Do Poker Rushes Exist?
had a story by Arthur Reber Playing the Rush recently that your ‘Dead Money’ blogger not only found fascinating but made me really get lost in this whole ‘Rushes’ question and if they really exist.
Since I started playing poker I have always believed in the Rush concept. You know what I mean. You win a couple hands and all of sudden you are not mucking that 7-2 off suit you were just dealt and you hit a set of ducks. I know I have fell into that situation often and I always thought it got me some chips. Now after reading Arthur’s story I am not so sure about the Rush.Â
Arthur makes to me very convincing points that the concept of a Rush is wrong mathematically. That the Rush is more a outgrowth of your own play improving when you win some hands and of other players at the table believing you are on a Rush and staying out of your way.
He made a comparison to athletes that seem to hit every shot or go on a tear at the plate. He discussed the ‘Hot Hand’ concept of a coach that feeds a shooter who seems to hit every shot. Also he mentioned the manager that adjusts the lineup to get the hot bat higher in the lineup so they might get more at bats.
Arthur talked about three reasons why a player would play a Rush.
1. Playing my rush because I’m ‘running good’
He details that most players believe this is accurate but they are wrong. He explains that what you are really saying is:
‘that you believe what happened in the past will continue into the future’
Mathematically this is wrong as each hand is independent of earlier hands Arthur explains.
Arthur wraps up the 1st reason by saying:
‘There is no increased likelihood of winning the next hand because you’ve been running good - just like there is no increased likelihood of losing the next hand if you’ve been running bad.
Arthur discusses the 2nd reason players play rushes.
2. Playing my Rush because I’m sharper when I’m winning
Arthur tells us that this reason is closer to a good reason. He lets us know that most players play better when winning. Winning increases confidence and aggressiveness.
So there is some reason to play a rush if your game is sharper than usual when you do. ‘this argument has nothing to do with being on a rush, if you are like most recreational players, your game is better when you are winning’
Arthur moves on to the 3rd reason players play rushes.
3. Playing my Rush because I can dominate the table.
Arthur tells us that this reason is the one that makes the most sense.
The key is that most players believe that rushes are real, that they will continue and that the ‘rusher’ is going to ride his wave of good fortune as long as he can. When someone goes on a serious rush a chorus of refrains will be heard from others at the table. ‘Man, you’re really on a roll no way am I playing a hand against you’ or ‘I am just going to stay out of your way for a while’
Essentially players will fear the ‘Rush’ and not be playing optimal poker and you can take advantage of it. But it is not because of the ‘Rush’.
Arthur ends the Rush discussion by telling of a study psychologist Amos Tversky did some years ago. Tversky was trying to analyze the ‘Hot Hand’ theory by charting every shot several basketball players took over a full season. He found little evidence of the ‘Hot Hand’ theory.
Players got hot about as often as a random number generator got hot. If a player shoots about 50% overall, we would expect to see a run of shots made and missed - and we can calculate just how many runs we ought to see and how long the runs should be.
The source for all the quotes in this blog is: Playing the Rush
The study by Tversky was really fascinating to me because it took your ‘Dead Money’ blogger back to his childhood when ‘Grandpa Joe’ introduced me to Lifetime averages. I was beside myself with worry when one of the veterans on my favorite Major
League Baseball team was only barely hitting above the ‘Mendoza’ line about 2 weeks into the season one year. ‘Grandpa Joe’ showed me the Lifetime Average on the back of the player’s baseball card and told me that by the end of the season the player would hit pretty close to his Lifetime Average. Sure enough the player did and I remembered that reading Arthur’s discussion of the ‘Hot Hand’ study by Amos Tversky.
Sadly, it also reminded your ‘Dead Money’ blogger that he will always be the ‘Dead Money’ at the poker table because my ‘Lifetime Average’ is ‘Dead Money’.
Feel free to add any Poker related comments, they are welcome always.
Poker, Just Poker Talk, Poker Rushes, Arthur Reber, Amos Tversky,



