How many poker hands have been played in history? - Page 2

Aytumious · #11 09-29-2005, 02:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
PartyPoker has dealt about 2.8 billion hands. PokerStars has dealt about 2.7 billion. Assume that those 5.5 billion hands represent about 1/5 of the total number of online hands, for an online estimate of 27.5 billion. I think it's lower than that, but I'm going to err on the side of overestimation.

During the online poker era, what percentage of hands played have been played online? I'll use 10%, though I suspect it's more than that. That brings us to 275 billion during the so-called "poker boom."

What percentage of total hands have been played during this boom? I wouldn't be surprised if it was a majority, to be honest, but let's be safe and say 10% again. That yields a final answer of 2.75 trillion total poker hands played. to my way of thinking, that's close to the upper limit, though I could be wrong, of course.

10 trillion is a big, big number, and I find it highly doubtful that that many hands have been played.

[/ QUOTE ]

It think you vastly underestimate how popular poker has been as a past time since it's creation.

VarlosZ · #12 09-29-2005, 02:31 PM

I think you underestimate the degree to which more poker, in gross numbers, is being played today than ever before.

Aytumious · #13 09-29-2005, 02:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you underestimate the degree to which more poker, in gross numbers, is being played today than ever before.

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumption you are making about me has nothing to do with my perceptions of how many online hands are being played today; my post was only in regards to the number that had been played prior.

But to the point, your math is slightly flawed since you are only including online hands in your estimation of how many hands have been played in this "poker boom" when it is clear the number in live games has also gone up drastically. That in itself will skew your estimate. It is quite possible the number of live hands played during the poker boom is higher than that of online just because the player base of live players is much larger than it is online.

VarlosZ · #14 09-29-2005, 03:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But to the point, your math is slightly flawed since you are only including online hands in your estimation of how many hands have been played in this "poker boom" when it is clear the number in live games has also gone up drastically. That in itself will skew your estimate. It is quite possible the number of live hands played during the poker boom is higher than that of online just because the player base of live players is much larger than it is online.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I assumed in my post that the number of live hands played during the poker boom was nine times greater than the number of online hands played:

[ QUOTE ]
During the online poker era, what percentage of hands played have been played online? I'll use 10%, though I suspect it's more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aytumious · #15 09-29-2005, 03:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But to the point, your math is slightly flawed since you are only including online hands in your estimation of how many hands have been played in this "poker boom" when it is clear the number in live games has also gone up drastically. That in itself will skew your estimate. It is quite possible the number of live hands played during the poker boom is higher than that of online just because the player base of live players is much larger than it is online.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I assumed in my post that the number of live hands played during the poker boom was nine times greater than the number of online hands played:

[ QUOTE ]
During the online poker era, what percentage of hands played have been played online? I'll use 10%, though I suspect it's more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly my mind isn't functioning properly today. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

#16 09-29-2005, 05:58 PM

I was just reminding people that poker has been around longer than the internet ie)when it was played on riverboats or called poque [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

#17 09-30-2005, 08:33 PM

David Sklansky, since you claim it only takes two seconds to realize this, can you spare two more seconds of your time to show us your work so we can understand how you came up with these numbers?

David Sklansky · #18 09-30-2005, 10:06 PM

50,000 games going at one time for 100 years. And I was counting individual hands.

RJT · #19 10-01-2005, 01:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its between ten trillion and 100 trillion. Takes two seconds to realize that.

[/ QUOTE ]

My comment was a joke, intended for my own entertainment. It didn't really even accomplish that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I followed your joke after you had written the exact response to another question and you pointed that out.
I thought the joke was hilarious (i.e posting the same answer).

RJT · #20 10-01-2005, 01:48 AM

Max,

BTW, it was again funny the 3rd time. It'll probably be funny at least one more time. After that I am not saying not to use it, but - you have a decision to make - and since this is also the philosophy forum:

1) You can stop using it. And go out like Seinfeld’s TV show - the audience wanting more.

2) Continue to use it as your signature line, like Al Capone Jr. ("Kick 'em in the nuts") does his line in the B & M forum. Not nearly as funny now, but still funny sometimes - but we usually know it is coming - so far I still like it. Also, kind of like the "Sup Bro" thing - old but still gets a smirk if one stops and thinks back to the original post that it refers to.

3) Or continue to use it until it gets older than dirt "Take my wife...please."

Best of luck with your discernment.

RJT