PDA

View Full Version : Five nut hands in a row out drawn


Peter-23
12-13-2005, 08:04 AM
What are the probability to have five consecutive NUT hands out drawn.

Hand 1. Str8, nuts on the flop.
Hand 2. Top set, nuts on the flop.
Hand 3. Ace high flush, nuts on the turn.
Hand 4. Ace high flush, nuts on the flop.
Hand 5. Str8, nuts on the turn.

12-13-2005, 08:58 AM
1:1,000,000

could be worse. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

12-13-2005, 11:59 AM
If your hand got beat, how did you figure you had the Nuts?

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

JackOfSpeed
12-13-2005, 12:04 PM
The Nuts are the best possible hand at the time you identify them as such. I.e. AA is the "Nuts" preflop...etc

12-13-2005, 03:48 PM
You can get outdrawn on a nut flush, by a full house, or on a nut full house, by quads or a straight flush. The term nuts is context specific, the nuts is defined by what is on the board, and what that implies is possible.

Cambraceres

Peter-23
12-13-2005, 03:57 PM
I had the nuts ON THE FLOP, or ON THE TURN.

Since I got beat i did not have the nuts on the river.

I think its rare to even get the nuts, even on the flop or turn. To have it five times in a row and added have them all beat must be very, VERY ...

Well, as you probably realize I'm having my worst tilt ever but I acctually would like to know just what the probability are for this to happen.

12-13-2005, 07:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The Nuts are the best possible hand at the time you identify them as such. I.e. AA is the "Nuts" preflop...etc

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I see what you and the replies after you mean now. I guess I'm just so used to calling the best possible hand at showdown "the nuts" I wasn't taking into consideration "at that point in time." thx

mostsmooth
12-13-2005, 10:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What are the probability to have five consecutive NUT hands out drawn.

Hand 1. Str8, nuts on the flop.
Hand 2. Top set, nuts on the flop.
Hand 3. Ace high flush, nuts on the turn.
Hand 4. Ace high flush, nuts on the flop.
Hand 5. Str8, nuts on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
obviously its 100%

BOTW
12-14-2005, 03:28 AM
You might find the tilt help you are seeking in the Psychology forum instead of Probability.

Never, ever, ever play Omaha. Never. You've been here too long for this crap.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9413/probablity7gh.jpg

EnderW27
12-14-2005, 04:24 AM
maybe you should stop playing in games with five community cards.

WhiteWolf
12-14-2005, 02:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You might find the tilt help you are seeking in the Psychology forum instead of Probability.

Never, ever, ever play Omaha. Never. You've been here too long for this crap.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9413/probablity7gh.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]
COTD

AaronBrown
12-15-2005, 08:13 AM
You have to be careful here. Let's take the Ace high flush on the flop. I assume you mean the Ace (or highest suited card not on the board) is in your hand and there are no straight flush possibilities.

Someone staring at three suited cards on the board is likely to stay in only with a flush, three of a kind or two pair. A flush can't outdraw you, three of a kind will outdraw you 28% of the time, two pair will outdraw you 16% of the time. If there is more than one caller, the odds of being outdrawn obviously increase.

When someone calls you on the flop, most of the time they'll fold when they'll fold when they don't improve on the turn or river. Therefore, if the hand goes to showdown, you're likely to win only if the other player has a flush. That will be the most common calling hand, it should be about 80% of the time.

Most of the time, no one will have a calling hand and you'll take the pot uncontested. Even at a 10-player table, with everyone staying in preflop, someone will have one of these hands only 42% of the time. At a real table, everyone will fold to your nut flush about 80% of the time.

Therefore, if you have a nut flush on the flop, about 80% of the time everyone will fold to you immediately, another 10% of the time everyone will fold before showdown, maybe 8% of the time you'll beat another flush or an optimistic lesser hand and about 2% of the time you'll lose to a full house or quads. Obviously, these predictions depend crucially on the style of play at the table.

So if you mean you had five nut hands in a row that lost, the probability is something like 1 in 10,000 (it's hard to be precise because the straight and set hands depend on what else is on the board). But if you mean you had five nut hands that went to showdown in a row and lost, meaning you had some nut hands in between where everyone folded, the probability is more like 1 in 100.

