Poker flop probability
I saw some stats on it a few years ago, a website which had analysed millions of hands. The graph was almost perfectly linear from the deuce all the way to the ace. Logic being that more flops are seen when players hold premium hands. I am not talking about dealing 3 cards out and tracking results, I'm talking about actual poker hands. I'm trying to bet him $1000 that I'm right after he called me a troll. So Im now very keen to make him look like the idiot. Does anyone have a reliable way of proving this? I'm thinking of buying 100k hand histories or something? Would that sample size be enough to show the sort of distribution I am talking about?
Obviously I am not expecting him to take the bet, but I am prepared to accept if he does.
The counter argument for you is "people will fold bad hands, such as the worst hand in poker, 7-2... therefore all the 2's get folded preflop and are less likely to show up."
Having played poker for decades you had me intrigued from your intial thought, but delving in a bit deeper I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you.
I think it's slight but real and can be proved. However, you would have to go on pure best strategy by each player, without regard to bluffing, head's up ranging, calling stations, or cheap games where people call with nothing just to see the flop.
Jmho.
Quote: HeyMrDJDoes anyone have a reliable way of proving this? I'm thinking of buying 100k hand histories or something? Would that sample size be enough to show the sort of distribution I am talking about?
Obviously I am not expecting him to take the bet, but I am prepared to accept if he does.
Since you are proposing a real life question, you need to be slightly more specific. You would need to specify "For 1-2 NL holdem at a Vegas strip casino"...... I agree with you, that there will be a SLIGHT increase in 'bad' cards on the flop, and I have no way to calculate, but I would surmise you would need far more than 100,000 hands to conclusively prove your hypothesis.
Interesting question.....
Quote: RomesHmmm, after thinking about this I don't think it matters much. At a full table of average players the hands that get dealt out are in fact random. Thus, the cards remaining are random. Therefore, I believe once you have a flop % you can just deal 3 random cards and call that the flop, record them, and analyze. However if you haven't figured out from my multiple use of the word random, it's going to be random. Every single card should have the same probability of coming on the flop.
The counter argument for you is "people will fold bad hands, such as the worst hand in poker, 7-2... therefore all the 2's get folded preflop and are less likely to show up."
Having played poker for decades you had me intrigued from your intial thought, but delving in a bit deeper I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Hey I am prepared to offer you the same bet, my $1000 vs yours (or any amount upto that number). We will use hand histories from an online source, from real poker games, any of the mods can adjudicate and buy the histories so its all fair. Let's say $1/$2 minimum, full ring poker. Lets go with 1,000,000 hands. Since you claim its all random, the game and number of hands shouldn't matter. right? Happy to escrow to the wizard.
We can get 969,579 hands from https://www.hhsmithy.com/buy/bulk. with these filters
Sites:
Party Poker, PartyPokerNJ, iPoker, iPoker - Low
888, OnGame, OnGameIt, MicroGaming
Winamax, WinningPoker
Game Type:
No Limit Holdem
Seat Type:
7-10
Tables:
Regular
Limit:
$1-$2 NLH, €2-€4 NLH, $5-$10 NLH, €10-€20 NLH
€50-€100 NLH, €25-€50 NLH, $200-$400 NLH, $500-$1,000 NLH
$150-$300 NLH, $50-$100 NLH, $25-$50 NLH, $10-$20 NLH
€3-€6 NLH, $2-$4 NLH, €1-€2 NLH .$3-$6 NLH, €5-€10 NLH
$15-$30 NLH, $30-$60 NLH, $100-$200 NLH, $250-$500 NLH
Costs $48.48
To clarify, I am betting that the two will show up more often than any other card on the board (3-5 cards depending on the action). I also think the graph of rank frequencies will be linear with the two showing up most often and the ace least often, but this is not part of the bet.
The only site even listed on there that has any credibility would be Party Poker, in my opinion... Maybe 888, but it's been over a decade since I played on their site.
I still believe you're incorrect. You're making a VERY LARGE assumption that just because people "call" that they have "premium" hands. Many, many players play all kinds of hands from 2-3 suited, A-2, Doyle says to play K-2 suited, to 6-7 to 10-9 to J-8, to well, whatever. Just because 6 people call doesn't mean there are more 2's in the deck. Again, the counter argument would be to "assume" the other 3 people that folded all folded a 2! Heck, what if someone calls with 2-2, for example? I get your premise, but disagree that it will make any meaningful statistical difference.
