Quick question, probably in wrong section...if am..sorry |
|
Posted Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:32 pm GMT by Dias
Playing 6 handed, what are the odds that one player would catch 4 of a kind on the turn, then 2 hands later flop the 4 of a kind?
just wondering, cuz it happened last night and we were curious.
first one he had JJ flop, then caught a J on turn, other hand 777 flopped, he had the 7 in his hand.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:34 pm GMT by Dave B
not good.
Posted Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:33 pm GMT by majortato
once I had a K in hand and after river, I had 4 of a kind.
next hand I got pocket 9's and flopped 4 of a kind.
lets just say that's probably a once in a life time thing.
ditto to what happened above. I give it one in a million odds at best
Posted Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:04 pm GMT by tame_deuces
If you want probability, the odds are the exact same as any two hands coming in that order. Scoring 4 specific smalltime rags and then scoring some other 4 specific rags in a latter round, are the exact same as scoring a specific four of a kind in one round and then another specific 4 of a kind in another round. ,)
You don't get less of a chance of rolling a 6 on a dice by rolling a 6 on a dice ,) So basically, the longer you play, the more of these situations would happen. If you had played for an eternity, then an situation would have arisen where you would have flopped 4 of a kinds for an eternity (poker heaven?)
Ofcourse, statistics really mess all this up, but that's a totally different game. And this is a late-night post. As a side note I'll note that I have had 4 four of a kind hands in less than 3 hours of play (ain't I shitty? 
Posted Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:33 am GMT by majortato
to the above poster,
You are incorrect. It's true that the current hand is not affected by the outcome of the previous hand. But the question was clearly how often would 2 rare hands like that happen so close to each other.
That's like asking, if you roll a die 2 times, what's the probability of rolling two 6's in a row. Definitely not 1/6. It's 1/36. However, if you rolled a 6 already, then the chance of you rolling another 6 is 1/6. When something already happens, you eliminate one of your variables. If it has not happened yet, you need to keep it in mind.
So when you get 4 of a kind in a poker game, then your odds of getting 4 of a kind again the next hand is the same as always, but the overall odds of getting two 4 of a kind hands in a row is very small (turns out to be (odds of getting 4 of a kind)^2)
Posted Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:32 am GMT by Johnnyc2005
Wrong there. You are right if you are talking about getting 2 quads in a row in specific hands e.g. I just sit down, what's the chance of getting quads twice in the first 2 hands. But, if you are just asking what's the chance of getting quads twice in a row at some point in time then it's the same as getting quads in one specific hand because you play until you get the first one (which could be forever) and then work out the prob of getting the second one.
Posted Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:06 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| majortato wrote: | to the above poster,
You are incorrect. It's true that the current hand is not affected by the outcome of the previous hand. But the question was clearly how often would 2 rare hands like that happen so close to each other.
That's like asking, if you roll a die 2 times, what's the probability of rolling two 6's in a row. Definitely not 1/6. It's 1/36. However, if you rolled a 6 already, then the chance of you rolling another 6 is 1/6. When something already happens, you eliminate one of your variables. If it has not happened yet, you need to keep it in mind.
So when you get 4 of a kind in a poker game, then your odds of getting 4 of a kind again the next hand is the same as always, but the overall odds of getting two 4 of a kind hands in a row is very small (turns out to be (odds of getting 4 of a kind)^2) |
Yes, that seems logical. However, the probability of getting two sixes in a row is no less than getting any two numbers in a row! Ie. 6-6 is no less probable than 1-3 or 2-5. And 6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6 is not less probable than 1-1-4-2-4-5-6-3, it simply looks more noteworthy, you would notice the first one, but quickly ignore the second one. Just like when a bad poker player cleans the table because he has damn good hands, that's when you go 'man, that's not even probable!', but unfortunately, it is
Posted Thu May 19, 2005 7:15 am GMT by AAceman
talk about something useful dangit. Tell me how to win....stuff
Posted Thu May 19, 2005 3:35 pm GMT by din
| tame_deuces wrote: | | majortato wrote: | to the above poster,
You are incorrect. It's true that the current hand is not affected by the outcome of the previous hand. But the question was clearly how often would 2 rare hands like that happen so close to each other.
