-
Celebrate 20 Years of CardsChat with us! Over $3000 in freerolls, bonuses, and merchandise giveaways; click here to get in on the action!
diabloblanco
Legend
Silver Level
Also I just re-read the wording of your question and I believe I didn't adequately answer it. You were asking for the chances of hands 3 and 7 right? I'm going to assume this is the case. And to clarify, I can only say with certainty that the pre-dealt odds of pocket aces on hands three and seven are 1/221. Since the cards are randomized (shuffled) before each hand, the odds are reset therefore one cannot carry the numbers over from hand to hand or make predictions on future hands based on past occourances. Hope this clears it up.
Four Dogs
Legend
Silver Level
Jammer wants to go to bed. We'd better keep it down Diablo. Let me take the opportunity to apologize for any sarcasm, and or condescension, real or imagined. I must admit, I am enjoying this entirely too much. And as much as your math sucks, you do seem to be a good sport and a half decent writer. But as the question was posed, which to my best understanding is just a rephrasing of the original question, you’re wrong. I just know I can turn you to the dark side. Here’s why, when you specify an exact hand, AA, along with its exact location in time, hands 3 and 7, your making a prediction with a greater number of factors then when you merely call it for say, hand 1. It’s like calling the 9 ball in the corner pocket off the break vs. the 9 ball in any pocket. You wouldn’t say they have the same chance of happening would you?
I think I explained it better in my “Stupid AA again” post. You should read it. You play a prominent roll. If nothing else you can make fun of me later for having put so much time into this whole thing. Now I’m going to bed.
I think I explained it better in my “Stupid AA again” post. You should read it. You play a prominent roll. If nothing else you can make fun of me later for having put so much time into this whole thing. Now I’m going to bed.
diabloblanco
Legend
Silver Level
Ill try to keep it down so we don't wake the others, especially RJ, he gives me the feeling that he can get testy.
I keed, I keed. On a serious note: I have yet to read the above referenced post, which I will, but I felt it nessisary to post a quick reply before I do.
First, it isn't that my math "sucks" as you put it, it is that I don't complicate the issue with it. If I can't perform the simple multiplication required to come to the conclusions that you are arriving at, I deserve to be drawn and quartered. The simple mathematics of the issue at hand are absolutely not the problem. Multiplication, I can handle.
Second, while I concede that your analogy regarding the 9 ball in a billiards game is correct, I fail to see a correlation. I also stated in my previous post that using two points in time such as hand three and hand seven are not the correct way to view the problem. Maybe I didn't express myself eloquently enough, so I will try again.
The odds of being dealt pocket aces are 1/221 on each individual hand. Hand one: 1/221, hand two: 1/221, hand three: 1/221. Now lets take this example; you hit the jackpot and draw AA on hand one. Theoretically (by your estimation) you will have to beat 48,841/1 odds to draw the rockets again. While I completely understand where this logic is coming from, my rebuttal to this is that in order for this statistic to hold up, you have to draw variables for the equation from two completely independent occourances. One being the first hand, which is over and the deck has been randomized since playing it. This randomization of the deck takes the ability to carry the information over from hand one to subsequent hands and nullifies it.
Answer this question for me. You an I buy a new deck of cards and shuffle them until they are randomized, cut them, and play a hand. During this hand one of us gets pocket aces. Since this is my story, I got the aces and busted you down to the felt with them (ha ha). Anyway, after we finish the first hand, you're broke and I won't let you put your car title into the pot because I feel terrible about taking all your bankroll on the first hand, so we decide to quit and leave the table. We agree that the same time next week, we reconvene and continue the game, same location, same deck, same everything. We return a week later to continue the game and begin just as before. Shuffle the deck, cut the cards, and deal. Lo and behold, again I get dealt the pocket aces. So in effect, for two consecutive hands dealt from the same deck, which hasn't been touched since the previous game, AA was dealt. Are you saying that the odds are 1/48k that this happened or is it 1/221, and why?
I keed, I keed. On a serious note: I have yet to read the above referenced post, which I will, but I felt it nessisary to post a quick reply before I do.
