I read a lot of things on here that are amazing....but this, I do NOT
believe.
6 individual single line Royal Flushes and ALL 6 were in CLUBS??
No way.
getting our sixth single line royal over a span of twelve days.
I'm sure many of you have records much higher for similar
periods of time.
What I think is unusual though is all six were in the suit of clubs.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
TKeep123@aol.com wrote: I read a lot of things on here that are amazing....but this, I do NOT
believe.
6 individual single line Royal Flushes and ALL 6 were in CLUBS??
No way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Listen, I understand your skeptism. But if Donboats says it happened then you can take it to the bank. Why do you think he posted it? To try and get a half assed response from you?
SK
"I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid."
"I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public."
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Travel
Find great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
That's just as likely (or unlikely) to happen as hitting (in that
order) one in hearts, one in spades, one in hearts, one in diamonds,
and two in clubs (assuming, of course, that you play a strategy where
all suits behave the same).
JBQ
Are you sure? I ask because that does not sound logical to me.
On 3/20/06, Jean-Baptiste Queru <jbqueru@gmail.com> wrote:
That's just as likely (or unlikely) to happen as hitting (in that
order) one in hearts, one in spades, one in hearts, one in diamonds,
and two in clubs (assuming, of course, that you play a strategy where
all suits behave the same).JBQ
On 3/19/06, TKeep123@aol.com <TKeep123@aol.com> wrote:
> No way.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Or playing 160,000 hands and hit no royals and no suits!
Brian
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean-Baptiste Queru" <jbqueru@...>
wrote:
That's just as likely (or unlikely) to happen as hitting (in that
order) one in hearts, one in spades, one in hearts, one in diamonds,
and two in clubs (assuming, of course, that you play a strategy where
all suits behave the same).JBQ
On 3/19/06, TKeep123@... <TKeep123@...> wrote:
> No way.
Actually, given 6 royals, the probability of the suits being in any
particular sequence is 1-in-4096; the probability of all of them being
of the same suit is 1-in-1024.
By comparison, the probability of playing 160000 hands and not hitting
a single royal is approximately 1-in-55, a much more likely event
(assuming a RF cycle of 40000).
JBQ
On 3/20/06, Brian Lee <gl_bryan@yahoo.com> wrote:
Or playing 160,000 hands and hit no royals and no suits!
Brian
Hi Jean-Baptiste.
Earlier, you said getting six RF's consecutively in spades is "....just as
likely (or unlikely) to happen as hitting (in that order) one in hearts, one
in spades, one in hearts, one in diamonds, and two in clubs (assuming, of
course, that you play a strategy where all suits behave the same)."
And I replied, "Are you sure? I ask because that does not sound logical to
me."
Now, you say that getting six RF's in a particular sequence is is 1-in-4096
and getting six RF's all in the same suit is 1-in-1024. That doesn't sound
like they are just as likely.
Are you correcting your previous statement?
Curtis
On 3/20/06, Jean-Baptiste Queru <jbqueru@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, given 6 royals, the probability of the suits being in any
particular sequence is 1-in-4096; the probability of all of them being
of the same suit is 1-in-1024.By comparison, the probability of playing 160000 hands and not hitting
a single royal is approximately 1-in-55, a much more likely event
(assuming a RF cycle of 40000).JBQ
On 3/20/06, Brian Lee <gl_bryan@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Or playing 160,000 hands and hit no royals and no suits!
> Brian
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<<Now, you say that getting six RF's in a particular sequence is is
1-in-4096 and getting six RF's all in the same suit is 1-in-1024. That
doesn't sound like they are just as likely.>>
How many suits are there? 
Cogno
That's my point.
On 3/20/06, Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@gmail.com> wrote:
<<Now, you say that getting six RF's in a particular sequence is is
1-in-4096 and getting six RF's all in the same suit is 1-in-1024. That
doesn't sound like they are just as likely.>>How many suits are there?
Cogno
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Curtis,
His prior statement was correct...and this statement is also correct.
They are not contradictory, but it is easy to see why they would
appear to be.
Let me try and explain...
1. Here is what JBQ meant in his first statement: "The odds that my
next 6 royals will all be clubs is the same as the odds that my next 6
royals will be the following: clubs then spades then clubs then
diamonds then hearts then diamonds."
There is a 1-in-4 chance that my next royal will be clubs; then an
independent 1-in-4 chance for the following royal; and on and on. So
there is a 1-in-4096 chance that the next 6 royals will be a
pre-specified sequence. (To get the 1-in-4096, you can take 4^6.)
2. Here is what JBQ meant in his second statement: "The odds that the
next 6 royals will all be the same suit is 1-in-1024."
Now...this might seem wrong based on accepting the first statement.
But it is still completely correct. We are not specifying the suit of
the next royal...only that the following 5 will be the same suit as
the next one. So instead of fixing the 1-in-4 chance *6* times...we
are fixing it just *5* times. This means that the odds of your next 6
royals being the same (unspecified) suit is 4^5, or 1-in-1024.
In case 1, we are specifying a full 6-royal sequence; in case 2, we
are only specifying royals 2-6. I hope that clears up your confusion.
Ken
Hi Jean-Baptiste.
Earlier, you said getting six RF's consecutively in spades is
"....just as
likely (or unlikely) to happen as hitting (in that order) one in
hearts, one
in spades, one in hearts, one in diamonds, and two in clubs
(assuming, of
course, that you play a strategy where all suits behave the same)."
And I replied, "Are you sure? I ask because that does not sound
logical to
me."
Now, you say that getting six RF's in a particular sequence is is
1-in-4096
and getting six RF's all in the same suit is 1-in-1024. That
doesn't sound
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Curtis Rich" <LGTVegas@...> wrote:
like they are just as likely.
Are you correcting your previous statement?
Curtis
I think that both my statements were correct, although the language
seems to have been comfusing.
There are 4096 different sequences of 6 suits. CCCCCC is one of them,
as is HSHDCC. Each of them is equally likely to appear, with a
1-in-4096 chance.
CCCCCC has a 1-in-4096 chance, DDDDDD has a 1-in-4096 chance, HHHHHH
has a 1-in-4096 chance, SSSSSS has a 1-in-4096 chance. For any of the
4 suits, the probability of the next 6 RFs being of that suit is
1-in-4096, which is what is meant by "the next 6 RFs are all of a
particular suit": the "particular" word implies that the suit was
chosen in advance.
On the other hand, out of those 4096 sequences, 4 of them are made of
only one suit, i.e. 1-in-1024. "the next 6 RFs are of the same suit"
doesn't have any indication of which suit that might be, and each of
them will do.
Here's another way to look at it:
"the next 6 RFs are of a particular suit" means "the next RF is of a
particular suit, and the following 5 RFs are of the same suit".
"the next 6 RFs are of the same suit" means "the next RF is of any
suit, and the following 5 RFs are of the same suit".
JBQ
On 3/20/06, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jean-Baptiste.
Earlier, you said getting six RF's consecutively in spades is "....just as
likely (or unlikely) to happen as hitting (in that order) one in hearts, one
in spades, one in hearts, one in diamonds, and two in clubs (assuming, of
course, that you play a strategy where all suits behave the same)."And I replied, "Are you sure? I ask because that does not sound logical to
me."Now, you say that getting six RF's in a particular sequence is is 1-in-4096
and getting six RF's all in the same suit is 1-in-1024. That doesn't sound
like they are just as likely.Are you correcting your previous statement?
Curtis