once the cards are shuffled, arent the odds just the same

[unimproved]

Assuming the shuffle randomises the deck, the odds are the same. Why would they be any different..?

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the shuffle randomises the deck, the odds are the same. Why would they be any different..?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing he got into an argument with someone who doesn't understand what random means, and thinks there's an even distribution - i.e., if you get AA one hand, you shouldn't see it again for about another 220 hands. Which is of course, silly.

So yeah, if you get AA ten hands in a row, the odds of getting it on the 11th hand are still 220-1. However, the odds of getting AA 11 times in a row (before you've seen even 1 AA come) are 58431830141132800000000000 to 1. Approximately. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the shuffle randomises the deck, the odds are the same. Why would they be any different..?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing he got into an argument with someone who doesn't understand what random means, and thinks there's an even distribution - i.e., if you get AA one hand, you shouldn't see it again for about another 220 hands. Which is of course, silly.

So yeah, if you get AA ten hands in a row, the odds of getting it on the 11th hand are still 220-1. However, the odds of getting AA 11 times in a row (before you've seen even 1 AA come) are 58431830141132800000000000 to 1. Approximately. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it is 61420735191082762650784420:1.

[FrontonPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the shuffle randomises the deck, the odds are the same. Why would they be any different..?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing he got into an argument with someone who doesn't understand what random means, and thinks there's an even distribution - i.e., if you get AA one hand, you shouldn't see it again for about another 220 hands. Which is of course, silly.

So yeah, if you get AA ten hands in a row, the odds of getting it on the 11th hand are still 220-1. However, the odds of getting AA 11 times in a row (before you've seen even 1 AA come) are 58431830141132800000000000 to 1. Approximately. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, thats how it came up, someone was mussing about having to fold AA to a flush on the board, and asked, what are the chances i will get dealt the same hand, and i said the same as the hand before (you were dealt them) and he insisted the the 'odds were longer' since he just had them, the odds of being dealt them again are less, and i was saying its still the same, every deal is independent of previous deals..

[YouGotBluffed]

You guys are correct with all but one thing I believe. We all know a deck has no supernatural power to know if person #1 just got AA last hand, and therefore shouldn't have it again for another 20 hands or so.


However, the first question asked, what are the chances that you will pull the Ace of Spades out of the deck twice in a ROW. If the question hadn't specified twice in a ROW, then the odds of course would be the same because the cards are independent from previous and future hands. But, because it was specific, I believe you have to take 1/104 which yields a .009% chance of pulling the Ace of Spades out twice in a row. In other words, you would have to pull out a card 90,000 times (reshuffling after each time of course) before you pull out the same card twice in a row.

I think that's right.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are correct with all but one thing I believe. We all know a deck has no supernatural power to know if person #1 just got AA last hand, and therefore shouldn't have it again for another 20 hands or so.


However, the first question asked, what are the chances that you will pull the Ace of Spades out of the deck twice in a ROW. If the question hadn't specified twice in a ROW, then the odds of course would be the same because the cards are independent from previous and future hands. But, because it was specific, I believe you have to take 1/104 which yields a .009% chance of pulling the Ace of Spades out twice in a row. In other words, you would have to pull out a card 90,000 times (reshuffling after each time of course) before you pull out the same card twice in a row.

I think that's right.

[/ QUOTE ]
where does it say twice in a row?

[YouGotBluffed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys are correct with all but one thing I believe. We all know a deck has no supernatural power to know if person #1 just got AA last hand, and therefore shouldn't have it again for another 20 hands or so.


However, the first question asked, what are the chances that you will pull the Ace of Spades out of the deck twice in a ROW. If the question hadn't specified twice in a ROW, then the odds of course would be the same because the cards are independent from previous and future hands. But, because it was specific, I believe you have to take 1/104 which yields a .009% chance of pulling the Ace of Spades out twice in a row. In other words, you would have to pull out a card 90,000 times (reshuffling after each time of course) before you pull out the same card twice in a row.

I think that's right.

[/ QUOTE ]
where does it say twice in a row?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, Terry said:

"Very good. Now answer this:

What are the odds you will shuffle the deck and pick the A (of spades) twice in a row?"

[Breitenfeld]

Just tell us, how much money did you already lose with your conclusions????

[Breitenfeld]

You are absolutely right. Once you have the A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], for the next game it's exactly 1 in 52. Only if you want to know the probability of getting it two times in a row, without knowing what will happen the first time, than you have to calculate 52 x 52 = 2704.
All speculations about so-called "emperical probabilities" are nothing but wishful thinking, otherwise all casinos would have already gone bancrupt!

[Cincy Peach]

Of course you are correct. Some of the responses to your question were kind of flippant, but it's a darned good question, because the falacy you refer to just won't go away.

I read a book once where the author seriously referred to 'the law of the maturity of chances'(!) in promoting some particular betting system. The idea that someone that wrong could get published amazed me. There are no 'trends'; you're never 'due'. Furthermore this 'law' is so fundamentally ingrained in some people that you can't convince them otherwise. Don't let them sway you, though, just nod and smile when they spout there nonsense.