Casino Royale - Final Hand Odds

M

mstram

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Total posts
163
Chips
0
4 players go all in preflop. (Holdem)

Final results :

p1 - Flush

p2 - Full House

p3 - Full House

p4 - Straight Flush

According to this page on Wikipedia,
Frequency of 7 card hands, the probabilty for each hand is :

Straight flush : 0.0311%
Full house : 2.60%
Flush : 3.03%

So 0.000311 * 0.026 * 0.026 * 0.03 = 0.00000000630708

And 1.0 / 0.00000000630708 = 158,551,976

So 1 in 158,551,976 times this could happen.

.. Assuming 4 players going all in at least 158,551,976 times

Are the numbers right ?

Mike
 
Last edited:
mattzan

mattzan

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Total posts
91
Chips
0
Think so.. very interesting...
well movies hunh? you can't expect more than this. hahaha very good movie by the way, but I prefer Rounders. I wonder if the movie made Matt Damon start playing poker.
 
I

insidetrk

Rising Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Total posts
16
Chips
0
LOL thats pretty sick. Even if you are wrong, the numbers are pretty much realistic. Very unlikely all those will happen unless its on FT or PS lmao.
 
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
One of the best Bond movies ever, but one of the worst poker movies ever IMO.

Personally I found the string bets, incessant minraising and the pissing and moaning when he went broke with a hand nobody in their right mind ever folds evar to be more tilting though.

For a poker movie you're right, the final hand is hideous. I let it slide in a Bond movie though, since in the grand scheme of space lasers and whatnot it's really not that out there :p
 
J

jaggibson

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Total posts
257
Chips
0
I'm not entirely sure that the last hand is the most crazy thing in that movie. But nice math on the hands.

Lets not forget when he takes the punishment of his balls getting the shit beat out of them and is still able to use them. Now this is remarkable.
 
T

thirteenlisk

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Total posts
30
Chips
0
That math is not correct. The odds of those hands occurring change given the what cards are on the board.

So while the actual number is far more likely than what you calculated, it's still pretty low.
 
SavagePenguin

SavagePenguin

Put the win in penguin
Bronze Level
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Total posts
7,594
Awards
1
Chips
3
^^^What thirteenlisk said.

Having one hand makes the other hands more likely to hit.

If there are three suited cards on the board that can complete a straight flush then there are automatically three cards on the board that can complete a flush.
And if the board pairs to give one person a full house, the board is already paired so that someone else can have a full house.
 
J

Jarod1231

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
May 4, 2009
Total posts
569
Chips
0
One of the best Bond movies ever, but one of the worst poker movies ever IMO.

Personally I found the string bets, incessant minraising and the pissing and moaning when he went broke with a hand nobody in their right mind ever folds evar to be more tilting though.

For a poker movie you're right, the final hand is hideous. I let it slide in a Bond movie though, since in the grand scheme of space lasers and whatnot it's really not that out there :p


I also thought it was idiotic they made him all upset he lost with AK on a board of AKKJJ ... you'd have to be a complete retard to fold there... especially in a rebuy
 
M

mstram

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Total posts
163
Chips
0
That math is not correct. The odds of those hands occurring change given the what cards are on the board.

So while the actual number is far more likely than what you calculated, it's still pretty low.

Depends on what you're calculating.

I think the numbers are correct if you were asking what the odds were for those hands occuring before any cards were dealt.

After seeing the flop, that's a different calculation, as is the calculation from any one players hand versus the odds of other hands occuring.

Mike
 
arahel_jazz

arahel_jazz

Unbalanced and Committed
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Total posts
6,764
Chips
0
One of the best Bond movies ever, but one of the worst poker movies ever IMO.

Personally I found the string bets, incessant minraising and the pissing and moaning when he went broke with a hand nobody in their right mind ever folds evar to be more tilting though.

For a poker movie you're right, the final hand is hideous. I let it slide in a Bond movie though, since in the grand scheme of space lasers and whatnot it's really not that out there :p

^^^ This +1.

BTW - I don't think the final hand was all-in preflop. If I recall, Bond checked the turn where he made the straight flush which was checked all around, and also checked the river before all the short stacks pushed all-in. He then re-raised the villian to put him all-in.

Standard trap with a great turn card. The whole thing sucked as far as portraying poker goes... and it was supposed to be baccarat as in the original book, but the producers thought NLHE would be more relatable to the American-centric audience.
 
