 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 17/12/2014 15:47, Warp a écrit :
> This reminded me of a question I asked in another forum:
>
> There's a video out there of a Texas Hold'em showdown between
> two players where one of the players has four aces and the other
> has a royal flush. What is the probability of this happening?
> (Express the answer in the form "1 in x".)
>
Mu. "0 in infinity" (not 1, it's 0). Unless you play with more than 52
cards (that's call cheating in the rural country-part, but may be it is
the rule in the self-called civilised area such as Wall street ?)
A royal flush has an ace (and king, queen...) , so that would make 5
aces in the deck. Heart, spade, diamond, club, and... what your name for
the fifth ?
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> There's a video out there of a Texas Hold'em showdown between
>> two players where one of the players has four aces and the other
>> has a royal flush. What is the probability of this happening?
>> (Express the answer in the form "1 in x".)
>>
>
> Mu. "0 in infinity" (not 1, it's 0). Unless you play with more than 52
> cards (that's call cheating in the rural country-part, but may be it is
> the rule in the self-called civilised area such as Wall street ?)
>
> A royal flush has an ace (and king, queen...) , so that would make 5
> aces in the deck. Heart, spade, diamond, club, and... what your name for
> the fifth ?
In Texas Hold'em each player only has 2 cards, and must choose 3 from
the 5 shared face-up cards on the table to make their hand. So it's
possible by a few combinations. Off the top of my head there are only
three "types" of possible hands that will work:
P1 P2 Shared cards
A A Q K A A 10 J x
A A x K A A 10 J Q
A x Q K A A A 10 J
Obviously the suit of P2's cards must match the relevant ones on the
table, and P2 could have any combination on 10,J,Q,K so long as the
others are on the table to make the royal flush. And the order of cards
doesn't matter. That should be enough information to figure out the
probability. If I get time later I'll give it a shot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18/12/2014 09:07, scott a écrit :
>>> There's a video out there of a Texas Hold'em showdown between
>>> two players where one of the players has four aces and the other
>>> has a royal flush. What is the probability of this happening?
>>> (Express the answer in the form "1 in x".)
>>>
>>
>> Mu. "0 in infinity" (not 1, it's 0). Unless you play with more than 52
>> cards (that's call cheating in the rural country-part, but may be it is
>> the rule in the self-called civilised area such as Wall street ?)
>>
>> A royal flush has an ace (and king, queen...) , so that would make 5
>> aces in the deck. Heart, spade, diamond, club, and... what your name for
>> the fifth ?
>
> In Texas Hold'em each player only has 2 cards, and must choose 3 from
> the 5 shared face-up cards on the table to make their hand. So it's
> possible by a few combinations.
Oups, yes, I forgot that shitty version of sharing cards from the table.
> Off the top of my head there are only
> three "types" of possible hands that will work:
>
> P1 P2 Shared cards
> A A Q K A A 10 J x
> A A x K A A 10 J Q
> A x Q K A A A 10 J
>
> Obviously the suit of P2's cards must match the relevant ones on the
> table, and P2 could have any combination on 10,J,Q,K so long as the
> others are on the table to make the royal flush. And the order of cards
> doesn't matter. That should be enough information to figure out the
> probability. If I get time later I'll give it a shot.
>
And this assumes of course that the shared card are neither four aces or
the royal flush.
From wikipedia, in texas hold'em, there is 4,324 royal flush (from the
133,784,560 combinations of one hand in a seven-cards poker).
Not all of them would allow a four-aces hand for another player: you
need 2 or more aces in the shared cards, and none in the royal-flush's
player's hand.
Interestingly, the 3 shared aces would allow 2 players to go 4-aces and
a third with a royal flush.
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Oups, yes, I forgot that shitty version of sharing cards from the table.
It's the shitty version that made me a few hundred £££ though - although
the £/hour was way below the minimum wage...
> Interestingly, the 3 shared aces would allow 2 players to go 4-aces and
> a third with a royal flush.
Are you sure about that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] free fr> wrote:
> > In Texas Hold'em each player only has 2 cards, and must choose 3 from
> > the 5 shared face-up cards on the table to make their hand. So it's
> > possible by a few combinations.
> Oups, yes, I forgot that shitty version of sharing cards from the table.
A shitty version that's arguably the most popular poker format in the
world by a wide margin.
> Interestingly, the 3 shared aces would allow 2 players to go 4-aces and
> a third with a royal flush.
Not with a legal deck. Since a deck has 4 aces, only one player can
have 4 aces.
Anyway, my original problem is still unanswered.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18/12/2014 11:59, scott a écrit :
>> Oups, yes, I forgot that shitty version of sharing cards from the table.
>
> It's the shitty version that made me a few hundred £££ though - although
> the £/hour was way below the minimum wage...
>
>> Interestingly, the 3 shared aces would allow 2 players to go 4-aces and
>> a third with a royal flush.
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
No, that's why I cancelled the post.
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18/12/2014 21:16, Warp a écrit :
> Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
>>> In Texas Hold'em each player only has 2 cards, and must choose 3 from
>>> the 5 shared face-up cards on the table to make their hand. So it's
>>> possible by a few combinations.
>
>> Oups, yes, I forgot that shitty version of sharing cards from the table.
>
> A shitty version that's arguably the most popular poker format in the
> world by a wide margin.
Only because it allows to have more players around the table: more
players, more money and more probability of entertainment.
With a 5 cards per player, and allowing each player to replace its hand
once, a 52 deck would limit the number of players to 5.
In theory, Texas can have up to 22 players. (44 players' cards, 3 burn,
5 community). Casino have max table at 13, but that's for reachability
from the deck's dealer.
>
> Anyway, my original problem is still unanswered.
>
There is only 133,784,560 hands on a seven-cards poker...
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
> > Anyway, my original problem is still unanswered.
> There is only 133,784,560 hands on a seven-cards poker...
That doesn't answer my question.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No, that's why I cancelled the post.
I guess cancelled posts don't work in Thunderbird, it doesn't even give
any hint that it might have been cancelled (like outlook does by putting
a score through the header).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/12/2014 13:07, scott wrote:
>> No, that's why I cancelled the post.
>
> I guess cancelled posts don't work in Thunderbird, it doesn't even give
> any hint that it might have been cancelled (like outlook does by putting
> a score through the header).
>
Isn't that the idea behind cancelling posts?
But from my experience with Thunderbird. It will show the post as
cancelled if it gets the header before it is cancelled. If it is
cancelled before Thunderbird checks for new mail. It will not show it.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
