World Snooker Championships Discussion

[armstm]

even the probability of a kick is not "luck" as a lot of kicks are caused by poor cueing (according to hendry).

ronnie gets kicks less often than others, is this luck? no, because he cues so smoothly, doesn't strike down on the cueball etc.

It does seem like the probability of a kick has increased, this will alter the probabilities of the outcomes for any given shot and any change, like this, will mess with any unconscious pattern based bias as mentioned in my novel above.

[nrage]

even the probability of a kick is not "luck" as a lot of kicks are caused by poor cueing (according to hendry).

ronnie gets kicks less often than others, is this luck? no, because he cues so smoothly, doesn't strike down on the cueball etc.

I think cueing is a large factor in kicks. Chalk on the balls at the contact point definitely has an effect, you can prove this by putting chalk on the contact point of the object ball and playing a shot. The composition of the balls could have an effect too, if the material is changed to something "bouncier" then the balls will bounce more, obviously, but this increases the amount of time they're in the air and the chance of a kick. So, there are likely loads of effects which all add together to give kicks. It's another complex unpredictable system.

[nrage]

also worth considering is the nrage point. if you go into the pack, there are ways to play it to improve your odds. yes, on an individual shot, it is still luck whether you finish on one, but over 19 frames, if you do it in a way that is 60/40 rather than 40/60 then you are going to be "luckier" more often.

when u listen to hendry he is very specific about the type of cannon he wants to play when going into the pack, the pace used, the spin on the cueball etc.

Exactly. When I said "luck" didn't exist I should have been clearer in that I meant a person doesn't have a certain amount of a thing called "luck". You can still be lucky or unlucky if there are various possible outcomes and the one you want is likely, or unlikely and you do or don't get it. This luck is the statistical kind, getting the unlikely result when you most need it is lucky statistically.

[armstm]

according to cuetracker, maguire has played 4397 frames in his career. i am not sure what the average number of shots he would have, but called it 30 shots / frame. this is 132,000 shots in his career. the probability of luck being important over 132,000 shots must be near zero.

[CueInAction]

Not really. "Lucky" and "unlucky" exists purely in the eyes of the beholder, the reality is simply cause, event, and probability. The universe does not "have it in" for certain individuals, and "bless" others, it acts at a predictable (if highly complex) way (at least at a macroscopic level).

Thought I'd quote one of your smaller posts to save space but am replying regarding all previous posts.

Excellent statisticians view of luck, but consider this: If all outcomes are played and recorded over an infinite sample size there would be no apparent luck. The issue arises in that human life is not infinite and in the example of snooker, the sample size of shots played even over a lifetime is very small in comparison to the total number of outcomes possible, in part due to the number of variables having to be considered. Over a career there will be statistical outliers who lie above the mean. Would it not be right to say that they have been 'lucky'? Shorten the length of time to a tournament and we see that the sample size is now very very small in comparison. Over such small sample sizes some players will have significantly more favourable outcomes go their way, which can change the overall outcome in regards to winning the tournament. Surely it is right to say that that person has been more 'lucky in this (time frame) tournament'.

I understand your point that people tend to relate a persons luck with future outcomes, as obviously you understand outcomes are predetermined by a set of initial parameters or events. I think that 'luck myth' that you are debunking actually depends on how you see the definition of luck & that if you see luck as just 'lying outside of the statistical mean over a given sample size', then you can see that there is no myth.

[CueInAction]

according to cuetracker, maguire has played 4397 frames in his career. i am not sure what the average number of shots he would have, but called it 30 shots / frame. this is 132,000 shots in his career. the probability of luck being important over 132,000 shots must be near zero.

Not so, most poker players track their hands, tournaments etc and there is a wealth of information online about poker stats. There will be large statistical outliers over many thousands of tournaments. If you consider how many hands are played in each tournament we are talking about a figure in excess of how many shots you have calculated/estimated for Maguire over his career

[Sam1036]

Round One Review


Something to do before snooker comes on this morning

[CueInAction]

Annnnyway, back to the snooker

Kinda torn between which two matches to watch from this afternoons sessions. I think Murphy Dott will be a good match, probably with Murphy prevailing and setting up a quarter final clash with Trump. That said I'm wanting to see the end of the Robertson Milins match as its been closely fought so far. Looks like one on the tv, the other on the laptop

[nrage]

Excellent statisticians view of luck, but consider this: If all outcomes are played and recorded over an infinite sample size there would be no apparent luck. The issue arises in that human life is not infinite and in the example of snooker, the sample size of shots played even over a lifetime is very small in comparison to the total number of outcomes possible, in part due to the number of variables having to be considered. Over a career there will be statistical outliers who lie above the mean. Would it not be right to say that they have been 'lucky'?

