Bad rolls....

[androd]

There are 3 aspects to luck. The chronically unlucky, those to whom luck tends to even out, and the chronically lucky. The last two do not tend to believe in this theory. They don't believe because they just don't see it.

The other group, well, they are why there is a thing called Murphy's Law. If it can go wrong, it will. They get more than their share of the short end of the stick.

I happen to fall in the last category. I have often wondered if Murphy is some ancestor with dominant genes. Now, being in the unlucky group, I can relate to it, and expain some of it, in pool that is.


Doing that, your mental game improves, and then your actual game improves. When that happens, less bad things happen.

I firmly believe some people are luckier doing some things, and vice-versa. I subscribe to "O'tooles law" he said Murphy was an optimist ! your post is right on point as to how to deal with it.

 

[swrooster]

The Balls Know!!!

I firmly believe some people are luckier doing some things, and vice-versa. I subscribe to "O'tooles law" he said Murphy was an optimist ! your post is right on point as to how to deal with it.

When you control the table the luckier you get. It is uncanny, the balls seem to know and gravitate the good rolls towards the player doing a better job of controling the table. That is after years of observation, good rolls and bad rollsabout equel

 

[Island Drive]

I've actually tried to use this as a learning experience. I take them well the first hour or so but I have to say they broke me down by the end of the night. Giving weight and getting bad rolls gets a little disasterous. Like I said though I try to use this time to bring my mental game up a few notches.

Expect nothing, just watch, process the informantion in front of you without complaining and you'll learn that much quicker. You've used the phrase "tried to use this as a learning experience"...every experience IS a learning experience...your phase shows me a problem. "They broke me down" like who are THEY, it sounds too me like they are YOU...I know I'm always the toughest player to beat when I'm at the table. Disasterous, another word...sounds too me like you've still got some growing to do...I mean no harm here, your above statement crying out with "personal issues".

 

[shinigami]

When you control the table the luckier you get. It is uncanny, the balls seem to know and gravitate the good rolls towards the player doing a better job of controling the table. That is after years of observation, good rolls and bad rollsabout equel

I noticed that too as well.

Neil also makes a valid point as well. If you would visualize all the people in the world and calculated their luck and charted it on a graph, I'm pretty sure that it would like a bell curve. Most people (~68%) would have luck that even out more or less. As you go towards the ends of the curve, there would be some people that are really lucky and really unlucky. Although the population as a whole might have luck close to break even, there are people bound to be luckier than others. Am I not applying statistics correctly here?

So don't discount all the seemingly unlucky people and say "this guy's just looking for excuses". I'm just saying that mathematically it really is possible to have very lucky people and, on the flipside of it, very unlucky souls.

Adam <-- thinks he's around the middle so far in his life.

 

[speakers]

They say that the bad rolls even-out with the good ones, but I don't know who THEY were. Most the bad rolls I got over the years were do to my shooting errors. Bad rolls like hitting a ball while trying to go down the table, scratching on the 9 or 8-ball because I didn't play position while shooting the last ball, or getting too close to your next ball. Bad rolls probably even out for the pro player, but not the average Joe. We tend to only remember the BAD rolls anyway. The GOOD rolls we tend to feel we did them with skill....NOT. Johnnyt

Agreed! It's like if I think about what could go wrong, then it does. I'll eyeball the shot and the table and say "okay, don't scratch in the far corner" and sure sh*t, I'll scratch right in that far corner! I'm working on trying NOT to think negatively, but rather positively "okay, put some draw on it and the cue ball will hit the rail right THERE!", but then that stupid negative thought will pop up "DON'T SCRATCH!" and then my brain goes "D-oh! :slap: Don't think like that!".

 

[androd]

Agreed! It's like if I think about what could go wrong, then it does. I'll eyeball the shot and the table and say "okay, don't scratch in the far corner" and sure sh*t, I'll scratch right in that far corner! I'm working on trying NOT to think negatively, but rather positively "okay, put some draw on it and the cue ball will hit the rail right THERE!", but then that stupid negative thought will pop up "DON'T SCRATCH!" and then my brain goes "D-oh! :slap: Don't think like that!".

negative thoughts lead to negative results, it's uncanny but true.

