|
|
#11
09-14-2003, 02:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If you want to take it a step further
Is this your attempt to imitate Cyrus' attempt to confuse? If his was this direct, it would be a welcome change, and I would enjoy responding to it even it was just him with a different handle.
Disregarding individual suits. 13 possible ranks for the first card X 13 possible ranks for the second card = 169 combinations 13 x 13 = 169 That is a valid but confusing (to beginners)way to compute the total number of offsuit and suited hands including pairs. 13 cards for the first card, and 13 cards for the second card which can be the same as the first card to make a pair, and since we are not dividing by 2, we are counting each non-pair hand twice, which counts both suited and offsuit cards. The more normal way is to count 13*12/2 = 78 offsuit hands and 78 suited hands, and then add 13 pairs and you get 169 total hands. I suspect, based on your smiley and the second calculation, that you thought you were wrong? Or trying to lure me into arguing incorrectly? Am I fighting monkeys, or only shadows? (Circle of Iron reference). To calculate the number of possible hands and taking the suit into account, the calculation would be 52 possible cards for the first card X 51 possible cards for the second card = 2652 individual two card hands are all that there is possible from a standard 52 card deck. 52 X 51 = 2652 You have to divide that by 2, or else you will count every hand twice depending on the order you got the two cards. 52*51/2 = 1326. 
|
|
#12
09-14-2003, 12:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Goot Gawd, lighten up. Thanks for the cheery welcome to the forums.
Are you the bouncer? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
No, I'm not Cyrus. Nor is this an "attempt to imitate an attempt to confuse". (This qualifies as one of the funniest things I've ever read [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) Just so we understand each other, the smiley faces mean lightheartedness on my part. There are no attempts to attempt any insults or ill will. Once again, thank you so much for the warm welcome to the forums. Foo = a metasyntactic variable [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] King = it's good to be [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#13
09-14-2003, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Foo fight \'er
My humble advice about Bruce's posts is : take in the math advice but skip the commentary.
In a month's time, if you're still around, you will thank me. Welcome. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
|
#16
09-15-2003, 02:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank you Cyrus & ACPlayer. I\'ll follow your advice.
Hi Foo King,
If you are not Cyrus (and you know if you are or not) I extend to you the warmest welcome to this forum. You have not started on the wrong foot with me. My beef is not with you, but with another poster who I thought you might be. I figured only he would use a word such as "metasyntactic", but then I realized that it and "foo" come from the world of UNIX and PERL and the like, and that would be way way out of his realm. Of course, these words may have pervaded other areas as well. Since you've decided to take my math advice, my math advice to you is to skip anything Cyrus posts on this math forum, and anything on any forum that involves logic for that matter, which would include about everything he posts. He has been thoroughly discredited in these areas, and he is an insidious force on these forums. Not all members understand this, because they have not had the in- depth experience with him that I have had, and the evidence is old, scattered, and of a fairly subtle nature. If you PM me, I can send you the evidence, or you can find it on other topics, but I don't feel it's appropriate to link to it here, and I do not wish to engage in this matter on this forum any more than necessary. It's a funny thing, but if you act to discredit someone, even when you are right, you yourself can lose credibility. Anyway, sorry you had to join in the middle of this. Enjoy this forum, and I hope you will find it useful and informative. -Bruce
|
|
#17
09-15-2003, 05:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Basic holdem combination question.
List 'em like a multiplication table.. Suited cards across the top, unsuited down the side..
|
|
#18
09-16-2003, 09:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks, Bruce
I appreciate the welcome. Thanks.
I've come to these forums to learn. Many thanks to all of you posters who take the time to teach the rest of us. And now, let the fur fly. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