M

mstram

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Total posts
163
Chips
0
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
You're right about the sequence of events

OMG I'd forgotten about the most epic tilting part of the whole thing - that showdown is wrong in soooooooooooooooo many ways.

For starters, showdown doesn't just go clockwise around the table. Bond and Le Chiffre are supposed to show their hands first because they're the two biggest stacks. As the person who made the last aggressive action, Bond is actually supposed to show first. Bond shows his straight flush and everybody else mucks in disgust. I know that for dramatic effect they had to do it the other way around but... well, bleh.

Plus also dealers don't put the player's hole cards in line with the board cards. They just push up the board cards used to make the winning hand. Otherwise there could maybe be some time wasting conjecture about exactly what was in the hand and what was on the board. You keep them separate.

But the absolute worst bit is this: the math is wrong!

When we pick up the hand everybody checks the turn and Mathis points out there's 24 million on the pot. On the river, the first all in is for 6 million, the second is for 5, Bond gets all in for 40.5 million and Le Chiffre calls him for a maximum of another 40.5 million*. Before the showdown, Mathis points out that there's now 150 million in the pot. But:

24 + 6 + 5 + 40.5 + 40.5 = 116

Either Mathis was wrong about the 24 million or the crew simply couldn't add and the pot's short by at least 34 million - maybe more, depending on how much Le Chiffre actually had (the game is over after the hand, so it must have been 40.5 million or less he had behind). And that's not something you need for dramatic effect, you just get the numbers right before the hand.

*sigh*
 
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1

Ah - accents are a killer, huh. If Le Chiffre has 39.5 million then yep, that makes sense.

Still issues though, because a few scenes later the Swiss banker has $120 million to transfer to him. Smaller error, but still an error.
 
Last edited:
M

mstram

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Total posts
163
Chips
0
115 is closer than 150 though ;) (and "115" is what he says)
 
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
Yeah - now that you mention it he's definitely saying 115. My Australian ears had always heard it as 150. Go figure, and the other mistakes still stand.

Of course if it's $115 million that means only three people rebought too - weak! Oh, one last one. WTF is with tipping the dealer at the end with a tournament chip?!? :p
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
Chips
0
I think pokerstars deals that many hands every day, or is it McDonalds serves that many hamburgers every day.

I get so cornfused!
Senility is a bitch..........
 
Grossberger

Grossberger

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
May 12, 2009
Total posts
2,066
Chips
0
Here are just a few of the MANY goofs found in the movie as pointed out on IMDB.com (the 2nd greatest website IMO)

Early in the movie when Le Chiffre is playing poker with another gentleman, he says, "All in. I have two pair and you have a 17.4% chance of making your straight," the 17.4% is correct from his opponents perspective since he knows his own 2 cards plus 4 community cards leaving 46 unknown cards and 8 cards which would give him a straight (8/46=17.4), but from Le Chiffre's point of view, he knows 2 more cards and therefore the probability of a getting a straight would be 8/44=18.2%. It does not matter that he doesn't truly know his opponents cards, he is merely stating the probability assuming he has an outside straight draw.

At the end of the major poker tournament Bond passes a chip from the table to the dealer as a tip. While this is done in cash games, in a tournament the chips have no actual value. They chips are just markers to play with as the money is pooled together and paid out to those that cash, in this case in the special account that is unlocked by the password. If the chip had any value Bond would be tipping the dealer with the casino's money as all his winnings were in that account


When Bond enters the encrypter password before the tournament, he enters 836547. Later in the film, the password is revealed to be VESPER, which does not match. (It should be 837737.)

The Boeing 747 does not have afterburners, as depicted during the airport chase scene, when it used them to avoid hitting the Miami police vehicles.

Just a few of the many many many goofs found in the movie.
 
PurgatoryD

PurgatoryD

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Total posts
736
Chips
0
Are the numbers right ?

Not quite. The probabilities would be correct if all players were drawing from their own decks of cards. But since all players share a deck, what P1 one has in his hand affects what P2 can have in his hand. So, there are dependencies that affect the probabilities.

For a concrete example, consider a deck containing only four cards: A, K, 3, and 2. Each player gets dealt one card and only one card is in the community cards. Thus, each player's hand consists of only two cards. The probability of forming a hand with at least one face card is 5/6 = 83.3%.

For two players, when trying to compute the probability that both players have a hand with at least one face card, if you just multiply 5/6 by 5/6, you get a probability of 69.4%.