That's like asking, if you roll a die 2 times, what's the probability of rolling two 6's in a row. Definitely not 1/6. It's 1/36. However, if you rolled a 6 already, then the chance of you rolling another 6 is 1/6. When something already happens, you eliminate one of your variables. If it has not happened yet, you need to keep it in mind.
So when you get 4 of a kind in a poker game, then your odds of getting 4 of a kind again the next hand is the same as always, but the overall odds of getting two 4 of a kind hands in a row is very small (turns out to be (odds of getting 4 of a kind)^2) |
Yes, that seems logical. However, the probability of getting two sixes in a row is no less than getting any two numbers in a row! Ie. 6-6 is no less probable than 1-3 or 2-5. And 6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6 is not less probable than 1-1-4-2-4-5-6-3, it simply looks more noteworthy, you would notice the first one, but quickly ignore the second one. Just like when a bad poker player cleans the table because he has damn good hands, that's when you go 'man, that's not even probable!', but unfortunately, it is |
That is incorrect as well.
Chances of getting a pair, with only two cards is less than getting 1-3 or 3-5, or any other non-paired pocket cards.
If you get a six in your pocket, you only have 3 more outs to get another six. If you get a 2 in your pocket, you have 4 outs to get any other specific card, other than a 2.
Posted Thu May 19, 2005 4:07 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
50-50. Either he will, or he won't.
Posted Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:34 pm GMT by majortato
| Johnnyc2005 wrote: | | Wrong there. You are right if you are talking about getting 2 quads in a row in specific hands e.g. I just sit down, what's the chance of getting quads twice in the first 2 hands. But, if you are just asking what's the chance of getting quads twice in a row at some point in time then it's the same as getting quads in one specific hand because you play until you get the first one (which could be forever) and then work out the prob of getting the second one. |
I know this is super old but I had to reply to this post.
WRONG! that's the most convoluted logic I've heard LOL. probabilities always deal with chances of something happening within a time period, or some other sort of measurement..such as in certain number of hands and is always assumed to be at that point in time unless otherwise specified. When you talk about poker probabilities, you are talking the chances of something happening within a certain number of hands...in this case, 2 hands..and is assumed to be the upcoming hands. When you add the statement "in some point in time" then you are basically saying what the probability of something happening is, at any point in time...which is 100% because it will happen and it has happened to ppl.
By the same logic as your statement, the probability of 10 royal flushes in a row happening is the same as one happening becuase you wait until you get the first 9 in a row, and then the last one happening will have the same probability as one happening...but with that logic, why not wait a few millioin years longer and maybe you'll hit 10 in a row, in which case the probability of it is 100%!!! And the chances of 9 happening in a row is 100% since it has just happened. It's obvious that given infinite time, anything will happen. Given infinite time, I can win 50 powerballs in a row..assuming powerball lotteries and I exist forever.
Anything dealing with probabilities need to have some sort of time or count to gauge it with instead of something as vague as "at some point in time" In cases with cards, dice, etc...it's always assumed to be in regard to the upcoming hand or roll unless otherwise noted.
example: what are your chances of hitting your flush draw after the flop? We know this to be ~30%
but if you say...what are chances of hitting your flush draw after the flop in 3 similar type hands...then the probability is 1-.7*.7*.7 (100% minus probability of missing the flush in these 3 hands). If we continue with this, the probability of missing the flush 10 times in a row becomes even smaller....and over a large number of hands, it's almost impossible to miss the flush draw every time. and so what's the probability of missing a flush draw given enough time? 0%!!!
You are bound to hit a flush draw at some point in your life if you play enough hands so probability is 100%.
|
|
