Re: Five nut hands in a row out drawn
 

[ 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/img217/9...bablity7gh.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]
COTD

Re: Five nut hands in a row out drawn
 

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.

Re: Five nut hands in a row out drawn
 

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

Re: Five nut hands in a row out drawn
 

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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Five nut hands in a row out drawn
 

What are the odds that this actually happened as stated or is instead hyperbole?

Re: Five nut hands in a row out drawn
 

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?

Re: Five nut hands in a row out drawn
 

[ 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/img217/9...bablity7gh.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Bril
[censored]
liant

Re: Five nut hands in a row out drawn
 

[ 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/img217/9...bablity7gh.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 ! ! !

Re: Five nut hands in a row out drawn
 

[ 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.

Re: Five nut hands in a row out drawn
 

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.