vpFREE2 Forums

What are odds of this ?? - Consecutive Deal "Anamolies"

#1

I think you win the grand prize, Babe!

Assuming these were dealt hands, three in a row, here are the odds for KBJW:

Quad, one in 919.8
SF, one in 15942.7
Quint, one in 220745.0

Multiplying these numbers to get the odds of them all appearing (in that
order) for the first three hands of a session, you get one in 3.237 TRILLION. Or
one in 3,237,000,000,000. You are about as likely to hit Megabucks TWICE in
an hour of play!

When you held the quad on the first hand, I can't believe you didn't improve
it to a quint! Couldn't catch a break, huh? :slight_smile:

Brian

···

===================================

In a message dated 6/10/2007 5:19:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jackessiebabe@yahoo.com writes:

My best "consecutive dealt hands" story occurred about 3 years at the
El Cortez. Sitting down at a KBJW machine, my first dealt hand was
4OAK, my second Dealt hand was a Straight Flush and my third dealt
hand was 5OAK! For one wild and crazy moment I actually thought that
the machine might be broken! (O: I was soon disabused of that notion
by a long sucession of garbage hands.

How many gazillion to one was that event?

~Babe~

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, bjaygold@... wrote:

.....If you ask a similar question, like "What are the odds of being
dealt a quad, and on the very next hand, being dealt the SAME quad?"
you get one chance in 225,513,925. This happened to me a few months
ago at the Palms, when I was dealt (natural) quad 10s two hands in a
row. Unfortunately, I was playing NSUDs at the time. :frowning:

I always find this sort of thing fun and interesting, simply because
these occurrences are so unusual. Anyone else with a story?

Brian

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

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

#2

Brian wrote: I think you win the grand prize, Babe!

Doing these after-the-fact calculations is meaningless. Last night I
was dealt the 2h 3s 8h Jd Kc (a 1-in-2,598,960 shot) immediately
followed by the 6d 6h 8c Kd Ah (another 1-in-2,598,960 shot) followed by
3d 5d 6d 9c Qc (still another 1-in-2,598,960 shot). Having these three
hands back to back in that precise order is a 17,554,917,235,355,136,000
for 1 shot. According to Brian's logic, I really beat the odds by a HUGE
margin. If I were to consider the position of these cards, I'd have to
multiply by 120*120*120 or another 1,728,000. This makes the number even
huger than HUGE.

Every one of you, of course, beat those same odds on your last three
hands, whatever they were, assuming you were playing with a 52-card deck
using normal rules (i.e. excluding Pick'Em). If you go back 6 hands
instead of merely 3, the result comes out to 39 digits rather than a
mere 20. If you're considering position, it goes out another 12 digits.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

#3

Bob Dancer wrote:

Doing these after-the-fact calculations is meaningless.

Ok, Bob, I'll grant you that the exercise doesn't make for a better
player. Nor is it proof of a player's prowess.

However, it's human nature that when one experiences a sequence of
events of significant consequence -- say, being hit by lightning twice
in a lifetime -- a person will wonder at the improbability, and likely
marvel at the answer a bit.

"Significant consequence" is a key aspect. As you note, raising the
probability question about two specific consecutive, but fairly
inconsequential hands tickles few people's fancy.

In vp, that consequence need not involve a person coming away from the
chain of events ahead a thousand (or few thousand) credits to be of
passing fascination. Experiencing a run of 10 dealt hands all of
which are "tossers" would likely provoke curiosity of just how
unfortunate one was.

Any reasonably intelligent player knows that they come away from the
calculation with little more than something to back up their next "can
you top this" bull session. Given the universe of unlikely vp events,
I'd expect they'd realize most any active player will see his 15
seconds of improbable fame.

- Harry

#4

I think you win the grand prize, Babe!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, bjaygold@... wrote:

Thanks kindly, Brian! BTW, what IS the grand prize?

Assuming these were dealt hands, three in a row, here

are the odds for KBJW:
Quad, one in 919.8
SF, one in 15942.7
Quint, one in 220745.0
Multiplying these numbers to get the odds of them all appearing (in
that order) for the first three hands of a session, you get one in
3.237 TRILLION. Or one in 3,237,000,000,000. You are about as
likely to hit Megabucks TWICE in an hour of play!

WOW! Is that more than a one in a GIZZILION?

When you held the quad on the first hand, I can't

believe you didn't improve it to a quint! Couldn't catch a break,
huh? :slight_smile:
Brian

Guess it just wasn't my lucky day! (O:

~Babe~

#5

Brian wrote: I think you win the grand prize, Babe!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

=====================================================
Bob wrote: Doing these after-the-fact calculations is meaningless.
Last night I was dealt the 2h 3s 8h Jd Kc (a 1-in-2,598,960 shot)
immediately followed by the 6d 6h 8c Kd Ah (another 1-in-2,598,960
shot) followed by 3d 5d 6d 9c Qc (still another 1-in-2,598,960
shot). Having these three hands back to back in that precise order
is a 17,554,917,235,355,136,000 for 1 shot. According to Brian's
logic, I really beat the odds by a HUGE margin. If I were to
consider the position of these cards, I'd have to multiply by
120*120*120 or another 1,728,000. This makes the number even huger
than HUGE.

Every one of you, of course, beat those same odds on your last three
hands, whatever they were, assuming you were playing with a 52-card
deck using normal rules (i.e. excluding Pick'Em). If you go back 6
hands instead of merely 3, the result comes out to 39 digits rather
than a mere 20. If you're considering position, it goes out another
12 digits.
Bob Dancer

Hey, Bob, care to let us in on where you found the marvelous VP
machine which actually dealt you the hands documented above?

Actually, I like my hands better. Besides, I want that Grand Prize!

~Babe~

#6

Babe wrote: Hey, Bob, care to let us in on where you found the marvelous
VP
machine which actually dealt you the hands documented above?

Nope. It's my secret. If I let everyone know where it only took me three
hands to be dealt a pair of sixes, then EVERYONE will go there and it
won't be a secret anymore.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

#7

Bob Dancer wrote: "Doing these after-the-fact calculations is

meaningless."

···

==================================================
Meaningless as to possibility of forecasting any future hands, but a
pleasant diversion, for some lighter-hearted folks, on an evening
when there is nothing better on TV than the finale of The Sopranos or
The Tony Awards!

Incidentally Bob, you may not agree with Brian's request for some
light, anecdotal posting on the board, but you can hardly challenge
his "logic". Did you find an error in his mathematic calculations?

OT, how many of you viewers jumped up to smack their sets, when the
screen blacked out in the final scene of The Sopranos? I yelled at
EH and falsely accused him of trying to change the channel to the
Cubs/Braves game!

Who really knows now? Did the tough looking guy entering the
restaurant, just prior to the fade-out, whack Tony? Or did the
Soprano clan live happily ever after?

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

Ok, Bob, I'll grant you that the exercise doesn't make

for a better player. Nor is it proof of a player's prowess.......

Now, just a little minute there, Harry, are you casting aspersions
on my VP playing skills? If so, stifle yourself, man. Brian said
that I won the "grand prize", and I'm going with that astute opinion!

However, it's human nature that when one experiences a

sequence of events of significant consequence -- say, being hit by
lightning twice in a lifetime -- a person will wonder at the
improbability, and likely marvel at the answer a bit.

I'm in total agreement with your assessment, Harry, though honestly,
I'd rather score those 3 consecutive lovely hands, than be struck by
lighting.

I must say that I was a tad disappointed not to pop the royal after
I scored 5OAK! But, I believe that I've deduced why the royal did
not happen. (Besides "sometimes you're just not lucky"! (O: ) The
reason was, that the first 3 hands all contained a Joker! Makes
perfect sense to me.

Experiencing a run of 10 dealt hands all of which

are "tossers" would likely provoke curiosity of just how unfortunate
one was.

Nope! Happens to me all the time!

Any reasonably intelligent player knows that they come

away from the calculation with little more than something to back up
their next "can you top this" bull session.
- Harry

Exactly, Harry. Nobody benefits scientifically or mathematically
from these anecdotal recollections. But they can be fun to read and
relive.

~Babe~

#8

To show that looking back at an event and calculating the odds doesn't mean much can be demonstrated by looking at the odds of everything we do. For example, I just had fish for lunch (I don't know what type, fish all tastes pretty much the same no matter how my wife cooks it), If I went back and tried to calculate the odds of my eating that particular fish from the ocean the result would be astronomical. Then to figure out what the odds of my eating this particular apple at the same lunch and figure out what the chances of both of these events happening at the same lunch... Well, you get my point. Jerry S.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Harry Porter
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:09 AM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: What are odds of this ?? - Consecutive Deal "Anamolies"

  Bob Dancer wrote:
  > Doing these after-the-fact calculations is meaningless.

  Ok, Bob, I'll grant you that the exercise doesn't make for a better
  player. Nor is it proof of a player's prowess.

  However, it's human nature that when one experiences a sequence of
  events of significant consequence -- say, being hit by lightning twice
  in a lifetime -- a person will wonder at the improbability, and likely
  marvel at the answer a bit.

  "Significant consequence" is a key aspect. As you note, raising the
  probability question about two specific consecutive, but fairly
  inconsequential hands tickles few people's fancy.

  In vp, that consequence need not involve a person coming away from the
  chain of events ahead a thousand (or few thousand) credits to be of
  passing fascination. Experiencing a run of 10 dealt hands all of
  which are "tossers" would likely provoke curiosity of just how
  unfortunate one was.

  Any reasonably intelligent player knows that they come away from the
  calculation with little more than something to back up their next "can
  you top this" bull session. Given the universe of unlikely vp events,
  I'd expect they'd realize most any active player will see his 15
  seconds of improbable fame.

  - Harry

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

#9

Jerome L. Sinsky wrote:

To show that looking back at an event and calculating the odds
doesn't mean much can be demonstrated by looking at the odds of
everything we do.

You naysay the theoretical underpinnings of every discipline for which
statistical inference lies at the foundation.

- H.

#10

Harry quoted Jerome and then replied: Jerome L. Sinsky wrote:

To show that looking back at an event and calculating the odds
doesn't mean much can be demonstrated by looking at the odds of
everything we do.

You naysay the theoretical underpinnings of every discipline for which
statistical inference lies at the foundation.

- H.

I think you are incorrect, Harry, not to mention pedantic for using the
word "naysay." Disciplines such as Econometrics, which indeed use
statistical inference as a major technique, insist on creating the
hypotheses BEFORE looking at the data. That is, if Grumpy had asked the
question "I think I'll be dealt a 4oak followe by a straight flush
tonight. I wonder what the odds are?", then the numbers cited here would
be appropriate. But he didn't do that. He got the two dealt hands and
THEN posed the "what are the odds?" question. Jerome's point (and mine)
is that this makes absolutely no mathematical sense.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com