vpFREE2 Forums

Probability of a Royal Flush

#1

Last November, I hit three Royals within a 12-hour period. I have played
tens of thousands of hands since then (possibly over 100,000) and I have not
hit a RF once since.

Re: "....It doesn't make any difference if you've had zero or a thousand RFs
when you hit the deal button. The chances are the same."

I will never believe that getting a 'clump' of multiple RFs in a short span
of time does not affect my future play. At least, my *near* future play.

I am not surprised at all that I am in such a RF slump. I *will* get
another RF - eventually. But, that's in the *long term* of things.

···

On 3/10/06, mroejacks <rgmustain@att.net> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "davidmontelago" <davidmontelago@...>
wrote:
> I happen to be in the camp whom belives you
> only hit a finite amount of any given hand, including royals. Some
> belive it doesnt matter, how you do on quarters should be kept
separte
> from what you do on any other denomination.

It doesn't make any difference if you've had zero or a thousand RFs
when you hit the deal button. The chances are the same. This has been
stated before, however, I don't think it can be emphasized too much.

There is no quota, there is no one keeping track. It doesn't matter
whether you're playing any particular denom. If you practice using a
software program before you go out gambling your results there have no
bearing on your results at the casino. All that matters is WHEN you hit
the deal/draw buttons. Keep in mind that there is a non-zero
probability that you will hit a RF every time you play. There is also a
non-zero probability that you will never have a winning hand.

Dick

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

Curtis Rich wrote:

Last November, I hit three Royals within a 12-hour period. I have played
tens of thousands of hands since then (possibly over 100,000) and I have not
hit a RF once since.

Re: "....It doesn't make any difference if you've had zero or a thousand RFs
when you hit the deal button. The chances are the same."

I will never believe that getting a 'clump' of multiple RFs in a short span
of time does not affect my future play. At least, my *near* future play.

But you're only looking at one anecdote, and probably from prejudiced
eyes. What if you had hit a 4th royal, say, 2 days after your clump
of 3, and then none for a few months? To be consistent, you'd then
have to say that the clump of 4 caused your dry spell. But why can't
you say, with as much validity, that the clump of 3 caused the 4th one
shortly afterwards, just as you can say that the clump of 2 caused the
third one shortly afterwards? They'll always come in clumps, but I
don't believe you'll ever come up with any evidence that these streaks
are predictable. What is your theory for how a clump of royals causes
a dry spell? Do all machines everywhere carry around memory of how
you're doing and have a natural tendency to balance things out? Does
God do it? Isn't the simpler explanation that each trial is
independent of the others? Any alternative is going to have to
incorporate superstition that won't be supportable by logic or science
and will be very complicated.

As much as I like it, "Bachelor Party" has a very unrealistic scene in
it. When Tom Hanks is bashing tennis balls out of the park to hit
home runs, they show where the tennis balls that he hit ended up.
They're arranged in almost a perfect order, almost exactly evenly
spaced. But you wouldn't expect this. The way he was hitting the
tennis balls, you'd expect them to be arranged more randomly, both in
clumps and with larger empty spaces, in the same pattern as royals get
hit. It would take the same deliberate effort that the producers of
"Bachelor Party" took in carefully arranging those tennis balls to
make royal flushes occur with more regularity than is consistent with
the theory of randomness.

#3

Well said, Tom. I am always amazed that the concept of random is so
poorly understood.

I recently had a clump of two RFs in a twenty minute period. I have
gone 2 cycles since then without another RF on the same machines. Did
this clump effect my chances? Well, if they did, they did it
differently from the last time I had a clump of two. I followed that
clump with another clump of three on my next visit to the same bank
of machines.

Clumps to everyone :wink:

Dick

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@...>
wrote:

Curtis Rich wrote:

>Last November, I hit three Royals within a 12-hour period. I have

played

>tens of thousands of hands since then (possibly over 100,000) and

I have not

>hit a RF once since.
>
>Re: "....It doesn't make any difference if you've had zero or a

thousand RFs

>when you hit the deal button. The chances are the same."
>
>I will never believe that getting a 'clump' of multiple RFs in a

short span

>of time does not affect my future play. At least, my *near*

future play.