First, it isn't that my math "sucks" as you put it, it is that I don't complicate the issue with it. If I can't perform the simple multiplication required to come to the conclusions that you are arriving at, I deserve to be drawn and quartered. The simple mathematics of the issue at hand are absolutely not the problem. Multiplication, I can handle.
Second, while I concede that your analogy regarding the 9 ball in a billiards game is correct, I fail to see a correlation. I also stated in my previous post that using two points in time such as hand three and hand seven are not the correct way to view the problem. Maybe I didn't express myself eloquently enough, so I will try again.
The odds of being dealt pocket aces are 1/221 on each individual hand. Hand one: 1/221, hand two: 1/221, hand three: 1/221. Now lets take this example; you hit the jackpot and draw AA on hand one. Theoretically (by your estimation) you will have to beat 48,841/1 odds to draw the rockets again. While I completely understand where this logic is coming from, my rebuttal to this is that in order for this statistic to hold up, you have to draw variables for the equation from two completely independent occourances. One being the first hand, which is over and the deck has been randomized since playing it. This randomization of the deck takes the ability to carry the information over from hand one to subsequent hands and nullifies it.
Answer this question for me. You an I buy a new deck of cards and shuffle them until they are randomized, cut them, and play a hand. During this hand one of us gets pocket aces. Since this is my story, I got the aces and busted you down to the felt with them (ha ha). Anyway, after we finish the first hand, you're broke and I won't let you put your car title into the pot because I feel terrible about taking all your bankroll on the first hand, so we decide to quit and leave the table. We agree that the same time next week, we reconvene and continue the game, same location, same deck, same everything. We return a week later to continue the game and begin just as before. Shuffle the deck, cut the cards, and deal. Lo and behold, again I get dealt the pocket aces. So in effect, for two consecutive hands dealt from the same deck, which hasn't been touched since the previous game, AA was dealt. Are you saying that the odds are 1/48k that this happened or is it 1/221, and why?
Four Dogs
Legend
Silver Level
Are you saying that the odds are 1/48k that this happened or is it 1/221, and why?
I'm saying, that after it has happend, the odds of it happening again are, as you say, 1/221 or 220:1 (this distinction should also be discussed). The odds of predicting it are 1/48k. You didn't really answer my question to you. You keep asking yourself what the odds of getting AA are "after" you already got them once. For this, your math is just fine. My question, and the one originally posed, I thought, was, what are the odds of predicting them in correct order "before" you've been dealt the first pair. Don't be so stubborn Diablo,Just say it, 1/48k. Then we can archive this thread in the Cardschat Hall of Fame.
I'm saying, that after it has happend, the odds of it happening again are, as you say, 1/221 or 220:1 (this distinction should also be discussed). The odds of predicting it are 1/48k. You didn't really answer my question to you. You keep asking yourself what the odds of getting AA are "after" you already got them once. For this, your math is just fine. My question, and the one originally posed, I thought, was, what are the odds of predicting them in correct order "before" you've been dealt the first pair. Don't be so stubborn Diablo,Just say it, 1/48k. Then we can archive this thread in the Cardschat Hall of Fame.
diabloblanco
Legend
Silver Level
This thread shouls be archived, bronzed, referenced, and only refered to with the greatest of reverence. I think it is a simple misunderstanding that has you and I locked in this gladitorial debate. I wasn't asking about the predication of two seperate hands before dealing them, I was asking about the proababilities of receiving the same hand on subsequent hands deal, which for my intent and purpose does not fluctuate.
Fo' dawgs, think about it for a second. From the beginning, I came to this thread with an open mind and even in the face of great personal attacks, stated that if my ascertation was incorrect, I would admit it. I am the kind of person who always admits when he is wrong especially in the face of undeniable evidence. I was called names, it was inferred that I was stupid, and thick, yet I still stood by my statement all by myself. Then a couple of forum members; icepari, and xdmanx007 came to my defense and stated I was correct. I personally thanked them for getting involved because subscribing to my particular brand of snake-oil was forum suicide (ha ha).
Look fo' dawgs, I actually took the time to go back and read EVERY post of EVERY member that opposed my original post in this thread and you are one of FEW that actually posted useable information. You are one of the few that I would accept advice from, or even want to play poker with for any other reason than to just gut a fish. I like you as a poster, and I think you know the intracacies of the game better than most.