BigBiceps
12-15-2005, 01:09 PM
If each time you have the nuts and there is ~20% chance someone outdraws you the probability of this happening is:

0.2^5 = .00032

or ~ 3 times in 10,000

Peter-23
12-17-2005, 08:07 AM
Thanks, finally a real answer.

Acctually I also wanted to include the probability of having five hands in a row like this.

But after reveiwing my estimates on that part I will have to conclude that I overestimated the improbability. You could even argue that I didn't acctually have them in a row since I was playing 4 tables.

So even though the combination would be extremely grim it's quite probable.

It made me tilt big time though. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Skipbidder
12-17-2005, 06:04 PM
What are the odds that this actually happened as stated or is instead hyperbole?

Peter-23
12-17-2005, 11:53 PM
Oh, it acctually happened. My reaction was somewhat "hyperbole" going about and almost leaving the place and stuff. But thats what tilt can do to you.

But how grim does something have to be to be impossible?

Say a series of event has the probability of 1/1,000,000,000. Wouldn't that have happened to someone? Party has dealt over 3,000,000,000 hands since they started.

A series of events like stated are hardly comparable to any "30k break even streaks" but do I really have to be "hyperbole" to have an extreme series of events like this happen to me?

kyro
12-18-2005, 03:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You might find the tilt help you are seeking in the Psychology forum instead of Probability.

Never, ever, ever play Omaha. Never. You've been here too long for this crap.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9413/probablity7gh.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Bril
[censored]
liant

Peter-23
12-18-2005, 04:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You might find the tilt help you are seeking in the Psychology forum instead of Probability.

Never, ever, ever play Omaha. Never. You've been here too long for this crap.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9413/probablity7gh.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Bril
[censored]
liant

[/ QUOTE ]

In this thread no one has claimed anything to be rigged.

The only thing asked for is the probabilies, the rest is in YOUR minds.

Please make this posts under the psychology forum instead ! ! !

Skipbidder
12-18-2005, 08:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, it acctually happened. My reaction was somewhat "hyperbole" going about and almost leaving the place and stuff. But thats what tilt can do to you.

But how grim does something have to be to be impossible?

Say a series of event has the probability of 1/1,000,000,000. Wouldn't that have happened to someone? Party has dealt over 3,000,000,000 hands since they started.

A series of events like stated are hardly comparable to any "30k break even streaks" but do I really have to be "hyperbole" to have an extreme series of events like this happen to me?

[/ QUOTE ]

No you don't. But poker players are poker players and frequently seem to have an inability to tell such stories straight.

Since this was a probability question, I'll point out that the probability that you are exaggerating seems to be higher than that the events happened as you described them. If you provided hand histories, that would be a different story. If this plays true to form, you will not provide hand histories, however. You will say something along the lines that you can't be bothered to take to time to get hand histories for us or that your honor has been besmirched and you won't continue this conversation.

AaronBrown
12-18-2005, 11:06 AM
I don't think this question falls into that level of incredibility. Nut hands get outdrawn pretty frequently. Five is a row is hard luck, but it happens more often than, say, getting a straight flush in hold'em. If someone wrote in describing a hand with a straight flush, I don't think anyone would doubt him.

Granted, there are people who write in claiming to have flopped four royal flushes in four different suits in a row. Then you have to apply some Bayesian reasoning beginning with "5% of posters are dishonest or confused," and come to the conclusion that the posterior probability that the post is accurate is quite low.

But in this case, Bayes doesn't rule out belief. You can also take into account that this is neither a first post, nor one from someone known for wacky claims. Why would someone post sensibly 100 times, and then decide to switch gears?

The other trouble with this attitude is if you dismiss all unlikely events, you can miss opportunities to learn. Sometimes things are not as unlikely as the seem at first. Other times there is another factor at work, which you would never discover unless you investigate dubious claims.

If someone posts a made-up event, or one they thought they observed only because they were drunk and are stupid, no harm is done. I don't mind computing the probability for them. But posts like this one are in another category, good food for thought.

Peter-23
12-18-2005, 12:50 PM
I suppose you are right.

It was a freak occurrence, not that important and probably pointless to even post it. Maybe I’m wrong and my part of this post really does belong under the psychology section if on this forum at all. But psychology is part of the game, and tilt too right?