Yes.

Shorten the length of time to a tournament and we see that the sample size is now very very small in comparison. Over such small sample sizes some players will have significantly more favourable outcomes go their way, which can change the overall outcome in regards to winning the tournament. Surely it is right to say that that person has been more 'lucky in this (time frame) tournament'.

Yes.

I understand your point that people tend to relate a persons luck with future outcomes, as obviously you understand outcomes are predetermined by a set of initial parameters or events. I think that 'luck myth' that you are debunking actually depends on how you see the definition of luck & that if you see luck as just 'lying outside of the statistical mean over a given sample size', then you can see that there is no myth.

I did make the mistake of being a bit unclear about what definition of "luck" I was saying didn't exist. Luck as you're describing it (outside statistical mean) does exist, but I would argue it is not "luck" as people commonly mean when they say "luck" because it is something you can affect with your actions, not an inherent property outside of our control.

For example, a players luck (over a career or sufficient sample size) can be affected by their shot selection, if they consistently pick shots with higher probabilities for desirable outcomes they will, over time, be luckier relative to players who don't select their shots as well. This skill may be unconscious pattern matching by the brain, but it's still a learned skill, not "luck" as commonly meant.

So.. the myth I am really debunking here is the common usage of the word "luck" to mean an inherent property of a person, entirely outside of their control that predicts future positive outcomes.

Excellent response BTW, I very much enjoyed reading it.

[daffie]

Annnnyway, back to the snooker

Kinda torn between which two matches to watch from this afternoons sessions. I think Murphy Dott will be a good match, probably with Murphy prevailing and setting up a quarter final clash with Trump. That said I'm wanting to see the end of the Robertson Milins match as its been closely fought so far. Looks like one on the tv, the other on the laptop

I am really looking forward to the Murphy - Dott match and of course later on the match between White and Poomjaeng!

[spike]

I would like to see Robertson v. Milkins go the distance. Though I feel Robertson will ultimately prove too strong..

[nrage]

I am really looking forward to the Murphy - Dott match and of course later on the match between White and Poomjaeng!

Me too... I think these two matches will be good. I am hoping the Robertson v Milkins match will show us some high quality snooker as well.

[vmax4steve]

For example, a players luck (over a career or sufficient sample size) can be affected by their shot selection, if they consistently pick shots with higher probabilities for desirable outcomes they will, over time, be luckier relative to players who don't select their shots as well. This skill may be unconscious pattern matching by the brain, but it's still a learned skill, not "luck" as commonly meant.

So Hendry splitting the pack from the blue and making many frame clearances from such shots because he happened to get good position most of the time would make him choose to play that shot.
Meanwhile a player such as Marco Fu, who plays around the pack needling reds out one or two at a time, chooses to play this other more difficult, some would say dated, style of breakbuilding more suited to slow cloths and heavy balls.

So why do players like Fu choose to play this more difficult way ? surely with modern table conditions it is easier to split the reds hard, putting more space between them therefore making position easier to gain. Do you think that they have maybe learned over time that splitting the reds hard doesn't work as much for them as they get bad splits more often than not ?

[jonnylovessn8ker]

So Hendry splitting the pack from the blue and making many frame clearances from such shots because he happened to get good position most of the time would make him choose to play that shot.
Meanwhile a player such as Marco Fu, who plays around the pack needling reds out one or two at a time, chooses to play this other more difficult, some would say dated, style of breakbuilding more suited to slow cloths and heavy balls.

So why do players like Fu choose to play this more difficult way ? surely with modern table conditions it is easier to split the reds hard, putting more space between them therefore making position easier to gain. Do you think that they have maybe learned over time that splitting the reds hard doesn't work as much for them as they get bad splits more often than not ?

I think I might have an answer to this..
Fu is brought up in Vancouver and Hong Kong, both relatively humid places...Though both were something of a snooker hotbed in his youth, table maintenance or conditions were nowhere near those in UK. Heavier balls were used too.

If he were to play the "modern" style game, he may have found it much more difficult in developing his style and skill.

[daffie]

I would like to see Robertson v. Milkins go the distance. Though I feel Robertson will ultimately prove too strong..

Think so as well. Have to say I have renewed respect for Milkins after hearing his personal story.

Me too... I think these two matches will be good. I am hoping the Robertson v Milkins match will show us some high quality snooker as well.

First frame there still in progress...on the other table it's 1-1. Has a good feel about it, the Murphy Dott match...