Questions for the more advanced players

[diabloblanco]

I'm glad you're out of energy with this. I am also tired of arguing about it as well. However, I am confident that I am correct so I will not relent. You can say whatever you like about my level of intelligence, reasoning, or logic, in the end I am still right.

 

[xdmanx007]

You really need to look at it like this. When you shuffle the cards you randomize them, for our purposes anyway. Which resets the odds. So therefore you can not multiply the odds from one hand to the other not when you are dealing with a deck of cards. Now you can debate wether or not you can truelly randomize a deck of cards, but as it applies to POKER you can not look at it as though getting dealt the same hand 2 times in a row or 5million times in a row as any different. The odds are identical everytime they are dealt! Multiplying the odds from hand to hand has no practical application in poker.

 

[diabloblanco]

To add a layer to this let me extrapilate. If the odds change for consecutive hands, why does every poker book or statistical sheet have a set percentage listed for flopping specific hands such as a flush, trips, or a straight? If odds were multiplied each consecutive hand, these authors and experts wouldn't even bother formulating and printing them, due to the fact that it would only complicate players especially newbies.

 

[RammerJammer]

I'm sorry. I lied. I'm not done after all. I just cannot believe you guys are going to go down swinging with this thing when you haven't bothered to look it up for yourselves. Random occurences are random occurences. It doesn't matter whether it's poker cards or dice or what spot an apple will come to rest on when it falls from the tree. If the odds can be computed for the first random occurence, the odds of it happening twice in a row are arrived at by using this simple equation. Period.

You "flat-earthers" seriously need to do some googling on the subject. It blows my mind that you can be so absolutely convinced you're right when an entire branch of science says you're wrong. But the principle of the thing aside, you're going to be giving yourself bad information at the tables when you're playing, if you stick with this faulty theory.

Now I'm seriously done. I will not enter this thread again. Swear.

 

[diabloblanco]

Bye. Thanks for stopping by. However, since I know you're reading this I will say again: the fact is that each deal is statistically the same as the one before. Period. I understand I am the virtual new guy on the forum, but let me assure you, I am far from a rank amature. I posted this thread knowing the answer but not wanting to seem pretentious or cocky as I am new to the forum. I was only trying to help forum members who may be taking faulty information from here unknowingly.

Also, RammerJammer, what makes you so infinitely confident all of a sudden, when just days ago (or yesterday), you posted another thread that you, yourself called a "spinoff" of my thread where you were asking for odds on pocket pairs. If that particular concept escaped you, how is it that you are the picture of confidence about this subject? Please don't take this in an insulting manner, but if you are basing this on the arguments of others in this thread, you are misinformed. I am also curious where all the others that were vehemently arguing this point have gone. Have they asked someone they respect or know personally and received the news that they were incorrect? Did they search elsewhere and find the answer themselves? Or did they simply stop overthinking the subject and look at it for what it is?

 

[Nick]

I must say, this is the hottest debate to hit Cardschat yet! Nice work guys, hehe

 

[diabloblanco]

Thanks Nick. Just trying to keep it fresh man. Also, you should check out the new thread by RammerJammer entitled "The skinny on Probabilities." You will be surprised with the outcome. Looking forward to more great debates, haha.

 

[Four Dogs]

Diabloblanco, you haven’t made an incorrect statement, you just seem incapable of understanding the explanations that have been provided, and those people like icepari that agree with you have fallen into the same trap. You asked for advice from the advanced players, but the problem is that 1) you’ve lost a grip on your original question which dealt with players “bitching” about being dealt AA in 2 consecutive (the operative word) hands, 2) you asked for an advanced answer to a statistical problem but you yourself may not be advanced enough to understand the answer, and 3) you are so bogged down in your dislike for bpazjr that he could tell you that the sky is blue and you would argue the point. The truth is that every attempt by him to answer your ORIGINAL question has been (here’s the math again) 100% accurate. You just can’t get a grip on what he’s trying to say. Why? I have no idea, unless your just trying to "keep it Fresh", in which case, hats off.:icon_salu Either way, let's recap and see if the questions you posed originally have been answered correctly somewhere in the thread.



Diablo: Statistically, isn't the chance of being dealt a particular hand, be it AA or 88, the same for each hand dealt.

Bpazjr: The odds of drawing AA on any one hand is 1/221. It is a single event. The odds of drawing AA on the next hand are also 1/221, I agree. It is also a single event.

Diablo: Doesn't that mean, when simplified, that the odds of being dealt a particular hand no matter the rank don't fluctuate with number of consecutive hands?

