Woman hits "trillion to one" shot

[SomethingClever]

link

Well, still just a million to one, or whatever. But the fact that she hit it twice is impressive.

[closer2313]

She would have to hit it twice in a row and have only played it twice for it to be a trillion to one shot.

[nanoCRUSHER]

This wasn't a dollar slot, it was a penny slot.

[BlueBear]

Looks like I my strategy wrong all along, like her, I should have stuck to the same machine!

[etgryphon]

Not really. If winning the jackpot was an independent event, then she would have to play it just twice with any length of time between the two events.

That maybe what you are saying I just want to clarify.

Example: odds of winning jackpot 1:1,000,000

Situation A:

Woman pulls lever for the first time, wins the jack pot (Event A). The woman pulls it the second time and wins the jackpot (Event B)

odds of Event A * odds of Event B = 1:1,000,000 * 1:1,000,000 = 1:1,000,000,000,000

Situation 2: Woman pulls the lever for the first time(Event A) and wins jackpot. Takes her money home. 10 years later, She pulls the lever on the jackpot for the second time and wins (Event B).

odds of Event A * odds of Event B = 1:1,000,000 * 1:1,000,000 = 1:1,000,000,000,000

Still the same odds, but spanned over 10 years. There is no time element only the event elements.

-Gryph

[LetYouDown]

So I've had pocket Aces 1000 times since I started playing poker. The odds of getting A-A preflop is 1/221. Granted, I've played hundreds of thousands of hands...but that's irrelevant?

Sweet, I hit a 1-in-2.4675938837065992401101191361579e+2344 longshot! I'm not following. Obviously time isn't a factor, only number of hands. I think it's pretty safe to say that she didn't only pull the lever twice in 10 years.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
So I've had pocket Aces 1000 times since I started playing poker. The odds of getting A-A preflop is 1/221. Granted, I've played hundreds of thousands of hands...but that's irrelevant?

Sweet, I hit a 1-in-2.4675938837065992401101191361579e+2344 longshot! I'm not following.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Sorry to disappoint you.

You have played many more hands than the 1000 hands that you got AA. I'm just saying your odds are based off of the sample size and consecutivity(sp?) without a time element.

So in your case, if you sat down at a table and play exactly one hand of holdem and got AA (Event A). Got up from the table and left for a week while people played poker with the same deck, changed the deck, played 1000s of hands. Then you came back and sat down played exactly one hand and got AA (Event B).

For you, the odds of that happening would be:

((# of ordered events) * Odds of Event A) * ((# of ordered events) * (Odds of Event B)) = ((1) * (1:216)) * ((1) * 1:216) = 1:46656

Now lets take the case of where you sit down and play 10 hands each time and one of those hands you get AA.

So now you have events 1 - 10 in the first session
and events 11 - 20 in the second session.

Session #1:
9 events where you DID NOT get AA: odds = 215:216
1 events where you DID get AA: odds = 1:216

Odds of Session #1:
(10) * ( (1/216) * (215/216)^9 ) = 1:~21.5

Session #2:
9 events where you DID NOT get AA: odds = 215:216
1 events where you DID get AA: odds = 1:216

Odds of Session #2:
(10) * ( (1/216) * (215/216)^9 ) = 1:~21.5

So odds of Session #1 and Session #2 happening:

1 * (1:21.5)^2 = 1:463.16

Hope this is clear. Mistakes?

-Gryph

[closer2313]

If you play 2 hands, what are the chances of getting AA back to back?

If you play 300 hands, what are the changes of getting AA back to back?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
If you play 2 hands, what are the chances of getting AA back to back?


[/ QUOTE ]

(1:216 * 1:216) = 1:46656

[ QUOTE ]

If you play 300 hands, what are the changes of getting AA back to back?

[/ QUOTE ]

At least once? Well, you can break it up to 150 mini-sessions of two hands each.

150 * 1:46656 = 1:310.1

I think....

-Gryph

[LetYouDown]

[ QUOTE ]
Hope this is clear. Mistakes?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, apparently my attempts at sarcasm don't go over well early in the morning. Didn't mean for you to have to reiterate trivial math.