I have cooled down now and don’t really want to share any hand histories so I prove your point and be on my way towards other threads.

Peter-23
12-18-2005, 12:53 PM
Thanks AaronBrown,

I appreciate people who can separate one thing from the other and does not necessarily assume preconceptions. Seems you know more than odds and probabilities.

Primarily I like to have an idea about the probabilities in this game but I do have a tilt problem and sometimes use probabilities to ease my mind as well.

Actually I have made one wacky claim but it was under “big tilt” and I believe I have taken that one back in this thread.

Skipbidder
12-19-2005, 10:58 AM
I don't think you were estimating the probability of the question that OP actually asked.

What he was talking about was playing five hands in a row, flopping or turning the nuts with all five of them, and then eventually losing the hand on all five of them. This is significantly less likely than flopping a straight flush, I think. As you point out, this cannot be precisely calculated, because it requires knowledge about the likelihood of opponents calling along the way with hands that might need to come runner-runner to win. (It also obviously depends on whether OP was slowplaying any of these hands.) He already amended his claim by noting that he was multitabling at the time. This makes it more likely, but still considerably more improbable than you are suggesting. I think you are off by orders of magnitude here. In your earlier posts, you were discussing situations such as losing five hands in a row where you happened to flop or turn the nuts (but that didn't happen one after the other) or counting only hands that went to the showdown. That isn't what I understood OP to be asking about. (And his follow-up posts suggest that my view is closer to what OP was asking about.)

I think you are also underestimating the probability of a poster here exaggerating a story. I think that there is a natural tendency to spice up stories, and I think that this effect is stronger in poker players (who are used to bluffing anyway). I think that fishermen display the same tendencies. I couldn't honestly affirm that I've never exaggerated for effect when telling poker stories. Part of the issue is that nobody likes to hear about somebody else's bad beat story. You have to have enough of a zing to make it so it was worth listening to.

Surely I am entitled (or rather, compelled) to weigh the probability of an event happening vs. the probability that the person telling the story is mistaken or exaggerating.

I wasn't particularly nice to OP with my first response. I wish I had it to do over again. I'll be apologizing to him in the next post I make.

I'd be interested if you'd take another go at the problem with the following parameters:
1) Full table
2) Loose players
3) Five consecutive hands
4) Flop or turn the current nuts (AA preflop doesn't count as the nuts for this question)
5) Lose the hand in a showdown
6) Let's assume that OP slowplays flopped nuts (which makes it possible for some of the obscure runner-runners to come in)

Skipbidder
12-19-2005, 11:06 AM
Sorry I was a jerk in my first reply.

I see that you post questions in the micro-limit forums. I'd still be interested in seeing the hand histories. $50 should make it worth your time, eh? I'll relax the criteria a little bit, since you subsequently indicated that they weren't actually 5 hands in a row, since you were multitabling. If you can provide hand histories that show five hands at one site within a 15 minute time period that correspond to the hands you described (which were the nuts at either the flop or turn and still lost at showdown), I'll transfer $50 to you on a site we share. (Most of my money is on Pokerstars, but I've got accounts at at least 15 other sites.)

AaronBrown
12-21-2005, 11:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested if you'd take another go at the problem with the following parameters:
1) Full table
2) Loose players
3) Five consecutive hands
4) Flop or turn the current nuts (AA preflop doesn't count as the nuts for this question)
5) Lose the hand in a showdown
6) Let's assume that OP slowplays flopped nuts (which makes it possible for some of the obscure runner-runners to come in)

[/ QUOTE ]
That's far less likely for two reasons. The first, as you point out, is doing it five hands in a row. You rarely flop the nuts. I don't know the exact figure, but it would reduce the probability by a factor of 1,000 or more. The other reason is you're getting called a lot more between the loose players and the slowplay assumption. Most of the time you flop the nuts you don't get to showdown unless someone has a chance of beating you.

Ballpark I'd say this reduces the odds by a factor of 10,000 to 100,000.

12-22-2005, 12:20 PM
The problem with these kind of odds questions are that they're asked after it happened.

If you want to ask the real question, then you should ask: If I play poker for 100 hours, what are the odds that something really weird will happen that will make me wonder what the odds of that happening are.

I'd guess that the answer to that is a fairly high percentage.