Thus if a card appears on average 7.7% of the time (4/52) then if all the other cards come up 7.6% (for arguments sake) of the time and the 2 comes up 7.8% of the time (for aruments sake), I don't believe that to be a meaningful statistical difference. Pending how you write your bet, you could win your bet based off this, but I don't believe in spirit this is what you're trying to prove. You're trying to prove 2's come up more often on the flop, and when you say more often you mean enough to notice/possibly play differently/etc, correct?
If a random card has chance X% of coming up on the flop, I'd be willing to bet you that a 2 does not have X% +/- 1% to come up. i.e. Something statistically meaningful that would actually affect play/the game.
I want one card, I'm giving you the other 12. And I only want even money. If its truly random like you claim, then you have the best of it? Surely?
I am also happy to use just party poker if you want. Or some other source of information if you want. There are sites that offer pokerstars hands if you prefer, that was just the first site that came up.
Then you and I have a different opinion of "more often." If you find that every card appears 500,000 times, and the 2 appears 500,001 times, what have you proven? ...Nothing.Quote: HeyMrDJNo the bet is simple, the 2 appears more often than any other rank. Doesnt matter if its 0.0000001% more ...
Quote: RomesThen you and I have a different opinion of "more often." If you find that every card appears 500,000 times, and the 2 appears 500,001 times, what have you proven? ...Nothing.
I've proven that when I take a single horse in a supposed field of 13 equally skilled horses and asked for even money you still won't accept the bet. I'd say I've proven my theory.....
If it's random like you claim then it's a bet you should win 12 out of 13 times. You must have some doubt to have not accepted it by now. Can you not admit your confidence from your first post has dropped a little bit?
We can make it $5 if 1k is too rich for you. For me it's mostly about proving you wrong now.
As such more 2s appear compared to other cards, more 3's than 4's, more kings than aces etc.
You cannot prove this with maths.
He's correct that you need a large sampling size of "real" hands. You can't program in how the average player plays for EVERY hand combination. Too many scenarios...Quote: HeyMrDJIt doesn't work like that. It has to be an actual flop where hole cards are dealt and more than 2 players see the flop. I am saying that players generally play higher value hands and more flops are seen when players are holding higher ranks.
As such more 2s appear compared to other cards, more 3's than 4's, more kings than aces etc.
You cannot prove this with maths.
However, he's yet to detract from my arguement... When you see a flop, on average, there's only a few of the full table players (3 or so on a table of 9). I personally know this from playing the game for so long. In this scenario, 6 players folded "bad" cards, and 3 players are playing "good" cards... You're a 2-1 dog in the scenario. You're ignoring the fact that people FOLD bad cards (such as 2's).
lol $1k isn't too rich... I need to decide if I have a winning bet. Then, I'll bet whatever you can afford to lose.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI agree. You cannot discount folded hands. I stand by my assertion that each of the 22,100 possible flops are equally likely no matter what hands stay in to see the flop.
So you'll take the bet?
It's not even about folded cards. You can't see the woods for the trees. This is about the times the flop is not seen at all. If every flop was dealt we would see a fairly even distribution. The times the flop is never dealt will be the time it contains the higher ranked cards. For some supposedly smart people you are approaching this all wrong.
Five Hands folded
Random remaining: 3.231 per rank
Accounting for Poker Strategy: Ace: 3.443 Deuce: 3.079
Eight Hands Folded
Random remaining: 2.769 per rank
Accounting for Poker Strategy: Ace: 3.336 Deuce: 2.44
I have heard Vanessa Selbst comment on this - when the action was folded to her in the small blind, and the flop came all paint she said "no surprise, all the hard cards were left."
Quote: gordonm888I have calculated this previously, using a published (fairly tight) strategy for which Hold-em hands should be played as a function of position, assuming the action has been folded to you.
Five Hands folded
Random remaining: 3.231 per rank
Accounting for Poker Strategy: Ace: 3.443 Deuce: 3.079
Eight Hands Folded
Random remaining: 2.769 per rank
Accounting for Poker Strategy: Ace: 3.336 Deuce: 2.44
I have heard Vanessa Selbst comment on this - when the action was folded to her in the small blind, and the flop came all paint she said "no surprise, all the hard cards were left."
