How can we trust your "data" when you can't even get the odds
right?
Odds of being dealt trips: 1 in 47.33, or 46.33 to 1. NOT "51 to
1"!
Odds of hitting a full house when holding trips: 1 in 16.38, or
15.38 to 1.
NOT "1 in 15.3"!
Brian
Sorry, I wrote the post in a hurry.
I was under the actual impression that the 51/1 figure was right. I
didn't bother to check the actual figure since the precise figure
had NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the discussion, and whether it was 47
or 46 or 51 to 1, my basic point stands, that it was hard to gather
data on the results of draws to trips because dealt trips was a
relatively rare hand.
Regarding the second figure:
You are holding trips and you draw the fourth card:
One of the 47 draws, you hit the quads. No full house for you.
Six of the 47 draws, you get a card of the same rank as one of the
ones you threw away. You now have a 2/46 chance of getting your full
house. The remaining times, or 40 of the remaining 47 cases, you
receive a card of yet-unseen rank and now make the full house 3/46
of the time.
1 x 0/46= 0
6 x 2/46= 12/46 or .26
40 x 3/46= 120/45 or 2.60
47 draws total, 2.86/47 = 0.0608
6.08 percent chance, or 100/6.08 = 15.44 to 1
Our figures may be slightly different due to rounding, or to the
fact that I am assuming that you never discarded a pair (which you
actually might do if dealt AAAxx in 10/7 DB or Super Aces).
So yes, I made a couple of errors. Forgive me, Brian ol' sock ol'
buddy ol' pal. As I said, I was working late, trying to copy a post
I made yesterday from memory. The comment that I "can't even get the
odds right" is both stupid and wrong. I CAN and the vast majority of
the time DO get the odds right. To make a comment like yours is akin
to seeing a typographical error in someone's post and commenting
that they can't spell. We've gotten past that sort of thing on this
board because of its puerile discourtesy, but perhaps you're new
here.
And since I was making a parenthetical note that that particular
group of results, while anomalous, wasn't statistically significant,
and that comment is valid whether you consider the erroneous
calculations or the proper ones, it's a bit nit-picky to focus on an
error in that paragraph. However, I stand corrected, and I now feel
quintuply confident in my other calculations since they must also
have been subjected to the harsh glaring light of your scrutiny.
But d'ya know what, Brian my boy? I don't give two hoots in hell
whether you or anyone else "trusts" my data or not. I merely
provided it because several people asked me to. If the conclusion
suggested by it interferes with someone's preconceived notions, they
will naturally find some way to attack it or its provenance.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, bjaygold@a... wrote: