#1
|
|||
|
|||
Consecutive Pairs vs 4 of a kind (Poker Variant)
Hi, there is a card game that is played amongst my friends and I on occasion. I believe it is of Vietnamese descent. Anyway, in the game there are two things called bombs. The "lesser" bomb is a 4 of a kind. The "greater" bomb is a set of 6 cards consisting of 3 consecutive pairs.
The game is played with exactly 13 cards. Which is actually more probable? The 6 consecutive pairs or the 4 of a kind? My intuition tells me that 3 consecutive pairs would be more common. If this is true, I'm surprised that it is the more powerful bomb. Anyone want to tackle this for me? Thanks in advance. -RMJ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Consecutive Pairs vs 4 of a kind (Poker Variant)
The "greater" bomb is a set of 6 cards consisting of 3 consecutive pairs....
The game is played with exactly 13 cards. Which is actually more probable? The 6 consecutive pairs or the 4 of a kind? Assuming you mean 3 consecutive pairs as you said previously, that is much more probable than quads. It will occur 20% of the time or 4-to-1. Quads will occur 3.4% of the time or 28.2-to-1. P(quads in 13 cards) = [ 13*C(48,9) - C(13,2)*C(44,5) + C(13,3)*40 ] / C(52,13) = 3.4% or 28.2-to-1 P(3 consecutive pairs in 13 cards) = [ 11*6^3*C(46,7) - (11 + 10*6^2 + 9*6^4 + 36*6^6)*40 ] / C(52,13) = 20% or 4-to-1 The second term subtracts the cases where we have two of these. There are 11 which overlap in 3 places (consecutive quads), 10 which overlap in 2 places, 9 which overlap in 1 place, and 8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1 = 36 which overlap in 0 places with different spacings from 0 to 7. This whole term is negligible. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
3 pair odds wrong - conclusion OK
The probability for 3 consecutive pairs is less than 20% because I am over counting sets and quads. I may correct the calculation later; however, since the question was whether this is more or less probable than quads, we can answer that without calculating this probability exactly. Note that:
P(3 consecutive pairs in 13 cards) > [ 11*6^3*C(40,7) - 10*6^4*C(44,5) ] / C(52,13) = 4.8% The actual probability will be greater than this since this only considers cases where we get exactly 3 consecutive pairs (no set or quads). The subtracted term is for 4 or more in a row, and this is an upper bound, so subtracting it gives a lower bound. This is more probable than quads even just considering this subset, since the probability of quads is only 3.4%. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 3 pair odds wrong - conclusion OK
Thanks, BruceZ. I don't care too much about the actual probability, so long as I know that the 3 consecutive pairs occur a lot more often than the quads.
-RMJ |
|
|