 

[ShootingArts]

the subconscious

Agreed! It's like if I think about what could go wrong, then it does. I'll eyeball the shot and the table and say "okay, don't scratch in the far corner" and sure sh*t, I'll scratch right in that far corner! I'm working on trying NOT to think negatively, but rather positively "okay, put some draw on it and the cue ball will hit the rail right THERE!", but then that stupid negative thought will pop up "DON'T SCRATCH!" and then my brain goes "D-oh! :slap: Don't think like that!".

I read a book that claimed that the subconscious only understood absolutes. Meaning that as far as your subconscious is concerned there is no difference between thinking "Don't SCRATCH" and "SCRATCH". No idea if this is true or just psycho babble but it surely seems true. I try to visualize the positive result I want to happen including the exact path of the cue ball after contact. I'll actually trace the path with my eyes if it is a tricky shot. Seems to work every time, well except when I scratch!!

Hu

 

[enzo]

Time to pump up the mental game as you are doing and think positive. If you are getting an unusual number of genuine bad rolls the pendulum has to swing the other way too!

Hu

that's actually not true, it would be time just for the same percentage of chance to get bad rolls as any other time, much like flipping a coin. if you happened to flip 1 million heads in a row that would not mean you are bound to flip a crap load of tails in the near or distant future. anyway......

to the op, ITS ALL IN YOUR HEAD. haha, i know you dont believe me, that's ok. i bet about 80% of your "bad rolls" came after you did something wrong and he shouldn't have had a chance to get lucky in that spot. i always see this, a guy misses the 8, his opponent comes up and makes the 8 and misses the 9 yet leaves it super tough and the guy complains he's rolling bad.

when this subject comes up i always refer people to mike sigel's pool in the 80's. you see, sigel sis one thing (at least) FAR better than a guy like efren...... a player like efren thinks there is ALWAYS an executable way out, safe or otherwise. sigels instincts always told him why try and say roll a touchy little safety when i can slam this bank 100mph, maybe luck it in and maybe get safe......you see, the percentages are there. just because a player isn't playing every little bit of what happens on a pool table doesnt necessarily mean he was lucky. sigel would also go for just strait out slaming a combo on the 9 when in a bad spot.

 

[ironman]

Sounds like you're playing too much 9 ball. I've seen great players get blanked by average players playing 9 ball.

Everyone has nights where no matter what you do wrong, you will be rewarded for it. I've had nights recently where I've only missed 2 or 3 balls, but never left an out, and blanked my opponent.

I've also had nights where I've missed 2 or 3 balls, left an easy out, and got beat 10-1.

The pool gods are fickle, and they never stay loyal to anyone.

NOt for those who depend on luck or don't know the difference.

 

[poolstar31]

I read a book that claimed that the subconscious only understood absolutes. Meaning that as far as your subconscious is concerned there is no difference between thinking "Don't SCRATCH" and "SCRATCH". No idea if this is true or just psycho babble but it surely seems true. I try to visualize the positive result I want to happen including the exact path of the cue ball after contact. I'll actually trace the path with my eyes if it is a tricky shot. Seems to work every time, well except when I scratch!!

Hu

I heard the same thing.

 

[ShootingArts]

I know that is the claim, but it can't be true both ways

that's actually not true, it would be time just for the same percentage of chance to get bad rolls as any other time, much like flipping a coin. if you happened to flip 1 million heads in a row that would not mean you are bound to flip a crap load of tails in the near or distant future. anyway......

Enzo,

I do know that is the claim however if there is a true 50/50 chance of the coin landing on either side then the law of odds should catch up with it sooner or later and the other side get hot. Otherwise there wasn't a 50/50 chance to begin with. If I remember correctly a test with a two state random generator to simulate flipping a coin had a high run of one state in the low twenties after many thousands of tries with several runs close to that. Regardless, if you run the test long enough and the odds are 50/50 that has to be the end result or extremely close to it.

Your hypothesis is false in the basic statement since you can't have 50-50 odds and a different result after a million tries. However, in the case of a player's perception he can just as easily see himself as on a lucky streak as an unlucky one if he starts paying the most attention to good luck instead of bad. Pool luck is something we make, good or bad. Years ago I had a ten or twelve year run of good luck. Before that I had a year or two of bad luck while I was cutting my teeth. I made the good luck, I made the bad luck too.