Bpazjr: When you look at the odds of drawing AA 2 times in a row, then you are looking at a (more unlikely) single event, that event being AA coming up 2 times in a row, and the odds of that is 1/221 times 1/221, or 1/48841.

Diablo: Why all the complaining from people when opponents are dealt consecutive pocket pairs in online.

Four Dogs: The implication is that because the odds against that SINGLE event are so unlikely, the game must somehow be fixed. I wonder if they even notice when they get dealt 8,5os back to back.

Diablo: Am I completely wrong or right?

Four Dogs: Yes.

Diablo: I think xdman is the only person that understands what point I was trying to get at.

Four Dogs: No, icepari seems to understand too. You guys should start your own chatroom.

 

[diabloblanco]

Alright pal. How about you read a thread posted by RammerJammer called "the skinny on odds." My assesment of the situation was and still is exactly like I thought, correct. Odds don't change from hand to hand on particular hole cards being dealt. Simple. You can take your condescending manner somewhere else. Maybe what I wrote was not exactly clear or interpreted wrong, but the point I was making and still stick by, was correct. I am not the type to come on a board and insult the intelligence of others or to talk down to people, which is the exact reaction I gor from bpazjr, which is why he is now banned. I am not backing off my original post, nor am I "keeping it fresh", whatever the hell that means, I am simply saying that what I said was right. The fact that you want to prove me wrong so bad you can't stand it is immaterial.

 

[Four Dogs]

Alright pal. How about you read a thread posted by RammerJammer called "the skinny on odds." My assesment of the situation was and still is exactly like I thought, correct. Odds don't change from hand to hand on particular hole cards being dealt. Simple. You can take your condescending manner somewhere else. Maybe what I wrote was not exactly clear or interpreted wrong, but the point I was making and still stick by, was correct. I am not the type to come on a board and insult the intelligence of others or to talk down to people, which is the exact reaction I gor from bpazjr, which is why he is now banned. I am not backing off my original post, nor am I "keeping it fresh", whatever the hell that means, I am simply saying that what I said was right. The fact that you want to prove me wrong so bad you can't stand it is immaterial.

Condescending? You take that back!

 

[diabloblanco]

Touche.

 

[icepari]

Four Dogs pls man you seem smart.Pls understand He is right only if you look at being dealt AA twice in a row as a single event.But you can`t look at it this way.Just one questions what means in a row? You tell me if you draw AA will you have lower chance of drawing it after 1 month? Cause the last hand you played you draw it.Sorry but when you put the cards back in the game you have a very different situation and you can not multiply.
No matter what you think i asked my proffesor(MATH) .He said the same thing i am telling you now.Belive it or not!

I meant back in the deck :O)

 

[xdmanx007]

diabloblanco - Everyone can see what you are trying to say - yes the chances of getting any any 2 cards on any draw is the same, correct. Consecutive hands then obviously the odds have to multiply, its a basic math. The vast, vast majority of those that have posted have agreed on this theory, so your questoin has been answered

Yes you are right and you are wrong. Agree to disagree and move on

No No! When you play a card game you have to look at it as though the odds reset from hand to hand. Lets say a guy gets pocket aces, you are in a hand against him, the following hand would you factor in the fact that he just had aces. No of course not. Because he has the same chance of having that hand as the previous! The idea to is apply the concept to cards! That is the goal to become better card players!

 

[diabloblanco]

Thank-you icepari and xdmanx007. You guys are the only people that actually get it. And icepari, that last description was excellently worded. You hit the nail on the head.

 

[paradocks]

This really is just too ridiculous to continue, but me being the sucker I am thought I'd have a shot at it.

Diablo: no-one is saying you're wrong about the fact that the odds dont change, obviously. If you are dealt pocket aces for the first hand you play in then the next hand you play in you still have the same chance of picking up those aces again. I don't see how there can even be a debate about such a subject, everyone knows the answer.

Perhaps if I can make a small example going back to the dice thing, now everyone knows the chance of rolling a 6 is 1/6, because there are 6 possibilities...
you can roll a 1, or a 2, or a 3, or a 4, or a 5, or a 6 .. right?
So let's go back to something, the chance of rolling a 6 twice in a row are 1/36. You don't 'forget multiplying' because lets look at the simple inflated process, As with the first roll when it was a 1/6, now there are 30 other possibilities you could've rolled... let's go over these to make absolutely sure there is no confusion.