I'm not here to be holier than thou, smarter than the next guy, or to make the soopid people feel soopider. I joined this site because I wanted a place to come to where I could compare ideas with those of my skill level, help those below my skill level, and just generally bitch about poker with those that want to bitch about it. I kid, I kid...but not really.
So the long and short of it is that I believe that we have a situation where my wording of the original post may have attributed to your misunderstanding of the situation as it were. If that is the case, we can agree to disagree and move on. If that isn't the case, by all means let the debate continue so that one of us eventually cries virtual uncle.
On a side note to those that do not think this argument is realative to poker, or your poker game, you should seriously find a new hobby or stick to playing with fake money or in freerolls. Does this particular problem help you determine wether or not you will make your flush on the turn? No. But this is a statistical issue and poker is all about statistics. Dispite what I have read from some people on this site it isn't all about cards and the luck of said cards. Statistics give you the angle from which to minimize the already small amount of influence luck has. Good "luck" at the tables.
I should add that calling you fo'dawgs was a complete joke and I mean no disrespect, nor is there any malicious intent therein.
Fo' dawgs, think about it for a second. From the beginning, I came to this thread with an open mind and even in the face of great personal attacks, stated that if my ascertation was incorrect, I would admit it. I am the kind of person who always admits when he is wrong especially in the face of undeniable evidence. I was called names, it was inferred that I was stupid, and thick, yet I still stood by my statement all by myself. Then a couple of forum members; icepari, and xdmanx007 came to my defense and stated I was correct. I personally thanked them for getting involved because subscribing to my particular brand of snake-oil was forum suicide (ha ha).
Look fo' dawgs, I actually took the time to go back and read EVERY post of EVERY member that opposed my original post in this thread and you are one of FEW that actually posted useable information. You are one of the few that I would accept advice from, or even want to play poker with for any other reason than to just gut a fish. I like you as a poster, and I think you know the intracacies of the game better than most.
I'm not here to be holier than thou, smarter than the next guy, or to make the soopid people feel soopider. I joined this site because I wanted a place to come to where I could compare ideas with those of my skill level, help those below my skill level, and just generally bitch about poker with those that want to bitch about it. I kid, I kid...but not really.
So the long and short of it is that I believe that we have a situation where my wording of the original post may have attributed to your misunderstanding of the situation as it were. If that is the case, we can agree to disagree and move on. If that isn't the case, by all means let the debate continue so that one of us eventually cries virtual uncle.
On a side note to those that do not think this argument is realative to poker, or your poker game, you should seriously find a new hobby or stick to playing with fake money or in freerolls. Does this particular problem help you determine wether or not you will make your flush on the turn? No. But this is a statistical issue and poker is all about statistics. Dispite what I have read from some people on this site it isn't all about cards and the luck of said cards. Statistics give you the angle from which to minimize the already small amount of influence luck has. Good "luck" at the tables.
I should add that calling you fo'dawgs was a complete joke and I mean no disrespect, nor is there any malicious intent therein.
Last edited:
I
icepari
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Hope this helps
Four dogs i think you will understand me now i don`t have such hope for the bap or bas or whatever his name was.If you have a board of 2s3s4d the chance to hit a diamond flush is lower than the chance to hit a spade flush.if after the turn the board is 2s3s4d5d the chances will be even.But if we think as you about the AA then the chance to hit a diamond flush is lower cause the chance to deal two diamonds in a row is lower.
Best regards
Four dogs i think you will understand me now i don`t have such hope for the bap or bas or whatever his name was.If you have a board of 2s3s4d the chance to hit a diamond flush is lower than the chance to hit a spade flush.if after the turn the board is 2s3s4d5d the chances will be even.But if we think as you about the AA then the chance to hit a diamond flush is lower cause the chance to deal two diamonds in a row is lower.
Best regards
P
Poker Player 100
Rock Star
Silver Level
is it me or does it seem the guy bitching thought online poker is rigged.
I dont know may be off-topic but
I don tthink online pokere is rigged...its just to tuff:fight:
I dont know may be off-topic but
I don tthink online pokere is rigged...its just to tuff:fight:
H
HollyGo
Enthusiast
Silver Level
I didn't actually read this entire thread, and I don't know the correct answer, statistically speaking, however, I was watching a televised poker tourney on TV recently, and saw Sklansky get pocket aces 4 times in one hour. It was incredible. And sorry if someone mentioned this already...it's a pretty lengthy thread and all... 
ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
...memory???icepari said:
this has nothing to do with memory or whether the cards remember what was dealt earlier
to explain this more clearly to you people who dont understand the math behind this, say you experimentally deal yourself two hands (two cards each time) 100 times in a row
if you were to write down and record each pair of hands, you would find that you have way less, if any pairs of hands that are exactly the same, should they be AA or Q7 or any hand in Hold 'em
the fact that getting AA twice in a row is so incredible is because it is improbable, just as getting any hand twice in a row, and it is the so-called best hand in Holdem so getting it twice in a row is obviously a great thing to happen to a player
the PROBABILITY of something is how many times it will occur out of a certain amount of times it has been repeated ( like the experiment above )
that experiment has nothing to do with each hand, it has to do with TWO HANDS IN A ROW, which has a completely different probablility than individual hands
word.Four Dogs said:
Last edited:
Z
Zypher22
Enthusiast
Silver Level
This is what always irritated me about math class and stats class and things like that, you will get a couple of people that just don't get it and won't let go so the professor has to spend 3 weeks explaining something while the rest of the class is bored out of their mind.
The thing that people are not understanding is that you aren't asking about a single occurance. You are trying to find the odds of something happening twice in a row.
Yes cards, dice, whatever have no memory, the last deal or toss has no impact on the next one. But when you are trying to find the odds of a particular occurance happening consecutively then the odds will be different.
The best explanation I have seen so far is the odds of rolling a 6 with a dice is 1/6, and every toss there is a 1/6 chance of it being a 6, but the odds of throwing a 6 100 times in a row is not 1/6.
The thing that people are not understanding is that you aren't asking about a single occurance. You are trying to find the odds of something happening twice in a row.
Yes cards, dice, whatever have no memory, the last deal or toss has no impact on the next one. But when you are trying to find the odds of a particular occurance happening consecutively then the odds will be different.
The best explanation I have seen so far is the odds of rolling a 6 with a dice is 1/6, and every toss there is a 1/6 chance of it being a 6, but the odds of throwing a 6 100 times in a row is not 1/6.
Four Dogs
Legend
Silver Level
I never said anything of the sort. Icepari, there's a glimmer if intelligence somewhere in there, but it's hidden behind your thick accent. Do me a favor. Diablo and I wrote a beautiful ending to this story, agree to disagree sort of thing. Start a new thread on this matter. Call it "Four Dogs is a Space Cadet" so I can find it easily, and I'll be happy to continue the discussion.icepari said:
diabloblanco
Legend
Silver Level
It was rather beautiful wasn't it fo'dawgs.....but what did we disagree on? Didn't we come to the understanding that I am awesome? All kidding aside, I think we both were exactly right on the particular points we were making and that the only descrepancy was we were talking about 2 seperate events. Me saying each event was seperate in my example and you combining the two into one occourance making it less likely. Correct, right?
G
graham111
Rising Star
Bronze Level
THIS HAS BEEN PUZZLING ME!!!!!
Whats the chances of getting the same flop twice in a row at online poker..whilst holding two A`s ,..lol.
p.s its played with cards not dice , but if you all want to discuss yatzee be my guest i will still sleep.
Whats the chances of getting the same flop twice in a row at online poker..whilst holding two A`s ,..lol.
p.s its played with cards not dice , but if you all want to discuss yatzee be my guest i will still sleep.
RammerJammer
Visionary
Silver Level
There are fresh dogs being drawn to the scent of old blood here, boys. I vote for closing this thread before the next generation of innocents is mind-raped by this ultimately futile tug-of-war over semantics and application.
(But seriously, the odds of me posting in this thread again are roughly the same as drawing pocket Aces three hands in a row, which would be... :stupido: )
(But seriously, the odds of me posting in this thread again are roughly the same as drawing pocket Aces three hands in a row, which would be... :stupido: )