Hu

 

[androd]

I read a book that claimed that the subconscious only understood absolutes. Meaning that as far as your subconscious is concerned there is no difference between thinking "Don't SCRATCH" and "SCRATCH". No idea if this is true or just psycho babble but it surely seems true. I try to visualize the positive result I want to happen including the exact path of the cue ball after contact. I'll actually trace the path with my eyes if it is a tricky shot. Seems to work every time, well except when I scratch!!

Hu

The book said only absolutes, you said it seems true, yet you try to visualize positive results as opposed to negative ones. Sort of a oxymoron. I'm by nature a pessimist, but i also try to visualize postive things, so i can't believe the book. I say again, negative thoughts create negative results, USUALLY BEFORE I SCRATCH !
rodney

 

[enzo]

Enzo,

I do know that is the claim however if there is a true 50/50 chance of the coin landing on either side then the law of odds should catch up with it sooner or later and the other side get hot. Otherwise there wasn't a 50/50 chance to begin with. If I remember correctly a test with a two state random generator to simulate flipping a coin had a high run of one state in the low twenties after many thousands of tries with several runs close to that. Regardless, if you run the test long enough and the odds are 50/50 that has to be the end result or extremely close to it.

Your hypothesis is false in the basic statement since you can't have 50-50 odds and a different result after a million tries. However, in the case of a player's perception he can just as easily see himself as on a lucky streak as an unlucky one if he starts paying the most attention to good luck instead of bad. Pool luck is something we make, good or bad. Years ago I had a ten or twelve year run of good luck. Before that I had a year or two of bad luck while I was cutting my teeth. I made the good luck, I made the bad luck too.

Hu

your initial assertion was "you're getting bad rolls now, but chear up, you'll get the same amount of good rolls one day"

quick and simple, here's why i disagree, politely disagree

first, according to your own way if thinking, he MAY have been getting good rolls before he got into this streak of supposedly bad rolls. in fact, this would make perfect sense because the player may "think" or "feel" he's rolling bad cus he was so used to getting good rolls.
so with your way of thinking, in that case, he would NOT have any good rolls to look forward to, right? so that was a bad assumption for you to make i think.

second, let's just say for the sake of argument (to make things simple) that a guy starts playing pool and the first 500 times he comes to the table he gets what we would call bad rolls. this 500 bad rolls, as far as the stats are concerned, will really not be inclined to equal out. the reason you think they will is that over the years, yes, his percentage of getting unlucky will go down, and down, and down..... just because the sample size is getting so big compared to the 500........ but the 500 bad rolls will always be there, slightly favoring his percentage, if only by say .001%, to unfavorable rolls as a result of that 500. statistically, there is no reason to think he will get those 500 bad rolls "back" or make up for them though..... again, i feel the reason you think this is true is just due to the nature of the sample sizes..... a guy plays pool 10 years and yes, his percentage will be close enough to 50 50 to be negligable.

and if your're argument will be "well, he got the 500 bad rolls, maybe he'll get a really good streak and even out the 500 bad ones" well, you have to consider it would be just as likely he get 500 more bad as 500 good after the initial 500 bad, haha, confusing but true.

again, what the op was talking about was an aberration, or uncanny streak of bad rolls. if we assume he did get an unusually long streak of bad rolls, there is really no reason to think he will "get these back," again, he's just as likely to get another bad streak as he is to get a streak of good ones, as you assert he will (or should).

so, going back to the initail, easier to understand example, if i flipped a heads with a coin 1 million times in a row, no matter how many times i flipped it after that, there is no reason to think that this aberration within the stats will ever disappear. the reason for all this is, what we see as close enough to 50-50 (say 49.92% to 50.08%) can and will be even scientifically significant if the sample size is large enough. in other words, that 1 million heads in a row may appear to diverge toward 50-50, but as the sample size got large enough, even very small differences in the percentages would be deemed significant.