Can we get that again, but in clear English
Pairs, 55-AA
A-9s suited or higher
A-J off or higher
K-J suited or higher
K-Q off or higher
Q-J suited
J-T suited
T-9 suited
So when someone in first position folds, according to this strategy, you can be sure they did not fold an AA pair or a KQ hand, etc, but that they will have always folded a 3-2, 4-2, 5-2, 6-2, 7-2 etc. This biases the remainder of the deck towards higher cards.
In second position, the opening requirements may expand to the top 14% of all hands. With only two people left behind you to act, poker theory may call for you to open with the top 52% or so of hands.
Taking all of this into account, I calculated the progressively increasing bias on the card ranks in the remaining deck as more and more players fold.
Quote: gordonm888In first position people will often play only the strongest (top 12%) of all hands, because they have 9 unseen hands behind them that have yet to act and they want their hand to be as strong as the strongest of the remaining 9 hands. So in first position, the first player to act will tend to play these hands and fold any others.
Pairs, 55-AA
A-9s suited or higher
A-J off or higher
K-J suited or higher
K-Q off or higher
Q-J suited
J-T suited
T-9 suited
So when someone in first position folds, according to this strategy, you can be sure they did not fold an AA pair or a KQ hand, etc, but that they will have always folded a 3-2, 4-2, 5-2, 6-2, 7-2 etc. This biases the remainder of the deck towards higher cards.
In second position, the opening requirements may expand to the top 14% of all hands. With only two people left behind you to act, poker theory may call for you to open with the top 52% or so of hands.
Taking all of this into account, I calculated the progressively increasing bias on the card ranks in the remaining deck as more and more players fold.
Lol still not clear enough. But it looks like you agree with me?
Quote: HeyMrDJLol still not clear enough. But it looks like you agree with me?
Yes, then I calculate:
On average, if one in 24 flops is folded in a 9 person game, then one would expect that the 23 of 24 flops you see would have deuces at 99.48% of the frequency that you would expect from randomness. If the rate is one flop folded in 50 hands dealt, the deuces will appear at 99.76% of the random rate.
These theoretical calculations are subject to lots of caveats -like everyone playing a roughly correct game.
Actually, part of your own discussion disagrees with him. The players close to under the gun will be more selective of their hands, and less selective as the position around the table closer to the button is reached. This is called "range" in poker terms. The range of someone on the button will always be larger than the range of someone under the gun, due to the fact that they know many people act after them and it's likely if they don't raise someone else will to steal the blinds given they contributed more to the pot.Quote: gordonm888Well, yes. Specifically, the small percentage of Flops that are not seen because all the players folded and no one called the big blind, will be flops that are richer in high-value cards -because the players who folded can be assumed to have had a disproportionate share of low cards. Thus, the flops that actually are seen (which are >90% of all flops) are biased towards having more lower value cards than one would see randomly.
Example: If you have 9-8 suited, under the gun you're more likely to fold, knowing if you call you're enticing someone to steal more by putting more in the pot. However, if you're on the button, you have the privilage of seeing the other players act and if it's up to you to call you realize you're more likely to be able to see the flop for just a call here since the majority of the table has already acted.
From this theory the people in early position can, and will, fold "better" cards just as likely as worse cards, so it doesn't do much for this argument really. However, the one constant is that the majority of the time someone is dealt a 2, they're more than likely going to fold the hand... You can not discount these folded hands. The key factor here for me is knowing this: There are almost ALWAYS more folded players than calling players to a flop. Given that anyone from ANY position will fold 2's, this makes them more likely to be folded than the higher cards... this doesn't necessarily put them in the deck to magically appear on the flop.
Quote: RomesActually, part of your own discussion disagrees with him. The players close to under the gun will be more selective of their hands, and less selective as the position around the table closer to the button is reached. This is called "range" in poker terms. The range of someone on the button will always be larger than the range of someone under the gun, due to the fact that they know many people act after them and it's likely if they don't raise someone else will to steal the blinds given they contributed more to the pot.
Example: If you have 9-8 suited, under the gun you're more likely to fold, knowing if you call you're enticing someone to steal more by putting more in the pot. However, if you're on the button, you have the privilage of seeing the other players act and if it's up to you to call you realize you're more likely to be able to see the flop for just a call here since the majority of the table has already acted.
