Do previous hands matter

Do previous flops matter when judging probability of something hitting on flop?

Say an ace hits on two flops, is there any grounds to say its not AS likely to hit on the 3rd?

My math says those are independant events and therefore each flop is independant.

But ive hit some flops sometimes when ive held hands and realised those cards havent hit the flop in a while, and they do. But im thinking its just coincidences.

In a word, no

No, the fall of previous cards only has relevance in games like Blackjack (live, not online), where the pack is not shuffled between hands.

Could you imagine if they used the same deck when they still had enough cards? Imagine adding card counting to poker! Whoo!!

Logically, you would have to use 6 or 8 decks shuffled together, as in Blackjack. That would totally alter the dynamics of the game.

Five aces, anyone ??

You could play 1 deck if you had 9 players or left, at least for 2 hands: 9*2=18 hole cards + 3 burn cards + 5 community cards = 26 cards / 52 = 50% of the deck.

That's one of the reasons that I want to try Stud, as the idea of keeping track of the dead cards appeals to me.

That's like asking if you flip a coin twice and it lands heads up twice, it's not likely it will land heads up the third time. The percentages are always the same no matter what came previously.

Online-no

In a self delt live game, with a poor shuffle then to an extent, cards can get "grouped" but this has the opposite effect your talking about.

As a newbie I'm probably going to get killed for this but here it is:
Yes, in random event's (e.g., shuffled cards being dealt) one flop is completely independent from another - in theory!

As pointed out by another poster, on-line (where you have thousands of hands per hour being dealt) the independence of flops holds true (yes, house game it's a dif story).

Despite the above, you will never ever, ever in your lifetime see the following consecutive flops: 22x, 22x, 22x, 22x, 22x! It ain't gonna happen. So yes on that fifth deal when you get pocket dueces and are facing an all in - I'd fold.

Ready for battle!

I wonder if this has an official name (or we could make one up). It would be interesting to play a few hands.

Really? Why not? Me in particular or any single person in the world? Just in my (or their) lifetime? Or in the life of the game and history of the world? Short of including everything ever, you are making an intentionally narrow window of time for something to occur. That can be done with anything simply by picking a long shot event and narrowing the time sufficiently. I won't be hit by lightining during the 30 second period that follows completion of your reading this whole response.

The odds of seeing the flops you indicated are exactly the same as seeing the flops 344, K2K, 55J, Q77, AA9 come out in any order. Each flop is an independent event from the previous flop. The only reason you even make this claim is because the grouping of flops you noted shows a significant and easy to remember pattern (which the human mind looks for by nature and is typically wired to see). Opposed to the flops I noted which are not patterns (with the exception of pairing each one to keep probabilities exactly the same as yours).

What's your take on a lottery where you pick 6 numbers from a pool of 55 numbers? Is it possible for the winning number to ever be 1 2 3 4 5 6? Sure. Has it ever been? No, not that I've ever heard. Why? Because that would be such a significant and recognizable pattern that it would have made national news.

So, I'd be willing to state that somewhere between the beginning of flop poker games and the end of poker, based on all previous hands ever dealt anywhere and all hands that ever will be dealt, any of them online or live, that somewhere among all those cards will be the pattern of flops you seek.

Very true.

Don`t tell everyone, guys, but it is an excellent plan, if you play the lottery, to pick six consecutive numbers, or three pairs, or two triplets. For example: 8 9 10 20 21 22.

The reason being, this is exactly as likely to win as any other six but, if it should win, you are almost certain to be the sole winner and not have to share the pot with anyone else. Why ? Because most folks won`t pick such an impossible-looking pattern.

Nice one Jack D. Not that you didn't see my point but perhaps I didn't write what I wanted to say correctly. My point was that yes, in theory, a flop, just like a random lottery drawing are independent from prior flops/drawings. In practice, I would never bet on the same 6 lotto number that just came out last week even if the next drawing is independent from the previous. Why? Probability! There's a difference between theoretical probability and real life events. I know that my probability professor from years ago would give me a D on the spot if he read this but (back to the flop) it's not just that 22x, 22x, 22x, 22x flops will never ever be followed by 22x flops has to do with the recognizable nature of these numbers. I actually picked them because it's they're the actual flops I wanted to illustrate a point to the OP.

I took the OP's question to be something in that line. If 22x comes on this flop and I have 22 on next hand, should I just muck this hand if faced with an allin since it's most unlikely that I'll see 22x (the likely nuts) on this flop? I would say yes, muck. Sure, in practice, 22x could come out a second consecutive time or a third, but a fourth, fifth? Not in any lifetime.

Jack, I'm not necessarily trying to win this argument, just trying to explain what my view is on theory versus practice - but I've yet to hit the lottery or win a tourney so....

Lansador, that makes no sense. Suppose you were going to try to predict 2 cards on each flop before they came. So let's say you predicted 22x, 22x, 22x, and 22x on 4 consecutive flops before the cards were even dealt and got them all right... you got all those 22x flops we spoke of. Now let's say you predict 77x for the next flop. Well, you get dealt 77, and you decide that the odds of predicting a 5th consecutive flop correctly is so astronomically low that you shouldn't play your 77 because you know a 7 won't flop. That's the same logic that you're using, and it makes no sense! Whether they're all 2s or whether they're all 6s or whether they're 2s and 6s and 8s or whateven pre-determined pattern you choose makes no difference. The cards have no memory and no concept of patterns.

Yep this is true for sure. You stand much better chance of not spliting if you have 3 or 4 numbers above 31.

The thing about 1,2,3,4,5,6 is absolutely true.....at least to the extent that I read it in a quality broadsheet newspaper. I think 44,45,46,47,48,49 was not much lower in the frequency it was played as well.

I bow to your superior wisdom.

lol....ty sir..........cant stop to chat.... I'm off to put my money on 1,2,3,4,5,6 ....again.

I did see your point, but replied based on concern for the serious flaw in your logic to get there.
A. So far so good.
B. You were doing good with A, but then failed to apply the concept to this next sentence. The next week stands the exact same chance to draw the same six numbers.
C. Doh! No. Real life events are absolutely based on the theories of probability. You are confusing the fact that you've never seen something happen (and you personally might never see it) with the fact that the probability in the infinite set does allow for it. When you take a subset or time or items, etc and apply a criteria, you're right, there is an excellent chance something won't happen. Take the numbers from 1 to 10 (a subset of all numbers). Now, call my criteria finding the number 26. How many times will the number 26 occur between the numbers of 1 and 10? Zero. Why, because I chose a limited set of items in which to apply my criteria. This isn't the same as probability, but it applies the same theory you are using to get to the end result.
Mucking may be the right answer for the scenario, but the reasoning is wrong. If I am out of postion to a tight/aggressive player that has me covered and I am forced with an all in call, there is a great chance I will lay this down (including other factors like cash game vs tourney, tourney level, etc).
Don't look at it like winning an argument. We're simply trying to explain why what you said doesn't make sense in the decision making process in response to OP. That's all. We're all here helping each other improve our games.

Nicely done Jack.

Thanks