What's wrong with my math?

[emonrad87]

Ok, so this isnt the right forum, but my other probability post is getting no responses.

It seems as if the odds of receiving a pocket pair would be 3/51 = 0.0588, and the probability of getting two suited cards would be 12/51 = 0.235. But, in my PT database I clearly get pocket pairs more often than i do suited cards. So what the hell is wrong with my math??

[JFB37]

you have calculated the chance of getting a specific pocket pair, given a specific first card; and the odds getting a second card of the same suit as your first.

The odds of getting any pair or any two suited are calculated very differently.

[emonrad87]

Ok. Then how do you do it?

I.e. how would you find the probability of being dealt pocket aces? AKs? AKo?

[UncleSalty]

Math sounds right to me. How large is your sample size?

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]
you have calculated the chance of getting a specific pocket pair, given a specific first card; and the odds getting a second card of the same suit as your first.

The odds of getting any pair or any two suited are calculated very differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're wrong. He calculated it right.

However, I am having a similar issue. If I should get one pocket pair as often as any other pocket pair, how come I have gotten pocket twos three more times than I have gotten pocket sevens!? Are pocket twos slightly more likley than pocket sevens? What gives /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[emonrad87]

Alright, it's not due to sample size, nor incorrect math. It's due to me finding the odds of getting ANY pocket pair and ANY two suited, but then looking at specific pocket pairs vs. specific suited cards. Because there are so many more suited card hadns than pocket pairs, they are overall more likely than any pocket pair, but individual pocket pairs are more likely than specific suited cards.

Whew. Correct math, incorrect application. Thanks for the help.

[JFB37]

What I wrote was clearly misleading. Your method was correct. What I wrote was true in a sense, but I was ignorning the fact that, duh, whatever you do you have to start with one card. It was kind of late and I was reading threads between hands.

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
are pocket twos slightly more likely than pocket sevens?

[/ QUOTE ]

only slightly according to previous calculations posted, but it would be hard to see in PT unless you had more than 50k hands. It's quite weird because one would expect the likelihood to be the same.

[Cleveland Guy]

[quote Are pocket twos slightly more likley than pocket sevens? What gives /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Must be seat selection. We all know that certain seats are more likely to get certain cards, - I'd pick a new seat at the table. That should solve it.

[TommyO]

I'm guessing you're misinterpreting the data in PT. What stats are you looking at?

[Stork]

I'm pretty sure it's because pocket twos weigh less (less stuff to draw on the cards)
On that note, this thread should die.

[bcunha]

Sample size not big enough. Try again when you're over a million hands.

[Filet O' Fish]

Get it! gamblersbook.com $24.95