But you're only looking at one anecdote, and probably from

prejudiced

eyes. What if you had hit a 4th royal, say, 2 days after your clump
of 3, and then none for a few months? To be consistent, you'd then
have to say that the clump of 4 caused your dry spell. But why

can't

you say, with as much validity, that the clump of 3 caused the 4th

one

shortly afterwards, just as you can say that the clump of 2 caused

the

third one shortly afterwards? They'll always come in clumps, but I
don't believe you'll ever come up with any evidence that these

streaks

are predictable. What is your theory for how a clump of royals

causes

a dry spell? Do all machines everywhere carry around memory of how
you're doing and have a natural tendency to balance things out?

Does

God do it? Isn't the simpler explanation that each trial is
independent of the others? Any alternative is going to have to
incorporate superstition that won't be supportable by logic or

science

and will be very complicated.

As much as I like it, "Bachelor Party" has a very unrealistic scene

in

it. When Tom Hanks is bashing tennis balls out of the park to hit
home runs, they show where the tennis balls that he hit ended up.
They're arranged in almost a perfect order, almost exactly evenly
spaced. But you wouldn't expect this. The way he was hitting the
tennis balls, you'd expect them to be arranged more randomly, both

in

clumps and with larger empty spaces, in the same pattern as royals

get

hit. It would take the same deliberate effort that the producers of
"Bachelor Party" took in carefully arranging those tennis balls to
make royal flushes occur with more regularity than is consistent

with

···

the theory of randomness.

#4

No one knows how long the clumps or the dry spells will last until
they're over. I sometimes simply correct people's tense. When
someone says "I'm on a hot streak," I might say that he just had a run
of good luck, eliminating the implication that he has a reason to
expect his luck to continue.

I believe there are about as many proponents of the "due theory" as
there are of the "anti-due theory," and many people probably go back
and forth between them. I hear "play that machine because it's hot"
about as often as I hear "play that machine because it's due." I get
both kinds of feelings of either expecting things to continue as they
are or of expecting what is due to soon happen, but these feelings are
irrelevant. My "hunches" are never right, so I do my best to ignore
them.

···

Well said, Tom. I am always amazed that the concept of random is so
poorly understood.

I recently had a clump of two RFs in a twenty minute period. I have
gone 2 cycles since then without another RF on the same machines. Did
this clump effect my chances? Well, if they did, they did it
differently from the last time I had a clump of two. I followed that
clump with another clump of three on my next visit to the same bank
of machines.

Clumps to everyone :wink:

Dick

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@...>
wrote:

Curtis Rich wrote:

>Last November, I hit three Royals within a 12-hour period. I have

played

>tens of thousands of hands since then (possibly over 100,000) and

I have not

>hit a RF once since.
>
>Re: "....It doesn't make any difference if you've had zero or a

thousand RFs

>when you hit the deal button. The chances are the same."
>
>I will never believe that getting a 'clump' of multiple RFs in a

short span

>of time does not affect my future play. At least, my *near*

future play.

But you're only looking at one anecdote, and probably from

prejudiced

eyes. What if you had hit a 4th royal, say, 2 days after your clump
of 3, and then none for a few months? To be consistent, you'd then
have to say that the clump of 4 caused your dry spell. But why

can't

you say, with as much validity, that the clump of 3 caused the 4th

one

shortly afterwards, just as you can say that the clump of 2 caused

the

third one shortly afterwards? They'll always come in clumps, but I
don't believe you'll ever come up with any evidence that these

streaks

are predictable. What is your theory for how a clump of royals

causes

a dry spell? Do all machines everywhere carry around memory of how
you're doing and have a natural tendency to balance things out?

Does

God do it? Isn't the simpler explanation that each trial is
independent of the others? Any alternative is going to have to
incorporate superstition that won't be supportable by logic or

science

and will be very complicated.

