Questions about internet sites

[Wolf101]

When you start playing online you see a lot more hands of poker. Thousands and thousands of hands. If you played the same number of hands in a casino it would take a lot longer, so basically, your getting turbo doses of poker in comparison to what you might be used to, and over thousands of hands you see all kinds of wacky stuff.

I went four sngs without ever getting dealt a pocket pair recently. It happens. On the contrary, I've been dealt pocket kings four times in a SNG.

It's random...that's the point.

[MyMindIsGoing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Being dealt an AA right after being dealt an AA in the previous hand isn't so alarming - same odds as being dealt any other two cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's absolutely true. The odds of being dealt, say, As Ad in two consecutive hands are EXACTLY the same as the odds of being dealt As Ad in one hand and 7s 2d in the next.

AA in and of itself is no more rare than any other specific starting hand.

Of course, the fact that we're probably debating over a troll is another thing entirely (methinks with his nick he's waiting for a YSSCKY).

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets do some math. We take AA and AKs as examples:

How many possible combinations of cards are there in holdem? 52*51/2 = 1326
How many of them are AA? 6
6/1326 = 1/221, that means pocket aces will come once every 221 hands

Chanse of being delt AA twise in a row: 221*221 = one time in 48841

Now what is the chance of getting AKs the next hand after you got AA the hand before [I mean first getting AA and then AKs there after]?

There are 4 AKs to be delt
4/1326 = 1/331.5 hands

There for chance of getting first AA and then AKs is 221*331.5 = one time in 73261.5

(being delt AKs twise in a row. once every 109892.25, alot rarer than AA twise in a row, just for the record)

Conclusion? What you said is not true.

And do please correct me if I am wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Lets do some math. We take AA and AKs as examples

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there are twice as many potential suited connectors in the deck than pocket pairs. Now I see where I may have been sloppy in one sentence, which gave you an opening to angle-shoot. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

The assertion (which you said was untrue) was: after being dealt AA, your odds of being dealt AA on the next hand are exactly the same.

To disprove this, the math would have to show that the odds of being dealt AA actually increase if AA was dealt in the previous hand (not the odds of AA*2, but AA in two isolated hands).

If you can do THAT with math, I'll be in awe.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, the fact that we're probably debating over a troll is another thing entirely (methinks with his nick he's waiting for a YSSCKY).

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what this means, but I'm sure it's something I would love to punch you in the mouth over!

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, if you have no sense of humor you might try. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Of course, not having a sense of humor should require you to choose a different nick in the first place, sparing you such a potentially embarrassing situation.

[theben]

well i think you have definitive evidence that online poker is rigged.

[MyMindIsGoing]

Remeber my original post refered to this statement: "Being dealt an AA right after being dealt an AA in the previous hand isn't so alarming - same odds as being dealt any other two cards."

That is what I said was untrue. "same odds as being dealt any other two cards" That is what I proved was not true.

[ QUOTE ]
Remeber my original post refered to this statement: "Being dealt an AA right after being dealt an AA in the previous hand isn't so alarming - same odds as being dealt any other two cards."

That is what I said was untrue. "same odds as being dealt any other two cards" That is what I proved was not true.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I give you credit for what you were referring to, I have to give Hecubus the same credit, right?

It was clear to me that he was referring to the idea that while the odds of being dealt AA twice may be astronomical, once it has already been dealt once, it's no less likely in the next hand. His language was imprecise, sure, and if you read the message out of context, I could see some confusion.

Your math isn't for naught, though. You actually came up with a rebuttal for another of Kevorkian's issues, that of not getting dealt a pocket pair for an entire tourney. It's obvious from your calculations that non-pairs are MUCH more common than pairs (I already knew that, but some may not).

In closing, mathematically, amongst millions and millions of dealt hands EACH DAY, someone's bound to get AA 4 out of 5 hands. And each time that happens, I expect the recipient to think it must be rigged.