PDA

View Full Version : How unlucky...

DeeJ
10-14-2004, 01:58 PM
I am sure this is pretty bad luck.

AKo 23 times this month, 100% raised.

4 times all folded to a raise.

Of the remaining 19 times, I hit the flop (king or ace) but twice. Once a King (won the pot) and once an Ace (split with another AK /images/graemlins/mad.gif )

The other 17 times I totally missed.

By my reckoning 17/19 missing is unlucky. Can anyone tell me exactly how unlucky ? A 32.4% chance of hitting each time, apparently, a 67.6% chance of missing.

jason1990
10-14-2004, 05:32 PM
Let p be the probability of hitting, so p=.324. The probability of missing at least 17 out of 19 times is

171p^2(1-p)^17 + 19p(1-p)^18 + (1-p)^19.

I get 2.9%.

cigarzfan
10-15-2004, 01:42 AM
I'd say that sounds pretty unlucky. It also sounds like you get the same flops I do with AK. LOL!

slickpoppa
10-15-2004, 01:45 AM
if you're playing where the whole table will fold to your raise, then you are playing at the wrong place.

DeeJ
10-15-2004, 06:36 AM
Thanks Jason. Not as unlucky as I believed (which was &lt;1%). Still, shouldn't happen to me very often.

And now an totally uncalled for gripe /images/graemlins/smile.gif to the hand that feeds.

Mathmeticians always miss out brackets and workings. I suppose that's the reason we always read "do you see why?" from persons round here.

I remember enough prob theory to see that you had

[ (19*18) / 2! ] * (p^2) * ((1-p) ^ 17)
+ [ (19) / 1! ] * p * ((1-p) ^ 18)
+ ((1-p) ^ 19)

OK, so there's probably more than I need there. But I think I understand now /images/graemlins/smile.gif

jason1990
10-15-2004, 10:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And now an totally uncalled for gripe /images/graemlins/smile.gif to the hand that feeds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...yeah, okay, your gripe is probably mostly legit. I would hope, though, that most people here understand that juxtaposition means multiplication and that the "order of operations" requires us to do exponents first, and then multiplication. In that case, most of those brackets and "*"'s are unnecessary. (But I probably should have written the first term as 171(p^2)(1-p)^2.)

As for the factorials, I left those out on purpose. I figured either you'd understand or you wouldn't. If you understood (which you did), great. If not, I thought it would take more than a couple of "!"'s to explain it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

DeeJ
10-16-2004, 09:05 AM
You're right. I only have a small bee in my bonnet because I've been applying some formulae and they don't produce the results they should because the operator precedence is assumed (no brackets used) but isn't identical to the implementation script.

I did probability (some 20 years ago) and I forgot 90% of it (with a variance of 5%) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

BruceZ
10-16-2004, 12:27 PM
If you have Excel, you can do =BINOMDIST(2,19,0.324,TRUE) = 2.9%. That says "no more than 2 successes out of 19 trys with probability of success = 0.324 for each try".

Also, there was no ambiguity in Jason's equation if you follow standard mathematical operator precedence.

p^19 + 19*(1-p)*p^18 + C(19,2)*(1-p)^2*p^17

= 2.9% for p = 0.324.

Josh W
10-16-2004, 05:00 PM
Yeah, cuz earning .75BB whenever you feel like raising is HORRIBLE EV, making your hourly earn only something like 25BB/hr.

Minus tips.

(extreme? yeah. But thinking a tight game is unbeatable is very naive...often they are more beatable than loose games)

Josh

kagame
11-17-2004, 07:13 PM
somehow they all manage to call when you raise with 99 and fold when you raise with A-face leaving you in a sorry spot when the inevitable overs hit and you havent seen a set in 2 weeks.

kidding.