From this theory the people in early position can, and will, fold "better" cards just as likely as worse cards, so it doesn't do much for this argument really. However, the one constant is that the majority of the time someone is dealt a 2, they're more than likely going to fold the hand... You can not discount these folded hands. The key factor here for me is knowing this: There are almost ALWAYS more folded players than calling players to a flop. Given that anyone from ANY position will fold 2's, this makes them more likely to be folded than the higher cards... this doesn't necessarily put them in the deck to magically appear on the flop.
Take the bet or find something else to do. You disagree with everything but still won't strap on a pair.
So you started this thread looking for discussion. Now that you're getting discussion you're asking no one to talk/discuss unless an accepted bet is taken, and then to go a step further you're baiting with phrases like "strap on a pair."Quote: HeyMrDJTake the bet or find something else to do. You disagree with everything but still won't strap on a pair.
I offered a serious $100k bet in another thread. Strap on a pair...
Quote: RomesActually, part of your own discussion disagrees with him. The players close to under the gun will be more selective of their hands, and less selective as the position around the table closer to the button is reached. This is called "range" in poker terms. The range of someone on the button will always be larger than the range of someone under the gun, due to the fact that they know many people act after them and it's likely if they don't raise someone else will to steal the blinds given they contributed more to the pot.
Example: If you have 9-8 suited, under the gun you're more likely to fold, knowing if you call you're enticing someone to steal more by putting more in the pot. However, if you're on the button, you have the privilage of seeing the other players act and if it's up to you to call you realize you're more likely to be able to see the flop for just a call here since the majority of the table has already acted.
From this theory the people in early position can, and will, fold "better" cards just as likely as worse cards, so it doesn't do much for this argument really. However, the one constant is that the majority of the time someone is dealt a 2, they're more than likely going to fold the hand... You can not discount these folded hands. The key factor here for me is knowing this: There are almost ALWAYS more folded players than calling players to a flop. Given that anyone from ANY position will fold 2's, this makes them more likely to be folded than the higher cards... this doesn't necessarily put them in the deck to magically appear on the flop.
Romes, what I did (in a calculation several years ago) was to take some standard opening ranges for each position at the table, and did a spreadsheet calculation - given that the first player folded, I calculated the likely frequencies of each rank left in the remaining 50 cards, and the 'updated' probabilities for every possible hand that the 2nd player could have. Then given the 2nd player has folded, what does that mean for card composition and what the third player is expected to be holding. And so on. Whatever the detailed assumptions in that calculation, it is indisputable that in those rare occurrences when everyone at the table folds around to the big button, the remaining card composition will be biased towards high cards.
And yes, the earliest positions with the tightest ranges will introduce most of the bias. If the action is folded to them, the button and the small blind will both have opening ranges that are close to 50% of all hands -so their act of folding introduces much less bias. But, all of that was included in my flippety-flop calculation. I'm not sure what you arguing with, or why.
And this is good data, for a very very specific and narrow position. No 2 poker games are alike, and each come with different players with different ranges, aggression, reading, etc, etc. Thus, you might be able to get a glimps at average, but even for the OP's purposes it's nothing you could even apply at the tables given every table composition is different.Quote: gordonm888Romes, what I did (in a calculation several years ago) was to take some standard opening ranges for each position at the table, and did a spreadsheet calculation - given that the first player folded, I calculated the likely frequencies of each rank left in the remaining 50 cards, and the 'updated' probabilities for every possible hand that the 2nd player could have.
Emphasis added. I disagree with this premise. It is JUST AS LIKELY (in my opinion) that the player under the gun will fold A-2 and 7-2 all the same, as well as hands like K-9, 10-8, etc.Quote: gordonm888Then given the 2nd player has folded, what does that mean for card composition and what the third player is expected to be holding. And so on. Whatever the detailed assumptions in that calculation, it is indisputable that in those rare occurrences when everyone at the table folds around to the big button, the remaining card composition will be biased towards high cards.
You're comparing apples and oranges in my opinion. You're saying when everyone folds, they folded bad cards... Therefore whenever a bunch of people play only bad cards are left! At a poker table there's a little thing called pot odds and value. If I'm sitting in later postiion, and see 3 players in front of me call, then I'm more likely to call with my 3-2 suited as I'm now getting 5-1 on my money with little chance of a raise since other players acted. As I stated before, players nearer to the button will have a wider range given they get to see what the players in front of them have done.
Thus, in your 2nd scenario where "everyone calls" this doesn't mean by a long shot that "only bad cards remain" due to the fact that the hand range requirements for most of the later players blow completely out. If I'm on the button at a 9 handed table and EVERYONE in front of me limps in, I will call with 7-2 just to see if I can get a lucky flop given I'm getting 8-1 on my money. This is poker 101.
