re: Poker & Same hand 4 in a row
Originally Posted by firstname.lastname@example.org
yes i know this. But q9 four times in a row just dosent seem very random to me.
This is because you don't understand randomness.
I got AKs, 58o, 22, 4Jo, J9s, 33, and AJs all in a row. This is more unlikely than Q9 4 times in a row, but you don't see the same pattern. You are setting your standards post facto. Now we can say you would have been surprised if any hand came up 4 times in a row. So the only significant part is the 3 in a row (since every single hand is a possible candidate for the start of a 4 in a row).
Since you're not including suited and unsuited, there are exactly 91 hands. Assigning an equal probability to each (a flaws assumption, which I will address later), there is a 1 in 753,571 chance of this happening. Now this number is off because pocket pairs are obviously less likely than non-pocket pairs (for example Q9, if a Q is drawn as the first card, there are now 4 cards that can complete Q9, for 33 if a 3 is drawn as the first card there are only three more 3's in the deck). If we pretended pocket pairs didn't exist we would get 1 in 474,552. So it's somewhere in between the 2. Let's simplify and say 1 in 500,000.
Now I'm sure that seems impossible to you. But at the moment pokerstars
is playing it's 14,318,445,377th hand. That's right, 14 billion+ hands. If getting a hand 4 times in a row was enough to prove that poker was rigged, and it happened as much as it was statistically supposed to, pokerstars would be accused of rigging their hands approximately 28,636.89 times. Understand why although it's extremely unlikely, people still don't believe that makes it rigged or not random?