Please explain for a friend

[YoureToast]

A friend of mine, who happens to be a Harvard law school graduate and a VERY good poker player, and I had the following discussion via IM which has been modified to reflect only whats important. It shocked me that he could have the view he had. Can some please do a better job of explaining why I'm right:

HLS: played early, got blasted with AA, KK, QQ and AK, dropped quick 400 and said [censored] it; figured i had got my best cards of night and lost
HLS: did you play any ring games
me: no...and ps your such a rational thinker sometimes
HLS: i think that is rational; you only get so many good cards in a night, and if you get those hands and lose, it does no bode well
ME: obviously you know if you get AA on the first hand you have a 1/220 chance of getting aa on the next hand...and if you dont get aa on the first hand, you have the same chance
me: if all your tallking about is mood, thats a different story...but the fact you got good hands early means nothing about the future....i was concerned about your view on this when we talked about the sklansky AA hand
HLS : your view is incorrect; statistically, there is a long term distribution of hands which should be accurate if the site uses a true random number generator; if I accept that premise, then i should not recieve another AA for 220 hands
me: its unbelievable that you thnk that
me: i will post this discussion on 2+2 and you will understand better than i can explain it

[lorinda]

He's a moron, block him.

Lori

[YoureToast]

no can do, hes taught me more about poker than anyone...hes just got a little issue with this one.

[icepick]

Random != Evenly Distributed

[lorinda]

Can some please do a better job of explaining why I'm right:

Let's say you have a 1/100 chance of AA or KK, I know it's not accurate, but it's easier to see the numbers that way.

If you get AA on the first hand and KK on the third hand you've hit 2/3 of these 1/100 shots.

After another 100,000,000 hands, you will expect to have hit
an extra 1,000,000 of these, taking the total to:
1,000,002 / 100,000,003 = .0100000197 which is as near to 0.01 as you could really hope for.

I still prefer the blocking option though.

Lori

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
hes taught me more about poker than anyone...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an incredibly scary thought.

[MathMagician]

I hope he's better at Law than he is at Math. Does he also think he can never lose at Roullette by using a Martingale scheme? After all, if black comes up 5 times then red is suddenly more likely to come up the next time.

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

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
HLS : your view is incorrect; statistically, there is a long term distribution of hands which should be accurate if the site uses a true random number generator; if I accept that premise, then i should not recieve another AA for 220 hands


[/ QUOTE ]

So if you roll a die and get a 4, you should not roll another 4 for another 6 rolls. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Tell him to play craps and just bet against whatever number was last rolled. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[YoureToast]

lots of replies with further examples of why he's wrong, but no replies that explain why. anyone?

[lorinda]

but no replies that explain why. anyone?

My first post explained why, the second explained the math.

Lori