by sabastious 363 Replies latest jw friends
I forgot some math.
There was a 9th occurace as well because of the king of clubs and the six of clubs (with is King-Small) being dealt in the beggining. But that used half the cards used in the hands during the game. So essentially that would equate to one half of the difference between 0.1656^8 and 0.1656^9, correct?
Edit: I didn't forget to the do the math since it is in the first math post. What I forget was to factor that in at the end.
-Sab
The use of a half deck of 26 cards selected at random from 52 throws a wrinkle into the statistics because it separates the one occurance within an unknown population from the other eight within a known population. However, the odds would still be within the realm of a lottery. 0.1656^9 would be one in 10.7 million.
10 million is pretty astounding.
-Sab
It begs the question, though, at what point does improbability of an event become an unexplainable phenomenon?
When you believe you inadvertently asked for it. The reasons for that belief are not calculable, unfortunately.
-Sab
One other thing about the experience.
My brother and I played the rest of the game after stopping abruptly. The game took about 30 minutes to complete. We are notoriously known for leaving everything out until the next day and my wife gets on me about it all the time. We left the cards just as they were with the last hand played.
The next day I woke up and the cards were still there and to my surprize the King of clubs and the Six of clubs were on the table face up along with a few other cards. I was kind of freaked out at the moment and just walked away mumbling that it was not possible.
They were 2 of the 3 burn cards dealt on the very last hand the night before. There are only three burn cards dealt each hand and coincidentally the king and six of clubs showed up... which were the exact two first cards my brother dealt in the beginning. No need for odds there, this is a crazy experience.
-Sab
10 million to one is a very low probability, indeed, but still well within the explainable.
The odds of winning the Megamillions lottery are one in 175,711,536, yet people still line up to buy tickets and every once in awhile someone wins.
When you believe you inadvertently asked for it. The reasons for that belief are not calculable, unfortunately.
Inadvertance is recognisable only in hindsight. Were you looking for some kind of sign when it happened?
Inadvertance is recognisable only in hindsight. Were you looking for some kind of sign when it happened?
I can say resoundingly, and with complete honesty, that I was not. It was just a poker game that my brother and I often play.
-Sab
The odds of winning the Megamillions lottery are one in 175,711,536, yet people still line up to buy tickets and every once in awhile someone wins.
Nic, the lottery is only a good comparrison at a very basic level. Further on it becomes a very useless piece of data.
-Sab
At least one of us was dealt King-Small eight times in a row given only 4 cards total at a time.
That's information I didn't get. I assumed (making an ASS of U and Me) that you were the one getting the sign from God, therefore you were the one getting the miracle hand. This new fact makes it extremely even less remarkable. Such math is extremely tricky. That's why people lose a bunch of money at cards even when they get good hands and assume the odds of such a hand are more remarkable than they are.
Ignore the flop and the river, just focus on the four cards dealt to the two players.
If it were just me calculating my own hand, the odds of getting a "King-Small" would be
(4/52) times (32/51) That's 4 out of 52 cards that could be the King and then 32 out of the remaining 51 that could be "small."
That comes out to (4 times 32) / (52 times 51), or 128/2652 which is 0.04826 or 4.8%.
Since we don't care whether it is the first or second card that is the King, we can add
(32/52) times (4/51) which is essentially doubling to 9.6%.
But we have to go further because we don't even care which of two hands has the "King-Small." I won't tabulate the slightly increased odds of this difference (after each card, there is one less card remaining so it goes to 4/51, then 4/50, then...) I will just accept the slightly lower odds and double the above calculation. Afterall, in Poker, you don't know what the other player has, so you calculate your hand separately. But in the end, if only one of the hands has to be the miracle hand, then the odds are twice as likely. It doesn't matter one bit what the other player has, even another "King-Small" when tabulating this.
So the odds are closer to 19.2% that someone will get a "King-Small" hand. That's less than (but close to) one-in-five.
The odds reset for each hand. A streak of hands played, sooner-or-later, a long streak such as this is not that remarkable at all.
The odds reset for each hand. A streak of hands played, sooner-or-later, a long streak such as this is not that remarkable at all.
It is remarkable because the "streak" did not happen in the middle of the game. It started out with K-Rag to find the button and then the next 8 hands had king rag as one of our hands. This the the button cards and the first 8 hands. I know in the world of math it makes no difference but it makes a lot of difference to me.
-Sab