 

[ShootingArts]

two things

Enzo,

Two things:

One this is what I initially said, not your translation:
(included text)
It isn't impossible to have an ugly streak of bad rolls entirely not our doing but often when we really think about it the bad rolls are mostly our fault. Of course we take more note of the bad rolls and less of the good when we feel that we are on an unlucky streak too. Mostly I feel we make our own luck.

Time to pump up the mental game as you are doing and think positive. If you are getting an unusual number of genuine bad rolls the pendulum has to swing the other way too!
(end included text)

The other thing to remember is that for something to be truly fifty-fifty odds they have to equal out. There is no option because that is how you have defined the odds. If they don't even out then the odds were not fifty-fifty. I respectfully suggest that you are the one guilty of an oxymoron here, fifty-fifty odds that don't work out to fifty-fifty over time. By your definition long runs of one result have to be as likely as long runs of the other result. If this hasn't happened in a million tries or more as you describe, your original statement of odds was flawed.

Genuine fluke good and bad rolls do even out over time. However the vast majority of good and bad rolls are controlled by the players as I indicated in my first post. Many of the people I played with considered me extremely lucky. I even remember playing a pro for a short time that thought they had a better chance in a long session because I was getting lucky rolls. I hadn't played in a year or two and my rolls were getting luckier every minute I played.

As a gambler, I not only gave myself a lot of lucky rolls and my opponent a lot of bad ones, I occasionally gave myself a bad roll to keep them thinking they were in the game and not simply accursed and the only one who had bad luck.

Hu

your initial assertion was "you're getting bad rolls now, but chear up, you'll get the same amount of good rolls one day"

quick and simple, here's why i disagree, politely disagree

first, according to your own way if thinking, he MAY have been getting good rolls before he got into this streak of supposedly bad rolls. in fact, this would make perfect sense because the player may "think" or "feel" he's rolling bad cus he was so used to getting good rolls.
so with your way of thinking, in that case, he would NOT have any good rolls to look forward to, right? so that was a bad assumption for you to make i think.

second, let's just say for the sake of argument (to make things simple) that a guy starts playing pool and the first 500 times he comes to the table he gets what we would call bad rolls. this 500 bad rolls, as far as the stats are concerned, will really not be inclined to equal out. the reason you think they will is that over the years, yes, his percentage of getting unlucky will go down, and down, and down..... just because the sample size is getting so big compared to the 500........ but the 500 bad rolls will always be there, slightly favoring his percentage, if only by say .001%, to unfavorable rolls as a result of that 500. statistically, there is no reason to think he will get those 500 bad rolls "back" or make up for them though..... again, i feel the reason you think this is true is just due to the nature of the sample sizes..... a guy plays pool 10 years and yes, his percentage will be close enough to 50 50 to be negligable.

and if your're argument will be "well, he got the 500 bad rolls, maybe he'll get a really good streak and even out the 500 bad ones" well, you have to consider it would be just as likely he get 500 more bad as 500 good after the initial 500 bad, haha, confusing but true.

again, what the op was talking about was an aberration, or uncanny streak of bad rolls. if we assume he did get an unusually long streak of bad rolls, there is really no reason to think he will "get these back," again, he's just as likely to get another bad streak as he is to get a streak of good ones, as you assert he will (or should).

so, going back to the initail, easier to understand example, if i flipped a heads with a coin 1 million times in a row, no matter how many times i flipped it after that, there is no reason to think that this aberration within the stats will ever disappear. the reason for all this is, what we see as close enough to 50-50 (say 49.92% to 50.08%) can and will be even scientifically significant if the sample size is large enough. in other words, that 1 million heads in a row may appear to diverge toward 50-50, but as the sample size got large enough, even very small differences in the percentages would be deemed significant.

 

[enzo]

The other thing to remember is that for something to be truly fifty-fifty odds they have to equal out.