However, this "game" only contains 24 different possible hand combinations. If you enumerate them all and see which contain hands in which both players have at least one face card, you will see that 16/24 = 66.7% do.

So, while the multiplication method yields a 69.4% probability, the actual probability is 66.7%. That's a close approximation, but not exact.

As I'm sure we all know from seeing so many different probabilities published for the same events, my numbers could be wrong. If so, please let me know! :)

-Dave
 
Grossberger

Grossberger

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
May 12, 2009
Total posts
2,066
Chips
0
Not quite. The probabilities would be correct if all players were drawing from their own decks of cards. But since all players share a deck, what P1 one has in his hand affects what P2 can have in his hand. So, there are dependencies that affect the probabilities.

For a concrete example, consider a deck containing only four cards: A, K, 3, and 2. Each player gets dealt one card and only one card is in the community cards. Thus, each player's hand consists of only two cards. The probability of forming a hand with at least one face card is 5/6 = 83.3%.

For two players, when trying to compute the probability that both players have a hand with at least one face card, if you just multiply 5/6 by 5/6, you get a probability of 69.4%.

However, this "game" only contains 24 different possible hand combinations. If you enumerate them all and see which contain hands in which both players have at least one face card, you will see that 16/24 = 66.7% do.

So, while the multiplication method yields a 69.4% probability, the actual probability is 66.7%. That's a close approximation, but not exact.

As I'm sure we all know from seeing so many different probabilities published for the same events, my numbers could be wrong. If so, please let me know! :)

-Dave


My brain just exploded:confused: :confused: :vollkomme
 
S

scragbag

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Total posts
250
Awards
1
Chips
0
This has gotta be the coolest freakin' post...EVER!! Hi5 on the math!
Oh, and pointing out those flaws in the film ;)
 
M

mstram

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Total posts
163
Chips
0
Dave,

For a concrete example, consider a deck containing only four cards: A, K, 3, and 2. Each player gets dealt one card and only one card is in the community cards. Thus, each player's hand consists of only two cards.

If the deck only has 4 cards, and 4 players each get dealt one card, how do you end up with one community card ? :confused:

Or do you mean 4 different cards ? .... (16 cards in the deck) ?

Mike
 
PurgatoryD

PurgatoryD

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Total posts
736
Chips
0
If the deck only has 4 cards, and 4 players each get dealt one card, how do you end up with one community card ?

No, it was 4 total cards but only 2 players. Each player gets 1 card and then 1 community card. So 1 card doesn't get dealt. Sorry about that. Yeah I know, a pretty dull game, but (hopefully) illustrative. :)

-Dave
 
L

Life on Tilt

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Total posts
6
Chips
0
This movie came on AMC today and I had to search for inconsistencies in the poker scenes. Came across this thread.

While the final scene is completely misplayed, some other questions come to mind:

How much would you tip if you just won $120 million? Even though the toke was largely symbolic, seriously Bond...less than 1/2 of 1%? C'mon, dealers deserve better.

How much of a card rack is LeChiffre?

With the blinds at 1M and the short stack having 5 BBs behind, how does he not go all in to protect his flopped set?

In an earlier hand - one Bond does not show - he donks off 350k (on what I think were 10k blinds) and gets rivered. Obviously he had a better hand...yet he calls all streets. He then complains it was a 23 (or 24) to 1 probability, when we all know two-outers are 19:1.

What about all the slow rolling? LeChiffre with his constant showing a card, then slowly revealing the other. These aren't skilled poker players, they are staked amateurs. Which raises another question...who would stake these clowns? Seriously. I need their address. If they think that was a good investment, I've got a few tournaments above my buy-in comfort level I'd like to speak with them about.

And, seriously, why all the pot splashing? I realize it's a movie, but realistic action at a poker table is dramatic enough. This nonsense is insulting to the audience and disrespectful to the game.

On the plus side, haven't we all wanted to beat the balls of some donk who coolered us?
 
Poker Odds - Pot & Implied Odds - Odds Calculator Starting Hands - Poker Hand Nicknames Rankings - Poker Hands Casino Reviews - Mobile Casinos - Real Money Casinos - iPhone Casinos - Android Casinos - Online Casinos - Canada Casinos - UK Casinos - href="https://www.cardschat.com/new-zealand/casinos/">NZ Casinos - href="https://www.cardschat.com/in/casinos/">India Casinos
Top