Jumping Frog,Jumping Frog wrote:While I agree that the betting and play of the hand is critical, even the best in the game need to be lucky as well.slr001 wrote:You don't need the best hand to win... Bet sizing, betting patterns, etc... Yeah getting dealt 72offsuit all night long would be "unlucky"...
It is what you do with the hands that is important.
All anyone has to do is spend a few evenings watching the WSOP "Main Event", and you constantly see PRO players making the correct bet if you look at the percentages, and then getting a bad beat by the opponent's lucky draw at the river. I've seen a low pair go "all-in" after the flop against trip aces. No one can dispute the trip aces are a heavy favorite. Then I've seen the low pair get a full house with the turn and river.
Skill improves the odds, but I don't believe for an instant that it eliminates probabilities and luck.
I hate to continue this off topic Poker talk, but... (tldr)
I agree with most of what you said. But most professional poker players (and I am not a pro) chalk the situation you described up to variance, not luck. First of all there are two ways to have 3 aces. 2 in your hand and one on the board (called a "set") and one in your hand and 2 on the board (called "trips"). While both result in you having 3 aces, the former is much stronger for many reasons. The math says that a set of aces is going to get beat x% of the time. That isn't luck, that is statistics.
If you had a 6 sided dice, and needed to roll a 6 to win some money. 5 times out of 6 you are going to lose. If it costs you a dollar to play, and you can win 2 dollars, then you will lose 5 times or 5 dollars and win once for 2 dollars in 6 tries. Over a large sample size these are the expected results. It isnt about getting lucky and rolling a 6. That would be a bad game to play. Now if the game is the same, but it is bet 1 dollar to win 10 dollars. every 6 rolls on average you would lose 5 and win 10. So you would do roll those dice till your arm falls off.
All of that is to show that a set of aces losing to 2 small cards is not being unlucky. If a set of aces lose 16% of the time they are played (using equilab by pokerstrategy.com) AA vs random low cards on a flop of A54, AA wins 83.72% and loses 16.28%. So as long as the bet sizes are such that I win money more often that I lose... Give me 3 aces vs two small cards against the "luckiest" player in the world ALL DAY LONG. And I will print money. I could give plenty more examples... your AA vs my XX both clubs on a flop of Axx (two clubs)... I have a 25% chance to win if the bet is 10 to win 100 and I catch my club 1 out of 4 times I call all day long. And when I catch my club and beat you, I didnt get "lucky". You on the other hand make the bet 100, into a 100 dollar pot. Then I don't have the proper odds to call and I must fold my hand, and your aces win.
It isn't about getting "lucky" on a single hand, it is a game that needs to be looked at as making the correct decisions over a larger sample size. It is a game of math. And the casino IS NOT A PARTICIPANT.