Paul Bernhardt wrote:
>
> Gary Carson said on 3/28/03 5:45 AM:
>
> >I play a lot of poker. The result of any individual hand is whether I
> >win or lose a pot. And as long as I have the process right -- make
> >the right decisons in the play of the hand -- the particular outcome
> >in terms of turn of the cards simply doesn't matter. If I get the
> >process right (and am well bankrolled) eventually I'll get the money.
>
> I'm a serious Bridge addict, traveling to play in tournaments and I teach
> it. One of the things we say is "don't pay attention to results, pay
> attention to good playing decisions." We know the people who never really
> improve, they are too focused on results instead of making good
> decisions. Over time, you'll score better in the game if you are
> consistantly applying good methods, improving your methods, even though
> on any give hand you can get 'fixed' by a bad lay of the cards. If you
> adjust your methods each time you get a bad result you'll never develop
> good methods.
Isn't there a QC teaching expreriment (by Deming?) designed to make
this point - that the strategy of chasing your last error is not as good
as a consistent one?
-Robert Dawson
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
