vpFREE2 Forums

The anti-quad fiveplays/threeplays

#1

Here's something I've noticed:

On Triple Plays in particular, but also on Five Plays, I've noticed
the same perceived lack of quads resulting from dealt trips. I'm
afraid I haven't quantified this data, so it remains a subjective
impression. Here's one thing I DO think is strange, though:

When drawing to trips, it has been an EXTREMELY rare occurence to
hit the quads twice (and I've NEVER hit them three times).
Specifically, it happened to me for the first time after I'd been
playing these things for more than a YEAR. The next such occurence
happened almost a year later. I don't think I've double-hit quads
more than five times total.

The hit rate for Triple Play would seem to be roughly 3/47 X 2/47
(the chance of hitting one, in three tries, multiplied by the chance
of hitting a second one, in two tries). I get 0.0027, or 2.7 in a
thousand. I think it's something like 80 to 1 against getting dealt
trips, so given a hand rate of 600/hr, I should see dealt trips
about 8 times/hr. Given the above figures, I should expect to hit
quads twice about once every 400 such draws, or 50 hours of play.
This would be about once every ten sessions; I KNOW it's been more
like once every 100 sessions.

I realize the math above is crutchy and probably inaccurate, but I'm
sure I'm in the ballpark even so. This is yet another favorable
result that SHOULD happen a lot more often than it DOES. Anyone have
any observations?

#2

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:

>
The hit rate for Triple Play would seem to be roughly 3/47 X 2/47
(the chance of hitting one, in three tries, multiplied by the

chance

of hitting a second one, in two tries). I get 0.0027, or 2.7 in a
thousand. I think it's something like 80 to 1 against getting dealt
trips, so given a hand rate of 600/hr, I should see dealt trips
about 8 times/hr. Given the above figures, I should expect to hit

I get, from the binomial probability density, the probability of 0-3
successes in 3 tries with success probability = 1/23.5 -

0 0.878
1 0.117
2 0.0052
3 0.000077

So you ought to draw to 2 or 3 quads about 5 times out of every 1000
dealt triplets in three play.

Lets see, for 5 play the probabilities are:

0 0.805
1 0.179
2 0.0159
3 0.00071
4 0.000016
5 1.4E-7

First time to de-lurk here. I'm surprised none of the applied
mathematicians who post here have produced these numbers yet.

Mike Peck

#3

Michael Peck wrote:

First time to de-lurk here. I'm surprised none of the applied
mathematicians who post here have produced these numbers yet.

For myself (mind you, speaking as a recreational mathematician), I
lost interesting in rock's post (to which you replied) by the end of
the first paragraph ... thus no response.

Hope to see more from you, Mike.

- H.

#4

For myself (mind you, speaking as a recreational mathematician), I
lost interesting in rock's post (to which you replied) by the end of
the first paragraph ... thus no response.

Hope to see more from you, Mike.

- H.

What?? Harry lost interest in a post?? Has that ever happened to you
before Harry, or is this a first? :slight_smile:

Scot

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Porter [mailto:harry.por…@…net]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:13 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: The anti-quad fiveplays/threeplays

#5

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

Michael Peck wrote:
> First time to de-lurk here. I'm surprised none of the applied
> mathematicians who post here have produced these numbers yet.

For myself (mind you, speaking as a recreational mathematician), I
lost interesting in rock's post (to which you replied) by the end

of

the first paragraph ... thus no response.

Hope to see more from you, Mike.

Gee, Harry, I'm crushed :frowning: a tear comes to my eye (the left one) at
your lack of appreciation...

Why did you lose interest? Was it bacause my math was a rough
approximation? Remember when Mr. Spock kept correcting Captain Kirk
that "We will actually arrive at the Zebular system in 3 hours, 29
point 00 FIVE seconds, Captain."? Spock didn't understand that there
are times when rigorous precision is not only not needed, but also
somewhat of a waste of time.

The results I got for the trips draws were so far off the charts
that I felt safe in approximating the data (doing the same thing I
would probably do "on-site"), secure in the knowledge that the
numbers I gave would be sufficient to illustrate the point (that the
double-hit on quads happened far less often than one should expect);
I didn't bother to waste the time and effort to firm up the
calculations, secure in the knowledge that someone for whom VP math
is more recreation than tedium (unlike myself) would give the
precise figures if he/she wanted to do so.

Two things I notice about Michael Peck's post:
1. The numbers bear out my basic conclusion.
2. While clear as glass to mathniks, his posting is a little bit
obscure to anyone who communicates primarily in English.

I chose to state the phenomenon I observed primarily in words;
Michael illustrated it primarily in mathematics. His post was as
deficient in English words as mine was in precise calculations.
However, when (you and) he finished renoberating the cosine of the
bloviation quotient of the tangential EV of the exponentiated sample
size (divided by the square root of -213, of course), he essentially
repeated what I had already said.

To someone versed in the art of mathematics (or badly versed in the
art of English), filling up a blackboard with numbers may seem to be
the clearest available way to illustrate a concept. In the real
world (as opposed to the numbers-for-their-own-sake, academic,
mathematical one), people's eyes start to glaze over.

Unless they're Vulcans.

#6

rockofjello333 wrote:

Gee, Harry, I'm crushed :frowning: a tear comes to my eye (the left one) at
your lack of appreciation...

Why did you lose interest?

Because I think you've got bigger fish to fry than odds ...

- H.

#7

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:

Here's something I've noticed:

On Triple Plays in particular, but also on Five Plays, I've noticed
the same perceived lack of quads resulting from dealt trips. I'm
afraid I haven't quantified this data, so it remains a subjective
impression. Here's one thing I DO think is strange, though:

When drawing to trips, it has been an EXTREMELY rare occurence to
hit the quads twice (and I've NEVER hit them three times).
Specifically, it happened to me for the first time after I'd been
playing these things for more than a YEAR. The next such occurence
happened almost a year later. I don't think I've double-hit quads
more than five times total.

The hit rate for Triple Play would seem to be roughly 3/47 X 2/47
(the chance of hitting one, in three tries, multiplied by the

chance

of hitting a second one, in two tries). I get 0.0027, or 2.7 in a
thousand. I think it's something like 80 to 1 against getting dealt
trips, so given a hand rate of 600/hr, I should see dealt trips
about 8 times/hr. Given the above figures, I should expect to hit
quads twice about once every 400 such draws, or 50 hours of play.
This would be about once every ten sessions; I KNOW it's been more
like once every 100 sessions.

I realize the math above is crutchy and probably inaccurate, but

I'm

sure I'm in the ballpark even so. This is yet another favorable
result that SHOULD happen a lot more often than it DOES. Anyone

have

any observations?

I've just returned from a session of triple play jacks or better. I
played slightly over 4000 original hands. I have no idea how many of
them were dealt triplets, but I do know that twice, I completed the
quads on two lines.

I have also, on at least two occasions, completed quads on two lines
drawing to an original pair.

Neil