By my calculations, the odds of being dealt Kd 4h, and then seeing 9h 7s 6d come down on the flop (in any order) is precisely 25,989,599 to 1 against. And people say it isn't fixed!
This proves it... Your hole cards K 4 Flop 9 7 6 By my calculations, the odds of being dealt Kd 4h, and then seeing 9h 7s 6d come down on the flop (in any order) is precisely 25,989,599 to 1 against. And people say it isn't fixed! Posted by Pysterman
I was about to ask whether the calcs were suit specific. As I think you mentioned in a previous post somewhere, it's a tad misleading to base a calc on this, as the odds of the same "beat" are considerably lower.
But I agree . . . irrefutable evidence that something is fishy !
There are total of 5 cards in your hand and on the flop.
There are 2,598,960 possible ways of picking 5 cards from a pack (disregarding order again).
Then there are 10 ways of choosing the 2 cards from those 5 which will comprise the hole cards (or equivalently there are 10 ways of choosing the 3 flop cards).
This proves it... Your hole cards K 4 Flop 9 7 6 By my calculations, the odds of being dealt Kd 4h, and then seeing 9h 7s 6d come down on the flop (in any order) is precisely 25,989,599 to 1 against. And people say it isn't fixed! Posted by Pysterman
What do you think the odds would be if you had Ah-Ac, & the flop came Ad-7s-2c?
In Response to Ridiculous odds of this happening... : What do you think the odds would be if you had Ah-Ac, & the flop came Ad-7s-2c? Posted by tikay1
Since you are specifying exact cards, the odds are identical to those given above.
Essentially there are 25,989,600 possible ways your hand and the flop can fall.
Your example (just like my example) is one of these possibilities.
So the odds are 25,989,599 to 1.
Obviously, the odds would change if you were asking about, say, any AA in your hand and any unpaired rainbow flop containing an A, as there are a lot more ways this could happen.
In Response to Re: Ridiculous odds of this happening... : Since you are specifying exact cards, the odds are identical to those given above. Essentially there are 25,989,600 possible ways your hand and the flop can fall. Your example (just like my example) is one of these possibilities. So the odds are 25,989,599 to 1. Obviously, the odds would change if you were asking about, say, any AA in your hand and any unpaired rainbow flop containing an A, as there are a lot more ways this could happen. Posted by Pysterman
You are stating mathematical odds on certain permutations occurring. How do you know that the odds of the stated hands, that you have worked out mathematically, have the same chance of occurring on skypoker at a given point in time? For your assumption to be correct relies entirely 100% on the computer generated RNG being faultless in its mathematical randomness of card dealing. You obviously have an almost revered faith in poker rng computer programmers!
Given the nature my post, I don't think it's relevant whether Sky RNG is perfectly random. In fact, I was making a (deliberately) flawed argument to suggest that it is NOT perfect.
I calculated the theoretical odds of a certain card combination occurring, assuming perfect randomness. I did not say "These are the odds of this card combination occurring this way on Sky Poker".
I then implied that since the odds of it occurring (assuming perfect randomness) are so remote, and given that it occurred on Sky, then Sky's RNG must be flawed. This is, of course, a nonsensical argument. It was a satirical post.
As an aside, if I was calculating any odds on hands, I'm pretty much forced to assume a faultless RNG. If you knew that RNG was flawed then you wouldn't be able to do the maths because, as you mentioned, you would be basing it upon false assumptions. (If you genuinely believe that the RNG is seriously flawed then calculating theoretical odds is pretty meaningless anyway.) Of course, you could adapt the maths if you knew the exact nature of the flaw.
It is a debatable question as to whether it is actually possible for a computer to generate perfect randomness, but unless you believe that the RNG is deliberately rigged I would imagine that any theoretical odds calculated would at least be very good estimates of the actual odds in the web-based game (poker or otherwise).
Comments
This proves it...
But I agree . . . irrefutable evidence that something is fishy !
Now apologise
The case rests.