, such as the Aztecs, Mayans and Inca, had particularly strong beliefs regarding the relationship between rituals and luck. In these cultures, human sacrifice (both of willing volunteers and captured enemies) was seen as a way to please the gods and earn favor for the city offering the sacrifice. The Mayans also believed in blood offerings, where men or women wanting to earn favor with the gods, to bring about good luck, would cut themselves and bleed on the gods' altar.

Many traditional African practices, such as voodoo and hoodoo, have a strong belief in superstition. Some of these religions include a belief that third parties can influence an individual's luck. Shamans and witches are both respected yet feared, based on their ability to cause good or bad fortune for those in villages near them.

Luck as a placebo

Some encourage the belief in luck as a false idea, but which may produce positive thinking, and alter one's responses for the better. Others, like Jean Paul Sartre and Sigmund Freud, feel a belief in luck has more to do with a locus of control for events in one's life, and the subsequent escape from personal responsibility. According to this theory, one who ascribes their travails to "bad luck" will be found upon close examination to be living risky lifestyles. On the other hand, people who consider themselves "lucky" in having good health may be actually reaping the benefits of a cheerful outlook and satisfying social relationships, both of which are well known statistically to be protective against many stress-related diseases[citation needed]. If "good" and "bad" events occur at random to everyone, believers in good luck will experience a net gain in their fortunes, and vice versa for believers in bad luck. This is clearly likely to be self-reinforcing. Thus, although untrue, a belief in good luck may actually be an adaptive meme.


**********************************************************************************

I used to think I was a rationalist... until I started playing poker. I am now convinced that I am the unluckiest poker player on earth.

Seriously.

"There's the world and then there is me"

The title says it all...if you believe Phil Hellmuth. No matter what you think about the guy, there is no denying his appeal for tv audiences. No doubt ESPN realizes this as they turned his final table appearance into 2 hours and he finished 6th. He made a bad call against Beth Shak to bust out. Don't know why he called except maybe he though he was in the lead. Then he is bemoaning the fact she called his raise from the big blind with KQs. As Norman Chad kept saying, she was in the bb, the chip leader and was getting 2.5 to 1 to call. Phil would have made the call and so would have everyone else in her position.

I do wonder how he acted during his final table when he won his 11th bracelet. Streamed over the Internet with a time delay and sequestered from the public, I wonder if he acted the same. Guess I should have paid to watch the stream.

I guess Phil's quote could also apply to the new home run king Barry Bonds. We all know he took steroids and cheated his way into the record books. What's worse than him being a cheat though is the fact that the guy is the biggest A-Hole in the game. The only good thing about him breaking the record is that I won a bet with the donkey bettor NBA who now owes me $110 and must do the following:

He has to kneel down before me while stating with his head down to the ground he is ashamed to have ever doubted me and that he will never make that mistake again. Then hand me my money and kiss my hand and profess his stature as the world's biggest donkey and worst prop bettor of all-time. This also must be done in the presence of the always beautiful and dignified Mrs. NBA!!!!!!! Ship it Beotch!!!

WPT Foxwoods Classic = Worst display of poker ever

So last night as usual I plopped my fast ass down to watch the WPT on the Travel Channel. Up this week was the Foxwoods Poker Classic and I sat to watch 4 unknowns, FT bubble boy from the 2006 WSOP ME Fred Goldberg (Who won a bracelet this year and seems like a genuinely nice guy) and Mr. Tight himself Allen Kessler. I have never seen such horrendous play at a televised final table in my life. Way too many examples of poor play, missed bets, wrong reads and lucky rivers to write about. I can't even begin to go into detail but everyone at the final table played poorly except for Kessler who went out early when he took a sick beat to finish 6th when his opponent made a loose call and went runner runner for the straight. Some motel owner named Raj Patel who entered as the chip leader took it down but not after getting extremely lucky on 2 hands and the old guy Matteo, well don't even get me started on him. He got lucky when Goldberg pussed out and didn't call him in a battle of the blinds when Matteo limped from the SB with 54 and Goldberg checked with A6. Flop came A93 and Matteo instantly goes all (rainbow board) in with a gutshot and Goldberg folds. Sexton couldn't believe it and neither could I.

Anyways, I think next week is the WPT championship and there we can see the Great Matador himself Juan Carlos Mortensen take down the title and end the season in grand fashion.

One thing I love about poker is that anyone can play as long as you pay but when you see junk like that last night, it makes me think that maybe a professional league akin to the PGA might be cool to see. Don't get me wrong, I like the WPT and WSOP but a pro league where you have to meet certain qualifications to be a member of and have sponsors and the whole bit would be awesome. I think for poker to keep growing and to gain mainstream acceptance this is needed. Won't happen because of the stigma still attached and the current U.S. government stance but it would be nice to see the world class players battle it out week in week out. Also the league could mix it up and not exclusively be NLH. The recent ESPN airing of the 5k Omaha Hi with rebuys event was fantastic and had big names to go along with it. They did it justice by making it 2 hours also. Good Job ESPN!!!