Your grandma?? Wait, I do have an acceptable age range which I always consider.
This conversation has suddenly got a lot more reproductive 
2 Likes
Poker can not be played online, this is a program with restraints of a program. Online poker is not even good for practice for when you play real poker on a table in a casino but it is okay to waste time when bored. This site though is scripted against players that have played for years and have never spent a dime and never will spend a dime. Would make my day to meet people who play so foolishly in a real cash poker game.
3 Likes
‘showing that there’s always multiple pocket pairs.’
Speaking of pocket pairs.
Hand #1279206239
I had pocket tens.
So I asked Google, “What is the probability three players will get pocket pairs in a four player Texas Holdem hand”
Answer: In a four-player Texas Hold’em game, the probability of three players being dealt pocket pairs is extremely low, approximately 0.000021%.
That’s 1 in 4,761,904 hands.
2 Likes
That’s the odds of one player having AA, one having KK, one having QQ and the fourth not having one of those pairs. It’s not the odds of three players having any pair, which is about 1 in 13000.
Really though, this only gets noticed when we have a pair, so the question should be: What are the odds of 2 other players having a pair when we have one? That’s about 1 in 260, so actually pretty common.
(NOTE: my numbers are assuming there’s only 3 players total. You’ll obviously see more pairs with more players, so really this will be even more common)
1 Like
so I just got done playing a tourney. played 126 hands. I saw 3 quads being hit. 2 were at same table.
this is the 3rd quad. 27 on my latest hands
Quad Q’s
23 hands. hand 50 on my latest hands is quad 2
Quad 5’s
10 hands part. hand 60 on my latest hands. very same table none the less 1st quad was hit
Quad A’s
so in 33 hands there were 3 quads. oh yeah that’s not counting quad I saw hit in a Omaha tourney I got knocked out on, but different tourney, different game. never mind that.
so who knows how many other possible quads were hit in this 1 tourney alone
1 Like
You’d expect to see quads twice more often than not. I’d recommend reverting back to not arguing about quads if you think seeing them a single extra time means anything at all.
This is from someone on Quora who describes himself as a ‘poker math geek’:
In a 4-person game of Texas hold’em, what is the probability of 3 players getting QQ, KK, and AA pre-flop?
What does the fourth player get? I think it simplifies things if we assume he doesn’t get one of AA, KK, QQ, because then we don’t have to worry about double-counting. So that’s what I’ll calculate. I think it is also easier to work with permutations for this example.
There are 43 = 12 ways to make each of the pairs if we consider the order of the deal. That leaves 46 remaining cards. The fourth player can get any two of those cards except for the six permutations AA, KK, QQ. 4645 - 6 = 2064.
These hands may be dealt in any one of 4! orders, giving 12 * 12 * 12 * 2064 * 4! = 85598208 ways to arrange the first 8 cards so that three players get AA, KK, and QQ (and one does not.)
There are 52! / 44! = 30342338208000 total permutations of the first 8 cards in the deck.
Thus, the probability on any single hand is 85598208 / 30342338208000, or about 2.8211 × 10^-6. That’s 0.00028211%.
1 Like
You are wasting your time showing the probabilities or odds of something occurring on here. I’m unsure if most understand it.
1 Like
Yes, but notice the problem they are actually solving:
That’s way different from 3 players having any pair. There’s (13 x 12 x 11) / 6 combinations of the players having different pairs you have to factor in. Note that there figure of 0.0028211% is more than ten times higher than what google told you, and I think their figure is wrong.
If you take your number of 0.000021% and multiply if by 13x12x11/6, you will get 1 in 16000, which is basically what I told you initially. (The exact number is going to vary depending on if we care if the fourth player can also have a pair or not, and if two players can have the same pair, but all answers are going to be in the same ballpark).
It’s just not unexpected for more than two players to have a pair in the same hand.
Actually, 0.000282% is correct, and the google number is way off, even for players having specifically AA, KK and QQ.
The odds for any 3 pairs 4 handed is actually 1 in 1235. The odds of 2 other players having a pair when we have one 4 handed is 1 in 96.
The odds of 3 players having pairs at the same time 9 handed is 1 in 58. The odds of two other players having a pair when we do 9 handed is 1 in 10.
People posting garbage odds they got from AI without even checking the source or reading the breakdown to see if they’re even applicable are wasting everyone else’s time.
“Icecold Deck”
Live televised Six-player game. Five players dealt pocket pairs.
Google says odds are 1 in 12,500
I play around 250 or 500 hands per day on replay, maybe less, and every single day, i see “4 of a kind” 3 times every single day for the las 2 weeks. Once i saw 2 “4of a kind” between a 10 hands span.
1 Like
Every poker site I’ve ever been on since 2004, same old thing, “the Random Number Generator is geared towards action” “Certain players who spend a lot get better hands” “The site is cheating and making me have badbeats”
What a load of old Rhubarb…
1 Like
All right then. Can’t refute that. I’m convinced. It’s all rigged. : P
Kudos to all you warriors out there who’ve been battling bad math and rigged-site claims for years! It’s no small feat to keep pushing back against misinformation with logic and patience (some less patience), especially when you understand the psychology driving those wild theories. Breaking it down with facts and reason is a daunting task.
I married a woman who has never been wrong in 30 years; she thinks in a straight line. A rock star at her work, where information and policy interpretation are paramount. She is an excellent neurodiverse blender. Neurotypicals don’t think in straight lines; they are driven by emotion and pattern recognition on whatever level their IQ allows them. They have a need to be correct about something once in a while, even if it’s wrong, and often make attempts without proper data. This is normal behavior, deeply embedded. Neurodiverse people will not surrender; they can’t. Most have not been diagnosed or even think the patterns they follow of engagement offend others. It’s just truth, plain and simple to them, not wrapped up in a passive-aggressive beef Wellington; it’s just the meat. It makes no sense to allow a person a win on a battle, even a small one. The correction or battle has a completion requirement of 100%. Some neurodiverse often wrap their answers up in a blanket of “blending,” “masking,” or how they interpret blending; others don’t. There is no middle; there is light and dark. The light will answer until the cows come home. The dark start that way and end up ripping your head off and feeding it to the less informed.
Just a rant from a neurodiverse friend, but we all know how hard it is for people like me to make friends.