As much as I like it, "Bachelor Party" has a very unrealistic scene

in

it. When Tom Hanks is bashing tennis balls out of the park to hit
home runs, they show where the tennis balls that he hit ended up.
They're arranged in almost a perfect order, almost exactly evenly
spaced. But you wouldn't expect this. The way he was hitting the
tennis balls, you'd expect them to be arranged more randomly, both

in

clumps and with larger empty spaces, in the same pattern as royals

get

hit. It would take the same deliberate effort that the producers of
"Bachelor Party" took in carefully arranging those tennis balls to
make royal flushes occur with more regularity than is consistent

with

the theory of randomness.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#5

Yes winning streaks do not go on forever. I wish they did. The concept
that each trial (hand in the case of vp) is a separate and independent event
is one of the most basic building blocks of a gambler's education. If you
don't accept it, you don't have a lot of reason to accept all the fancy
software and charts that the strategy for vp is based on.

Chandler

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
Curtis Rich
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:05 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Probability of a Royal Flush

Last November, I hit three Royals within a 12-hour period. I have played
tens of thousands of hands since then (possibly over 100,000) and I have not
hit a RF once since.

Re: "....It doesn't make any difference if you've had zero or a thousand RFs
when you hit the deal button. The chances are the same."

I will never believe that getting a 'clump' of multiple RFs in a short span
of time does not affect my future play. At least, my *near* future play.

I am not surprised at all that I am in such a RF slump. I *will* get
another RF - eventually. But, that's in the *long term* of things.

#6

Yes, I do have reason to accept the charts and fancy software, Chandler. Do
you really think I just play, willie-nillie, without respect or regard to
the published strategies?

I do not alter my play, in any way, after getting a clump of Royals. I just
think it will be 'awhile' before I see another one. That's all.

···

On 3/11/06, Chandler <omnibibulous1@comcast.net> wrote:

Yes winning streaks do not go on forever. I wish they did. The concept
that each trial (hand in the case of vp) is a separate and independent
event
is one of the most basic building blocks of a gambler's education. If you
don't accept it, you don't have a lot of reason to accept all the fancy
software and charts that the strategy for vp is based on.

Chandler

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
Curtis Rich
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:05 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Probability of a Royal Flush

Last November, I hit three Royals within a 12-hour period. I have played
tens of thousands of hands since then (possibly over 100,000) and I have
not
hit a RF once since.

Re: "....It doesn't make any difference if you've had zero or a thousand
RFs
when you hit the deal button. The chances are the same."

I will never believe that getting a 'clump' of multiple RFs in a short
span
of time does not affect my future play. At least, my *near* future play.

I am not surprised at all that I am in such a RF slump. I *will* get
another RF - eventually. But, that's in the *long term* of things.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#7

Hey there Chandler

I have to take jump in here and mention an old friend of mine;
Gladstone Gander. Gladstone is Donald Ducks lucky cousin. If any of
you were fans of Donald Duck comic books you will recall Gladstone
was the luckiest duck around. He used to always get over on Donald
with his lucky breaks. Gladstone is the kind of duck who has a full
lifetime of luck. I know this is true as I have many books that tell
of Glastones' lucky adventures. And....this is no tuna fish story.

But, all kidding aside, there are some who seem to have a lifetime of
luck and others who have no luck. Of course you could say luck, in
this case, is the residue of design. But, if you take a couple
hundred million folks there are bound to be some who have winning
streaks forever, no matter how stupid they are. And you can put your
math to that.

Cheers ... Jeep

.

Chandler" <omnibibulous1@...> wrote:

Yes winning streaks do not go on forever. I wish they did. The

concept

that each trial (hand in the case of vp) is a separate and

independent event

is one of the most basic building blocks of a gambler's education.

If you

don't accept it, you don't have a lot of reason to accept all the

fancy

software and charts that the strategy for vp is based on.

