Probabilities of VP

[retlaw]

Most of the time I play Single hand VP on MG casino's with a 1.25 euro bet.

During the last 4 months I got approximately 200 times "4 to a royal flush"
without getting the royal flush.
I find this is not normal ,although I know that statistically it is possible, because each time again I have a probability of 1/47.

However I got 2 royals from other combinations in this period of time.
I think all together I will be not so far away from the 1/40000 probability.

I think that there is "some system" which prevents me from hitting the royal in the case of "4 to a royal flush".

I know all RNG believers will not agree with my theory, nevertheless this is my opinion.

All comments are welcome

[Zoozie]

Most of the time I play Single hand VP on MG casino's with a 1.25 euro bet.

During the last 4 months I got approximately 200 times "4 to a royal flush"
without getting the royal flush.
I find this is not normal ,although I know that statistically it is possible, because each time again I have a probability of 1/47.

However I got 2 royals from other combinations in this period of time.
I think all together I will be not so far away from the 1/40000 probability.

Probablity for missing a 1/47 chance 200 times in a row is 1.4%.

Unlucky, but nothing remarkable. Most VP players uses #hands to see if they have been unlucky with the RF. For JoB VP you should hit a RF about
every 40000 hand is you play optimal strategy. So if you played less than 80K hands, you have actually been lucky.

I once ran a simulation (single hand also) to test where the RF's came from (#cards in starting hand) when playing JoB because I seemed also to hit most RF when keeping 3 cards, and I wanted to test of this was normal. It was.

This is the result:

Iterations:173000000, running for 57957.4 seconds

#Cards held:#RF
0 held:14 (0.35%)
1 held:153 (3.78%)
2 held:826 (20.4%)
3 held:1670 (41.3%)
4 held:1125 (27.8%)
5 held:257 (6.35%)

As you can see the most common source of RF's actually comes from situations where you kept 3 cards.


This is the link:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...tor#post117970

Edit: I remember having a quite related experience. I had 3 dueces on 100-play Dueces Wild (MG). Looking forward to unspeakable richies I pressed the deal button with excitement. I hit 4 dueces ZERO times. Amoung the 100 cards I was dealth in replacements there was not a single duece. I got a bit pissed and forgot to take
screenshot for the 'screenshit that sucks' thread. Later I also calculate the probability to be around 1.4% like yours, if I remember the probability correct.

Zoozie

[Zoozie]

Amoung the 100 cards I was dealth in replacements there was not as single duece.
Zoozie

It was actually 200 cards since it was 100-line. I just calculated the probability again, it is 1/6592. It was damn freaky unlucky. Wish I had taken
a screenshot. (It was just at 5$/spin though)

Zoozie

[tennis_balls]

All comments are welcome

did you try covering your eyes and screaming "C'MON YOU MOFO!" at the top of your lungs? no. i didn't think so. if you had you would have hit that card at least 5 of those times.

[aka23]

It was actually 200 cards since it was 100-line. I just calculated the probability again, it is 1/6592. It was damn freaky unlucky. Wish I had taken
a screenshot. (It was just at 5$/spin though)

Zoozie

Perhaps I am missing something. I'd expect the probablity to be:

Per hand odds of not getting the final duece on first card: 48/49
Per hand odds of not getting the final duece on second card: 47/48
Probablity of not getting deuce in any of the 100 hands {(48/49)*(47/48)}^100 ~= 1 in 65

[Zoozie]

Perhaps I am missing something. I'd expect the probablity to be:

Per hand odds of not getting the final duece on first card: 48/49
Per hand odds of not getting the final duece on second card: 47/48
Probablity of not getting deuce in any of the 100 hands {(48/49)*(47/48)}^100 ~= 1 in 65

You are right, this is the way I tried to calculate it, but dont know what went wrong. But remember 3 cards are discarded.

Per hand odds of not getting the final duece on first card: 46/47
Per hand odds of not getting the final duece on first card: 45/46
Probablity of not getting deuce in any of the 100 hands {(46/47)*(45/46)}^100 = 1 to 77 or 1.3%.

So I remembered it almost correct (1.3%) in the first post actually, but somehow miscalulated when I tried again. But I am more pleased now, the other result was a little to unlucky.

Zoozie

[vinylweatherman]

I am sure this reflects the far greater likelihood of starting with 3 to a royal rather than 4 to a royal.
When dealt 4 to a Royal in the 50 and 100 hand versions I have got far more Royals than when starting with 3 to a royal. Having 50 or 100 attempts all at once makes it clearer.
Certainly, it makes 3 to a royal a good hand to hold, and I once obtained a RF by keeping 3 to a royal over a pair Jacks or Better!
I have had very few RF's recently, however, earlier I seemed to be getting them all the time (I am getting the freaky slot hits now!).

[retlaw]

Certainly, it makes 3 to a royal a good hand to hold, and I once obtained a RF by keeping 3 to a royal over a pair Jacks or Better!

I also keep "3 to a royal " instead of "4 to a flush" .I never got the royal but lost many flushes

I read that according to the Wizard, it is sometimes better to hold the "4 to a flush", but I would feel very bad if the 5th card which is drawn,forms part of the royal.

[amatrine]

I have hit about mabey 12 royals total. I find that I have hit when I held 2 or three in the flush. When its 4 I never get it. I dont think even once.
Or it just gets dealt to me.

There are more times than I can count though, where I lost royals where there is only one jack lets say, and I throw the hand, and the next four would have made a royal. Happens to much latley for my taste, to seem probable. Or I loose a royal where it gives me two aces, and lets say one of the aves is a spade, and there is a 10 of spades up, I take the two aces, and the rest of the cards come up for a royal. I had this happed about 8 times this month, and it burns me up.

Ama

[Zoozie]

Iterations:173000000, running for 57957.4 seconds

#Cards held:#RF
0 held:14 (0.35%)
1 held:153 (3.78%)
2 held:826 (20.4%)
3 held:1670 (41.3%)
4 held:1125 (27.8%)
5 held:257 (6.35%)

As you can see the most common source of RF's actually comes from situations where you kept 3 cards.

Zoozie

Yes, I am replying to my own post - and indeed a 4 year old one.
The question was about where your RF 'came from' in the sense of how often it was from holding 0,1,2,3,4 or 5 cards.

I have digged this thread back from the dead, because I saw the Wizard of Odds recently have calculated the exact probablities of this old problem, and this solving it.Overall my simulation gave a quite good approximation though and also gave the result '3 cards' as the biggest contributor to your RF.

CASE CLOSED.

Link to WoO: http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/251
His results: