Is player A a nit if...
- Thread starter fan-tum
- Start date
Ridiculous. Do you also believe that if you flip a fair coin five times and it happens to come up heads five times in a row then on the next flip of the coin the probability of tails coming up is, say, 90%?
Last edited:
most people do not understand how probability works. the law of averages does work. but it doesnt change each individual event it just means as the amount of trials increases the percent will gravitate towards the original chances of the outcome.
Last edited:
Yes, but in the pool world being a nit is much, much worse than being a dumb ass or getting hustled.
whatever is best for me!
A nit is somebody that won't give me the game I want. On the other hand when I won't give them the game they want, I am a smart negotiator!
Hu
A nit is somebody that won't give me the game I want. On the other hand when I won't give them the game they want, I am a smart negotiator!
Hu
It's been many years since I studied statics, and I only use some now in my work. I do believe your post as well as the earlier one meant to refer to the Law of Large Numbers, not the Law of Averages. The former is an actual Law; the latter is a Belief, not a Law.
The Law of Large numbers states that as the sample size gets larger, the closer the outcome gets to the expected value.
The Law of Averages is a Belief that the expected outcome will "Average Out", and a large sample size is not required. This is not true in many cases.
Probability Theory says that any given condition can have a probable outcome. In the case of flipping a coin, the probability of each toss is 50/50, provided the coin is perfectly balanced and each side weighs the same.
I think this is stated correctly, but it's been a while. Dr. Dave could likely state it better and more accurately.
If that was me playing, player B would lose $60 since at that point I would stop playing with them. Sounds like a car salesman calling someone cheap if they did not chose to spend more on car with leather and clearcoat protection.
It's also different for random events vs something skilled like pool that only has a smaller luck factor (say a nice break layout or someone crapping in a 9 ball on a miss). If I knew the player was close to my level and I happened to beat them 3 sets in a row, I would feel that the chances of me continue to beat them is lower. If we are even in skill, there is an even chance of them winning 3 of 6 or me winning 3 of 6. Since I won my 3 already why tempt fate? The ability to choose when to stop is a big factor also, if we were forced to sit through 10 attempts that is one thing, but since we can quit at any time or adjust the money bet, that is a factor there as well. If you gave me $10 a roll, but if I lost I loose everything, after 3 wins I would feel my chances are not so good for the future to keep that money and I may quit, it does not matter if the next chance is the same 50/50 chance as the other 3, the more you play the more chance you have of eventually losing your money.
Last edited:
There’s something to be said about going in for the kill when you have someone on the ropes. The offer by your opponent for the chance to win $140 when you are only risking losing $20 is a temptation that most gamblers and pool players playing with confidence would not let slip away. Most would be willing to accept the risk for the possible bigger $ payoff despite the chance that they could win three out of four sets and still come out on the short end if they lose the final big $ set.
Just a few weeks ago two of our stronger players matched up for a few cheap $ sets before our weekly tournament. The player who I would consider the underdog won the first two sets to go up $40. His opponent, the stronger player, commented to him that he just couldn’t get excited about $20 sets and suggested they play the final set for $200. The player who was up $40 lost the final set, resulting in him being a $160 loser, but had no regrets. He knew exactly what he was getting himself in to.
Last edited:
You're risking losing $20 only relative to what you started with, but you're risking losing $80 given what you have now. So, in fact, you're risking losing $80 at even money, not winning $140 at 7-1 odds. And if the odds are in fact against your winning, then it's a sucker's bet.
I think most money players are looking at the W/L as it pertains to the overall entire session, not how much $ they are risking in one particular set. I’m not saying it’s the smart way to look at it, but I would say it is how the majority of them would look at it. They are looking at how much they could win in relation to how much they could lose, and a 7 to 1 odds $ payout in the final set is pretty darn tempting!
Last edited:
I agree that most money players (and indeed, most gamblers in general probably) think of it in terms of the session, but if your goal is to make money that's a mistake. It's also arbitrary in terms of the bottom line. Why not think of each set as a new session? Why not include the last session you played with this person as well? If the money is what matters then each bet is a new session.
The idea that you're getting 7 to 1 odds is a fallacy. You're getting even money on an $80 bet. If you win, you win $80. If you lose, you lose $80. And as I mentioned, if the other player is actually better than you, so that you're the dog playing for the $80, it's a sucker bet. Las Vegas was built on that.
What most people do not understand is that the laws of probability apply to independent random events, not a series of skill-based games.
If you flip a fair coin and it comes up heads each time the odds of coming up heads on the 11th flip are still 50-50.
If in 10 games of pool in a row one player wins all 10 it would be absurd to assert that the odds in game 11 are 50-50. Probability has nothing to do with it, demonstrated skill difference is what counts.
IMO, the true nit is the person who calls other people names for not doing what they want.
Yes I agree with this - why so many people here think that losing money that you already won and have in your pocket is NOT losing money is very strange math indeed. Glad I went through life understanding that 1+1 =2 and when you have only 1 left in your pocket then you lost 1- no matter how you obtained it to begin with. Gambling for most people has nothing to do with the money - that's the sickness of it for those that can't control it. For some people here to think that losing $60 that you won is not losing the money is a poor way to think about money in more ways than one.
Haha, so true!
I didn’t look forward to playing sets when I gambled.
But if I did, and I’m three sets up, and the guy wanted to now play for more than I was up...
...well, at sets, I always gave myself three barrels, so he better show me $240.
By the game, I wanted to see five barrels...it’s common for some gamblers to raise the
price when they’re low on cash....I aint going for it.
But if I did, and I’m three sets up, and the guy wanted to now play for more than I was up...
...well, at sets, I always gave myself three barrels, so he better show me $240.
By the game, I wanted to see five barrels...it’s common for some gamblers to raise the
price when they’re low on cash....I aint going for it.