Page 1 of 2
Another way of thinking completing quad when dealt 3 of a kind
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:20 am
by Player422738
The odds is 2 out of 47, so roughly you complete 1 quad per 24 hands when you are dealt with 3oK.
So whenever you complete one, you gotta think there will be more and more failed hands waiting for you down the road and you can’t avoid those. Still feeling optimistic?
Re: Another way of thinking completing quad when dealt 3 of a kind
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:22 am
by onemoretry
It doesn't really matter if you've just been successful in completing a quad by drawing to trips, or not. The next time you make that draw, the odds of hitting the quad will be exactly the same, i.e., 22.5 to 1 against.
Re: Another way of thinking completing quad when dealt 3 of a kind
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:53 am
by Player422738
onemoretry wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:22 am
It doesn't really matter if you've just been successful in completing a quad by drawing to trips, or not. The next time you make that draw, the odds of hitting the quad will be exactly the same, i.e., 22.5 to 1 against.
You are absolutely correct. The draw it not due. But on average, bad session is bound to happen after good sessions.
Re: Another way of thinking completing quad when dealt 3 of a kind
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:56 am
by FloridaPhil
hophoofer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:53 am
You are absolutely correct. The draw it not due. But on average, bad session is bound to happen after good sessions.
I don't normally post in this section of the forum. I have no choice but to comment on your statement. There is absolutely NO correlation between VP hands. The odds are the same each and every time. The RNG does not know what happened on the last hand and it won't know the next hand. To a human this seems illogical. The RNG is not logical, it's just a computer chip. If you start to think there are patterns in what it does, you will think you can make accurate predictions. I can tell you with confidence that you can't.
Re: Another way of thinking completing quad when dealt 3 of a kind
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:19 am
by Player422738
FloridaPhil wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:56 am
hophoofer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:53 am
You are absolutely correct. The draw it not due. But on average, bad session is bound to happen after good sessions.
I don't normally post in this section of the forum. I have no choice but to comment on your statement. There is absolutely NO correlation between VP hands. The odds are the same each and every time. The RNG does not know what happened on the last hand and it won't know the next hand. To a human this seems illogical. The RNG is not logical, it's just a computer chip. If you start to think there are patterns in what it does, you will think you can make accurate predictions. I can tell you with confidence that you can't.
My point is bad session will happen and it happens frequently if you log your win/loss per session you will know. There is no pattern in terms of predictability, but there is pattern in terms of counts - the pattern is there are more losing sessions than winning session though you may have positive ER and make the total positive.
If you have been winning then you should expect lose session is coming soon coz losing sessions are roughly twice as much as winning sessions. It’s not like coin flip 50/50.
Re: Another way of thinking completing quad when dealt 3 of a kind
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 7:21 am
by Player422738
Re: Another way of thinking completing quad when dealt 3 of a kind
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:50 am
by FloridaPhil
hophoofer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:19 am
If you have been winning then you should expect lose session is coming soon coz losing sessions are roughly twice as much as winning sessions. It’s not like coin flip 50/50.
The problem is you never know when a losing session is going to turn into a winning session and vice versa. You can lose all day long and continue to lose for weeks at a time. (been there, done that) You can lose all day and hit a royal at 8:00 PM (done that too). You can win for months and lose for the next month (I'm there now). Video poker is totally unpredictable. The odds are averages. The expected returns are averages. What happens when you play is not an average, it's real. So long as we don't consider predictions guarantees, I'm fine with whatever anyone wants to believe. I'm pretty sure others on this forum will have something to add.
Re: Another way of thinking completing quad when dealt 3 of a kind
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:23 pm
by markinca
hophoofer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:19 am
If you have been winning then you should expect lose session is coming soon coz losing sessions are roughly twice as much as winning sessions. It’s not like coin flip 50/50.
Wrong. You should expect losing sessions in general, because losing sessions are more likely in general - not whether your last session was a winner or not. Do you think because you hit a royal today that there's no way (or less of a chance) you'll hit one tomorrow? Because it's the same probability regardless.
Re: Another way of thinking completing quad when dealt 3 of a kind
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:40 am
by Player422738
onemoretry wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:22 am
It doesn't really matter if you've just been successful in completing a quad by drawing to trips, or not. The next time you make that draw, the odds of hitting the quad will be exactly the same, i.e., 22.5 to 1 against.
You are a math dimwit. 2 / 47 = 1 / 23.5, not 22.5.
Re: Another way of thinking completing quad when dealt 3 of a kind
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:54 am
by Vman96
hophoofer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:40 am
onemoretry wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:22 am
It doesn't really matter if you've just been successful in completing a quad by drawing to trips, or not. The next time you make that draw, the odds of hitting the quad will be exactly the same, i.e., 22.5 to 1 against.
You are a math dimwit. 2 / 47 = 1 / 23.5, not 22.5.
"1 in 23.5" is "22.5 to 1 against" in odds speak. They are exactly the same. Please be correct first before calling someone a "math dimwit".