Chandler

From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On

Behalf Of

Curtis Rich
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:05 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Probability of a Royal Flush

Last November, I hit three Royals within a 12-hour period. I have

played

tens of thousands of hands since then (possibly over 100,000) and I

have not

hit a RF once since.

Re: "....It doesn't make any difference if you've had zero or a

thousand RFs

when you hit the deal button. The chances are the same."

I will never believe that getting a 'clump' of multiple RFs in a

short span

of time does not affect my future play. At least, my *near* future

play.

I am not surprised at all that I am in such a RF slump. I *will*

get

···

-----Original Message-----
another RF - eventually. But, that's in the *long term* of things.

#8

Th, th, th that's right, folks.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "whitejeeps" <whitejeeps@...> wrote:

But, if you take a couple
hundred million folks there are bound to be some who have winning
streaks forever, no matter how stupid they are. And you can put your
math to that.

Cheers ... Jeep

#9

I remember Gladstone being a Goose, not a Duck. Maybe "clumps" do come
in gaggles!
                                                        Dick McK.
whitejeeps wrote:

Hey there Chandler

I have to take jump in here and mention an old friend of mine;
Gladstone Gander. Gladstone is Donald Ducks lucky cousin. If any of
you were fans of Donald Duck comic books you will recall Gladstone
was the luckiest duck around. He used to always get over on Donald
with his lucky breaks. Gladstone is the kind of duck who has a full
lifetime of luck. I know this is true as I have many books that tell
of Glastones' lucky adventures. And....this is no tuna fish story.

But, all kidding aside, there are some who seem to have a lifetime of
luck and others who have no luck. Of course you could say luck, in
this case, is the residue of design. But, if you take a couple
hundred million folks there are bound to be some who have winning
streaks forever, no matter how stupid they are. And you can put your
math to that.

Cheers ... Jeep

..

Chandler" <omnibibulous1@…> wrote:
>
> Yes winning streaks do not go on forever. I wish they did. The
concept
> that each trial (hand in the case of vp) is a separate and
independent event
> is one of the most basic building blocks of a gambler's education.
If you
> don't accept it, you don't have a lot of reason to accept all the
fancy
> software and charts that the strategy for vp is based on.
>
> Chandler
>
> From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On
Behalf Of
> Curtis Rich
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:05 PM
> To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Probability of a Royal Flush
>
>
> Last November, I hit three Royals within a 12-hour period. I have
played
> tens of thousands of hands since then (possibly over 100,000) and I
have not
> hit a RF once since.
>
> Re: "…It doesn't make any difference if you've had zero or a
thousand RFs
> when you hit the deal button. The chances are the same."
>
> I will never believe that getting a 'clump' of multiple RFs in a
short span
> of time does not affect my future play. At least, my *near* future
play.
>
> I am not surprised at all that I am in such a RF slump. I *will*
get
> another RF - eventually. But, that's in the *long term* of things.
>

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

SPONSORED LINKS
Online gambling
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Online+gambling&w1=Online+gambling&w2=Outdoor+recreation&w3=Recreation+software&w4=Gambling&c=4&s=84&.sig=L10QO5nvjXwYPuAFZkkXhg>
Outdoor recreation
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Outdoor+recreation&w1=Online+gambling&w2=Outdoor+recreation&w3=Recreation+software&w4=Gambling&c=4&s=84&.sig=s52oAyfvASG804ScXtZBEw>
Recreation software
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Recreation+software&w1=Online+gambling&w2=Outdoor+recreation&w3=Recreation+software&w4=Gambling&c=4&s=84&.sig=43ZUxwuHSOiqIqzNYDSxTg>

Gambling
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Gambling&w1=Online+gambling&w2=Outdoor+recreation&w3=Recreation+software&w4=Gambling&c=4&s=84&.sig=0BcqyN86pav5YYeEn1BCYw>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    * Visit your group "vpFREE
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE>" on the web.
       
    * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
       vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      <mailto:vpFREE-unsubscr…@…com?subject=Unsubscribe>
       
    * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

> -----Original Message-----

#10

Well, Jeep, my math sucks, my luck is clumpy, I think Bugs Bunny could tear
Donald and Mickey a new one, and "forever" is a very long time to be
anything. Aside from that, we are in agreement that it is possible for
someone to be pretty damned lucky for pretty damned long;-)

Chandler

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
whitejeeps
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:02 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Probability of a Royal Flush

Hey there Chandler

I have to take jump in here and mention an old friend of mine;
Gladstone Gander. Gladstone is Donald Ducks lucky cousin. If any of
you were fans of Donald Duck comic books you will recall Gladstone
was the luckiest duck around. He used to always get over on Donald
with his lucky breaks. Gladstone is the kind of duck who has a full
lifetime of luck. I know this is true as I have many books that tell
of Glastones' lucky adventures. And....this is no tuna fish story.

But, all kidding aside, there are some who seem to have a lifetime of
luck and others who have no luck. Of course you could say luck, in
this case, is the residue of design. But, if you take a couple
hundred million folks there are bound to be some who have winning
streaks forever, no matter how stupid they are. And you can put your
math to that.

Cheers ... Jeep

.

Chandler" <omnibibulous1@...> wrote:

Yes winning streaks do not go on forever. I wish they did. The

concept

that each trial (hand in the case of vp) is a separate and

independent event

is one of the most basic building blocks of a gambler's education.

If you

don't accept it, you don't have a lot of reason to accept all the

fancy

software and charts that the strategy for vp is based on.

Chandler

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On

Behalf Of

Curtis Rich
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:05 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Probability of a Royal Flush

Last November, I hit three Royals within a 12-hour period. I have

played

tens of thousands of hands since then (possibly over 100,000) and I

have not

hit a RF once since.

Re: "....It doesn't make any difference if you've had zero or a

thousand RFs

when you hit the deal button. The chances are the same."

I will never believe that getting a 'clump' of multiple RFs in a

short span

of time does not affect my future play. At least, my *near* future

play.

I am not surprised at all that I am in such a RF slump. I *will*

get

another RF - eventually. But, that's in the *long term* of things.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#11

That you do have regard for the software and strategies is exactly my point.
Those strategies are based on the principle that every hand is a separate
and independent event. To accept the strategy, while not accepting the
principle that the strategy is based on is a rational inconsistency. Of
course, I would be the first to admit that for most (and occasionally
including myself)gambling is not a rational enterprise. This is not a pitch
for the "proper" way to think about gambling. I save that fuitless debate
for my wife because we share the same bank accounts. It is just an
explanation. Feel free to ignore it.

Chandler

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
Curtis Rich
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 1:34 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Probability of a Royal Flush

Yes, I do have reason to accept the charts and fancy software, Chandler. Do
you really think I just play, willie-nillie, without respect or regard to
the published strategies?

I do not alter my play, in any way, after getting a clump of Royals. I just
think it will be 'awhile' before I see another one. That's all.

On 3/11/06, Chandler <omnibibulous1@comcast.net> wrote:

Yes winning streaks do not go on forever. I wish they did. The concept
that each trial (hand in the case of vp) is a separate and independent
event
is one of the most basic building blocks of a gambler's education. If you
don't accept it, you don't have a lot of reason to accept all the fancy
software and charts that the strategy for vp is based on.

Chandler

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
Curtis Rich
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:05 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Probability of a Royal Flush

Last November, I hit three Royals within a 12-hour period. I have played
tens of thousands of hands since then (possibly over 100,000) and I have
not
hit a RF once since.

Re: "....It doesn't make any difference if you've had zero or a thousand
RFs
when you hit the deal button. The chances are the same."

I will never believe that getting a 'clump' of multiple RFs in a short
span
of time does not affect my future play. At least, my *near* future play.

I am not surprised at all that I am in such a RF slump. I *will* get
another RF - eventually. But, that's in the *long term* of things.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links