Does luck exist? (pt. 2)

Objectively, there's no doubt that under fair conditions with a random shuffle, each hand is an individual event. Cards have no memory. The last hand is ancient history that has no bearing on the cards that hit the board this hand. Just because you won the last hand doesn't mean you should play your rush, because there's no such thing as a rush except in retrospect.

Cards show no favoritism and obey no master. Two bad beats in a row doesn't make the game rigged. Streaks happen, but their beginning and end can only be observed after they're over.

Luck is an illusion created to explain variance, that element of chance that sometimes causes good players to lose and donkeys to prosper. Over the long run, there is no such thing as luck. Over millions of hands, the best players will win the most money and the worst players will go bust.

I don't see any valid argument against the above statements.

Larry W. Phillips, the author of "Zen and the Art of Poker" suggests that when your luck is running cold, you should take lower risk decisions. When your luck is running hot, you should play more hands in hopes of taking advantage of your good streak, he says.

I believe those suggestions are nonsense, as a couple of commenters pointed out. Making the correct decision and maximizing your EV is almost always the right choice, even if you believe you have some kind of psychic knowledge that a bad beat will smack you on the river.

However...

I also don't think parts of Phillips' advice are completely without merit.

While a poker player should always strive to make the correct move based on his read of the situation, the trend of a table can build on itself, creating an illusion of luck.

For example, if a player tightens up and plays passively after suffering a beat, he may give an opponent free cards by calling rather than raising. If opponents at a table see that a player was bluffed once, they'll be more likely to attempt aggressive bluffs again. If you show that you'll only raise the nuts, your opponents will quickly learn to back down when you raise. If you always raise in position, your opponents will know that your hand range is wider than normal and play accordingly.

Unless you suspect what your opponents know and can empathize with their motives, you might think that your bad luck is accumulating. In fact, luck has nothing to do with it. In these situations, opponents are attempting to exploit your weaknesses.

It does get difficult, though, when you don't understand what is happening. When your opponent detects a flaw in your game that you aren't aware of, it may appear that you are suffering bad luck because you can't find an explanation for what's happening.

As the beats build up, tilt becomes more likely. Once you're on tilt, you can't blame luck anymore because you're beating yourself.

This is when some of Phillips' ideas could be applied logically.

If you're losing, play shorter sessions. Perhaps you're up against tougher competition than you initially believed. Maybe you're distracted. Maybe the table dynamics don't favor your style of play.

If you're winning, play longer sessions. You're likely playing well and confident that you will continue to triumph. As long as you're in the correct mind-set while also making the right decisions, there's a good chance your wins will accumulate.

It may help some players to think of whether and how they should play in terms of luck. But a stronger, more constructive line of reasoning -- as well as an acceptance of factors that may be beyond your control -- allows you to put yourself in better situations.