I'm not arguing with your study per say, just pointing out that in trying to confirm the OPs theory you're introducing biases and assumptions of your own that may be missleading.Quote: gordonm888And yes, the earliest positions with the tightest ranges will introduce most of the bias. If the action is folded to them, the button and the small blind will both have opening ranges that are close to 50% of all hands -so their act of folding introduces much less bias. But, all of that was included in my flippety-flop calculation. I'm not sure what you arguing with, or why.
1) When everyone folds the deck contains all high cards
2) When everyone calls the deck contains all low cards
You're using these to compare, but I disagree with the assumption that #2 is correct due to the pot odds and range of the latter players.
Also, to add to the discussion, I'll again reiterate that on your "average" hand you're only going to have 3 players (+/- 1 player) in the pot. So the majority are FOLDING on average. This is where the OP seems to turn a blind eye and just "assumes" people aren't folding 2's and 3's (which is most likely what they're folding).
Quote: RomesSo you started this thread looking for discussion. Now that you're getting discussion you're asking no one to talk/discuss unless an accepted bet is taken, and then to go a step further you're baiting with phrases like "strap on a pair."
I offered a serious $100k bet in another thread. Strap on a pair...
Lol 100k Charlie big potatoes. I never saw that thread and frankly I don't care. I am right, and that's the end of it. If you disagree, put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise settle down and be quiet. The fact that you still say you're right but haven't took the bet tells me everything I need to know about you. All mouth and no minerals.
Quote: HeyMrDJI'm having a debate with some guy over on 2+2 regarding flop prop bets. I say the best cards to pick are twos as they flop more often than other cards.
Sorry for the late arrival. I love topics like this.
I've been working and thinking about this for at least an hour and I agree with your premise. If forced, I would take your side of the bet, but hesitantly. I would definitely say that you would see more than 1/13 twos, and would picks twos of any rank to see the most, but am not super confident twos would win against the field.
In thinking about this, I recall this thread from four years ago: 0 TO 1 GAME -- PROBLEM 1. Here again are the rules of the problem posed in that thread:
- Player X and Y each ante $1.
- Both are given a random number uniformly distributed from 0 to 1. The higher number wins.
- Player X may bet $1 or check.
- If player X checks then Y is forced to check.
- If player X bets then Y may call or fold.
Suppose I asked what would be the average of the two players under the situation where their random numbers are seen or not seen? Assume they are not seen if there is a fold. This assumes two perfect logicians are playing.
If the random numbers are seen, whether by two checks or a raise/call, the average total is 1.0286
If the random numbers are not seen, because of a raise/fold, the average total is 0.85.
The average total overall situations is obviously 1.
If we extend this simplified game to live poker, it would suggest players tend to play pre-flop with good cards. That will mean that low cards are left in the deck. In other words, the remaining deck with have a low count or be low-card rich, resulting in more deuces on the flop.
I'm willing to make a friendly bet of no more than $100 on the same side as HeyMrDJ. I'll defer to Hey to get action first, since it was his/her idea. I may be able to get data from Bovada as a source.
Quote: WizardSorry for the late arrival. I love topics like this.
I've been working and thinking about this for at least an hour and I agree with your premise. If forced, I would take your side of the bet, but hesitantly. I would definitely say that you would see more than 1/13 twos, and would picks twos of any rank to see the most, but am not super confident twos would win against the field.
In thinking about this, I recall this thread from four years ago: 0 TO 1 GAME -- PROBLEM 1. Here again are the rules of the problem posed in that thread:
- Player X and Y each ante $1.
- Both are given a random number uniformly distributed from 0 to 1. The higher number wins.
- Player X may bet $1 or check.
- If player X checks then Y is forced to check.
- If player X bets then Y may call or fold.
Suppose I asked what would be the average of the two players under the situation where their random numbers are seen or not seen? Assume they are not seen if there is a fold. This assumes two perfect logicians are playing.
If the random numbers are seen, whether by two checks or a raise/call, the average total is 1.0286
If the random numbers are not seen, because of a raise/fold, the average total is 0.85.
The average total overall situations is obviously 1.
If we extend this simplified game to live poker, it would suggest players tend to play pre-flop with good cards. That will mean that low cards are left in the deck. In other words, the remaining deck with have a low count or be low-card rich, resulting in more deuces on the flop.