This is just not true and perhaps the reaon i keep posting. if you flip a coin 20 times and get 20 heads, there is NO REASON whatsoever to assume that will counteract toward tails somehow.... the reason being that the next flips are 100% independant from those first 20 flips. if we flip the coin 1000 times after the first 20, the odds will be VERY close to 50-50, yes, but the point you are obviously missing is that the total will PROBABLY (not fore sure) favor the heads as we had an aberrant first 20 flips and the coin MAY "make up" toward tails, but it has just as likely a chance of coming up with more heads in the final 1000. see where you are going wrong yet?? again, the main point here lies in the likely VERY SMALL percentage toward the heads. it will be a small percentage, but there is no reason to think you'll get this small percentage back as you have indicated. you can ask a statistician if youd like.

and, that is what we are talking about here, an abberrnat streak of bad rolls (analogous to the 20 heads). there is no reason to think these will equal out as the rolss for the rest of his life will be 100% independant from those (in other words, probably 50-50, but that doesn't counteract the bad streak, right?).

that is simply all there is to it. where you are going wrong is thinking "it has to be 50-50", but the scenario we are describing is not 50-50, its an aberration..... and again, statistically speaking, there is no reason to think you'll receive the opposite end of this aberration (or in other words get those rolls back).

 

[enzo]

The other thing to remember is that for something to be truly fifty-fifty odds they have to equal out.

This is just not true and perhaps the reaon i keep posting. if you flip a coin 10 times and get 10 heads, there is NO REASON whatsoever to assume that will counteract toward tails somehow.... the reason being that the next flips are 100% independant from those first 10 flips. if you flip the coin 1000 times after those first ten, the result will PROBABLY lean slightly toward heads becasue it was 50-50 after the first 10.

so, as i said, if a guy comes to the table for his first 500 innings and gets 500 bad rolls, there is no reason to think this will equal out as all after that is independant (ie 50-50). it could equal out, but it just as easily could lean toward getting slightly more bad rolls too.

and, that is what we are talking about here, an abberrnat streak of bad rolls (analogous to the 10 heads). there is no reason to think these will equal out as the rolss for the rest of his life will be 100% independant from those.

that is simply all there is to it. where you are going wrong is thinking "it has to be 50-50," yet to achieve true 50-50 probability probably assumes an infinite sample size. we have a finite sample size with ephemeral abberations.... and we are assuming an abberration, you have to remember unless you get to infinity there is no reaon to assume it will counterbalance toward the good! but the scenario we are describing is not 50-50, its an aberration..... and again, statistically speaking, there is no reason to think you'll receive the opposite end of this aberration (or in other words get those rolls back). the truth is it doesnt matter, but technically i am right, haha (sticking tongue out).

to settle this, answer this...... if a guy did happen to come to the table his first 500 innings and get 500 bad rolls...... would you bet on this evening out to exactly 50-50 over the years, slightly favoring bad rolls, or slightly favoring good rolls in total????? the answer that youd bet on there is the anwer to our question. the answer is, you should bet on slightly favoring bad rolls because all the rolls after the first 500 were 100% independant. you are mst likely to win that bet, and what that translates to in our conversation is the good rolls probably would not "catch up."

 

[akaTrigger]

Don't judge it. Not a good roll or a bad roll.

 

[pooltchr]

. Most the bad rolls I got over the years were do to my shooting errors...... We tend to only remember the BAD rolls anyway. The GOOD rolls we tend to feel we did them with skill....NOT. Johnnyt

You wanna help me teach that to some of my students??? :thumbup:

The laws of physics are not suspended just because you get to the table. Everything the balls do after you shoot is a direct result of what you did when you hit the cue ball with your stick.

Steve

 

[Ktown D]

I don't really subscribe to the "bad roll" theory when I am at the table. When something goes foul when I am shooting it is typically due to me screwing something up. The only true exception to this is when I squat the CB on the break and a ball cames along and kicks it in the freakin side and that riles me occasionally.

I have to really focus on not letting an opponent's great luck effect me though. I sometimes find myself getting irritated watching someone who is a lesser player smack the ball and it goes 2 rails off 2 balls and he gets shape. The guy that rolls the money ball in on a slam shot irks me a little as well. I can't control any of that but it tears me up sometimes and it effects me negatively.

That being said................while the balls are rolling funny for you George, I'll take that 8 again.

 

[alstl]

I was watching an accustats video with Efren playing, Incardona and DiLiberto commenting. Efren tried to billiard a ball, got a double kiss and made the ball. Billy said "Efren is blessed" to which Danny made an excellent reply. Danny said that he has found over the years that when you are playing well you get the rolls, when you are dogging it you aren't ever going to get a roll.