Video Poker Forum

Except it's not really three royals in a row. And i could be wrong but I think the math in this article is not correct Take the odds of three royals in a row and divide by number of hands? That doesn't seem right to me to figure out the odds of getting 3 royals in 1000 hands.  I guess closer to 1 in 400,000 than 64 billion.  Also, he won $2500 on 3 royals? How did he burn $500 on the other hands so quickly? Maybe 2 royals on quarters, 1 on dimes, and some other wins? Or, not max bet. Or he got 3 royals AND bought 600 tacos, which I can understand.  But congratulations of course to the guy who got 3 royals in 3 days. [quote]

Three royals in a row astounding





BY JOHN  GROCHOWSKI
casinoanswerman@ casinoanswerman.com


December 7, 2011 5:52PM

               




   I don’t really believe in beginner’s luck. The odds don’t change just because you’re a newbie. 
Nonetheless, a father’s tale of his son’s first,
second and third times in a casino might make the phrase “beginner’s
luck” ring through your brain at megadecibels. The short version: On his 21st birthday, playing
at Hollywood Casino in Joliet, the son drew a royal flush on a video
poker machine on the first bet he ever made in a casino. That’s roughly a
1 in 40,000 shot, more or less depending on game and strategy. He
played the next day, and drew another royal flush. And he did it again
the next day.
His total winnings, $2,500, aren’t astounding.
Players hit bigger slot jackpots than that every day. But the way he did
it goes beyond uncanny to unbelievable. As a starting point, we need to
look at the odds of hitting three consecutive royal flushes. That would
be 1 in 40,000 times 40,000 x 40,000 and that comes to 1 in 64
trillion.
Next, we need to divide by the number of hands
played. An average player gets in 400 or 500 hands an hour, and a
veteran can play 700, 800 or more. Complicating this is that the new
player was splitting play, alternating hands with his dad, sister and
mother. Days 2 and 3 were very short sessions.
The dad thinks his son played only about 300
hands. I suspect it was more like 1,000. Divide 64 trillion by 300
hands, and it’s a 1 in 213 billion shot. Make it 1,000 hands, and it’s a
mere 1 in 64 billion.
How unlikely is that? Let’s do a table
comparison, and look at Caribbean Stud Poker. The odds of being dealt a
royal flush and winning a big progressive jackpot are 1 in 649,740. If
you played two hours a day, 365 days a year, it’d take nearly 18 years
to play that many hands.
Video poker royals are a lot more common. But
three in the first 1,000 hands are 98,501 times less likely than the
Caribbean Stud royal. It’s a once in hundreds of thousands of lifetimes
shot.
The dad was flabbergasted: “If I hadn’t seen the pictures and the money, I wouldn’t believe it myself.”
John Grochowski is a local free-lance writer. His “Casino Answer Man” tips air at 5:18 p.m. Tuesday-Friday on WLS-AM (890). http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/enter ... story.html[/quote]

Though hard this event is not anywhere close to as unlikely as the writer determined.It can be solved using matrix algebra and since it is an event that has already occurred you have to include all the people that have played VP on their 21st birthday, not merely this one kid.Three Royals in three days in not merely common it has happened to nearly every professional gambler I know, at least once. Three in one day is not unheard of, and I've even seen three in one hour. I'm not saying this has happened to me. I'm just saying I've seen it happen to others and been personally present to witness it with my own eyes.Twice I have seen back to back Royals where the person played it off and got another one. The one I most clearly remember was a little old lady (non-pro) that thought she hadn't played it off and asked the floor person to reset the machine. Thank goodness the floor person noticed the suit had changed from hearts to diamonds. She got paid.Wizard of Odds has an article about a similar occurrence if anyone wants to know the correct procedure for calculating the actual probability. Since it's nothing you'll ever use in your life I wouldn't waste too much time on it other than to know that this is not close to the correct way to do it.

I did what I like to call El Binomial Distributo, and did so without assuming the first royal had already taken place. In other words, the odds of three royals in any 1000 hands, not the odds of two following another within that time which wold be even more common.

I did what I like to call El Binomial Distributo, and did so without assuming the first royal had already taken place. In other words, the odds of three royals in any 1000 hands, not the odds of two following another within that time which wold be even more common.Ah ye old El Binomial Distributo. I just read a book with a whole chapter on Pascal & Fermat and Pascal's eventual religious experience that turned him away from mathematics. He certainly did contribute a lot in his short life for s self taught guy.   

Also, he won $2500 on 3 royals? How did he burn $500 on the other hands so quickly?I think he shared the first $1000 royal with his dad by earlier agreement.

Each Royal stands on it's own. It is a unique occurance. What comes before or after means nothing.  We have the same odds each time a hand is dealt. Way too much math for a simpleton like me.
 
There I go again. Signed in on he wrong id. Stupid windows 7. faygo  Duh!

I've had a dealt sequential RF which is fairly unusual. Two years ago I had 3 dealt RFs in 2 months. My wife had 3 RFs in one day and every one was holding AKQ of hearts ... all on different machines. The more one plays the more unusual events will be experienced.

Got three DEALT royals THIS YEAR.   I would have to say that the odds are pretty long on that. And they were all at a casino in Vegas, not on this site.  I haven't had a dealt Royal in about 5 years. One of the pros I know got 6 this year. Gosh it's almost like these darn machines are random or something. For a non-pro 3 in one year is really unlikely, good on you mate...

I haven't had a dealt Royal in about 5 years. One of the pros I know got 6 this year. Gosh it's almost like these darn machines are random or something.Since you are in the "middle" of a dealt-royal drought, that would seem to be evidence that you need to change machines more often.Hopefully, you know (from previous posts of mine) that I am just kidding.But I, like you, find it interesting what "evidence" people use to bolster their own preconceived notions about cause and effect.  Where you see evidence of randomness, others perceive it to be evidence of patterns.  What may be more interesting is whether or not those perceptions can ever be changed and what is the best way to do that.  Stubbornness doesn't often change based on someone else's information (or it wouldn't be "stubbornness.")And this difference of opinion (which I prefer to view as one side is correct and the other is not) will not likely end in my lifetime...but that's just my opinion.