Back to back

[millea]

I was playing 3-6 hold-em at the Monte Carlo, holding: Kd,7s flop, Jd-Qd-B, turn 10d, river Ad, Bingo! NEXT HAND: I'm holding: Jd-10c, flop Kd-Qd-Ad, turn 10d. So, back to back royal flushes. I have asked managers of most card rooms I've been in since if they have heard of this happening before, no one has. A manager at Casino Arizona gaurenteed a cold deck. Please comment.

[DDonee]

Holy crap...the only thing I can say is I hope you maximized your profit with these two monsters....

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
Holy crap...the only thing I can say is I hope you maximized your profit with these two monsters....

[/ QUOTE ]

We definitely need to rename the magazine the "Newbie Fish Forum."

[nate1729]

Bayes' Theorem makes it very likely that those deals were not the result of a random shuffle.

[bobman0330]

Nate's post fails to grasp many of the subtleties that can be grasped from a thorough application of Bayes' Theorem to this post:
now, it's true, if you are OP, the math works out as:
P(cold decks|back to back royals) = P(cold decks AND back to back royals)/ P(back to back royals). Which yields a very high probability of cold decks, because the odds are so long.
For the rest of us, it's critical to note that the math is different:
P(cold decks|US HEARING about back to back royals) = P(cold decks and we read a post about royals) / P(us hearing about back to back royals). The denominator in this equation is several million times larger than in the former.

[nate1729]

Good point, but when you include things like improperly shuffled decks, player cheating, OP lying or exaggerating, etc. in the "not legit" category, as I meant, I think the probable result is still that something is "up" (though not necessarily something underhanded.)

Although, you're right, I probably underestimated the reporting bias.