All 36 possibilities of two dice rolls:

1,1 - 1,2 - 1,3 - 1,4 - 1,5 - 1,6 - 2,1 - 2,2 - 2,3 - 2,4 - 2,5 - 2,6 - 3,1 - 3,2 - 3,3 - 3,4 - 3,5 - 3,6 - 4,1 - 4,2 - 4,3 - 4,4 - 4,5 - 4,6 - 5,1 - 5,2 - 5,3 - 5,4 - 5,5 - 5,6 - 6,1 - 6,2 - 6,3 - 6,4 - 6,5 - 6,6

So you see, the 36th possibilty we have is two sixes, ie. a 1/36 chance.

 

[diabloblanco]

You would be right, except were talking about a single six sided die, not two dice. One die representing one deck. Nice try though. ::golf clap::

One dice rolled once: 1/6 chance of rolling a 6.
One dice rolled again: still a 1/6 chance of rolling a 6.
Now imagine for a minute you roll a die, and a 6 comes up. Subsequently, you leave the die laying on the table for a month before coming back and rolling it again. When you return, the chances of rolling another 6 remain 1/6. Just because you were absent for a month, doesn't change the odds any more than waiting 2 minutes or 20 seconds. Each instance is a consecutice roll, spread out over different periods of time. The dice throwing example is simply an example used to illustrate a deck of cards as being an inanimate object with a pre-determined set of possibilities that do not fluctuate with consecutive deals.

Each time you shuffle and cut the cards, you are effectively performing a reset function on the deck. The odds of getting pocket Aces on hand number 1 are the same for hand 2, then 3, then 4, and so on.

Also, please read a thread by RammerJammer titled "the skinny on probabilities." It is a great thread ans is located on the front page in this section of the board.

 

[bubbasbestbabe]

God you guys are making my head ache. From what I am getting from this discussion is two different versions of odds. The only one that makes sense to me (and I admit that i don't know much about math) is the one where each occurance is a one time thing no matter how many times in a row it happens. Cards, dice, numbers have no memory and its a random occurrance when the combo comes up each and every time. The odds are the same, ie 1/6 for the die. This is a forward statistic. When you get it it in a row the odds change to how many times in a row and would be a past statistic and would change the odds for that past occurance.
Makes sense?

 

[diabloblanco]

You had me up until that last part, I didn't quite understand what you were trying to say. But if understand the first part of your post, you have the right idea. The deck is random on every individual shuffle so the odds do not increase or decrease for a particular hand no matter what hand was dealt previously.

Like I stated, RammerJammer posted a great link in his other thread called "the skinny on odds."

 

[bubbasbestbabe]

Ok here's what I am trying to say. The first part we agree with, nothing will change that. What I'm trying to say in the second half and what I think is throwing people off is that they are trying to use the odds to predict the future. So if you have gotten AA twice in a row they are saying " what are the odds that this will happen again " because they see it as a continuation of the play rather than a one time event each time.

 

[diabloblanco]

Yay! I get what you're saying and your premise is spot-on. If I can, ill try to simplify it a bit. Simply put, since there is no memory and the cards are randomized (shuffled) after every game, the chances remain the same for each deal. One cannot use the past games as a variable in determining future odds. Each hand is a seperate, independent occourance with identical odds as the previous and subsequent hands.

 

[Four Dogs]

Diablo, quick, make a prediction, before you've seen any cards. What are your odds of getting AA on exactly the 3rd and 7th hands dealt to you? Not on each of them. On both of them.

 

[diabloblanco]

Sarcasm is so last season. Seriously. Are you resorting to it because you haven't proven me wrong, or because people are finally understanding what the original idea of the thread was? Whatever the reason, it doesn't change the facts as they are.

 

[Four Dogs]

Sarcasm is so last season. Seriously. Are you resorting to it because you haven't proven me wrong, or because people are finally understanding what the original idea of the thread was? Whatever the reason, it doesn't change the facts as they are.

I wish there was a smiley for "no sarcasm". I would have used it. If your getting tired of your own thread, that's another matter. I'm asking an honest question.

 

[jeterkid925]

Who cares. the odds are slim as hell, just play poker,

 

[diabloblanco]

If my sarcas-o-meter went off without merit I apologize 4-dogs. I'm going to have to get the thing serviced. And to answer your question, I am a little weary, but I wil continue nonetheless. The odds on hand number one are 1/221, on hand three 1/221, on hand seven 1/221. In effect, the odds do not change for hands, three, seven, twelve, thirty-five, sixty-two, or one-hundred fifteen. The cards have no memory and each shuffle or randomization resets the odds of being dealt that hand. I do wish to keep this thread going as long as it takes, so keep posting and together we'll all get it straight.

I will say again; RammerJammer posted a great thread on this subject called "The Skinny on Probabilities." His thread hasn't gotten the attention that it deserves and the website he links to in it is full of information on this and other interesting and useful subjects.