I'm willing to make a friendly bet of no more than $100 on the same side as HeyMrDJ. I'll defer to Hey to get action first, since it was his/her idea. I may be able to get data from Bovada as a source.
Hey Mike, I agreed with Hey before you did! Line cutter, you are:). Though I didn't offer a wager, so maybe I'm not in line in the important way. But Romes' money spends just as well for me as anybody. ..
Quote: beachbumbabsHey Mike, I agreed with Hey before you did! Line cutter, you are:). Though I didn't offer a wager, so maybe I'm not in line in the important way. But Romes' money spends just as well for me as anybody. ..
Duly noted. I think somebody else made this point, but I think it matters the type of poker and limits. In penny games, players will play anything. I'd prefer no-limit games with large blinds but am open to negotiation.
I would settle for every hand of all types of Texas Hold 'Em going back as far as necessary to see a million rounds.
Does anyone have an account at this place?
Found a link to this quickly.
http://www.spadebidder.com/flop-analysis/part2/
Quote: BTLWII've been a member at 2+2 for 13 years now. This has definitely been posted there before.
Found a link to this quickly.
http://www.spadebidder.com/flop-analysis/part2/
That is an outstanding post you link to. Pretty much proves that Hey was right.
p.s. Need one more player for the Cooperation Game.
Lol
My "VERY LARGE assumption" was absolutely correct.
And your decades of playing poker?
Meaningless.....
Quote: BTLWII've been a member at 2+2 for 13 years now. This has definitely been posted there before.
Found a link to this quickly.
http://www.spadebidder.com/flop-analysis/part2/
This was most definately the graph I saw. Not perfectly linear, but the evidence is clear. Was pretty much as described. Guess we won't hear any more from the mouth..... LOL
Thanks BTLWI that has made my day....
Sorry, I work 9-5 and then AP'd for 7 hours last night... My bad?Quote: HeyMrDJGone all quiet over there Romes.....
Lol
My "VERY LARGE assumption" was absolutely correct.
And your decades of playing poker?
Meaningless.....
I hope you realize, the only way I was making a bet was to purchace and download the 1,000,000 hands myself and I could write a program to figure the flop percentages in about 30 minutes. Too bad I didn't even need to do that to give you X% +/- 1%.
I also hope you realize that I was contributing discussion to your thread the entire way, just like you asked for from the beginning. But no, go ahead and be a dick to the people whom actually contribute to your thread.
Anytime you wanna play HORSE, $5-$10 blinds, something for say $25-$50k.... Let me know. We'll see what poker we know then.
Lastly, I WAS RIGHT WITH WHAT I SAID. You're squabiling over 7.7% and 7.57% from TOP to BOTTOM. This is not statistically meaningful to me if I were playing the game. As in, it would NOT make me play more hands with a 2 in them.
Page 1
Quote: RomesThus if a card appears on average 7.7% of the time (4/52) then if all the other cards come up 7.6% (for arguments sake) of the time and the 2 comes up 7.8% of the time (for aruments sake), I don't believe that to be a meaningful statistical difference. Pending how you write your bet, you could win your bet based off this, but I don't believe in spirit this is what you're trying to prove. You're trying to prove 2's come up more often on the flop, and when you say more often you mean enough to notice/possibly play differently/etc, correct?
Sadly, you more than likely had already seen that thread/graph from 2+2 so you're tryign to post-facto make bets on known outcomes. This should be a suspendable/bannable offence in my opinion as it's just very shady/slimy/etc/etc. Sorry I got to the conclusion in about 30 seconds with my brain and decades experience and you were spoon fed the graphs from people smarter than you.
Quote: Romes "all mouth and no minerals"Sorry, I work 9-5 and then AP'd for 7 hours last night... My bad?
I hope you realize, the only way I was making a bet was to purchace and download the 1,000,000 hands myself and I could write a program to figure the flop percentages in about 30 minutes. Too bad I didn't even need to do that to give you X% +/- 1%.
I also hope you realize that I was contributing discussion to your thread the entire way, just like you asked for from the beginning. But no, go ahead and be a dick to the people whom actually contribute to your thread.
Anytime you wanna play HORSE, $5-$10 blinds, something for say $25-$50k.... Let me know. We'll see what poker we know then.
Lastly, I WAS RIGHT WITH WHAT I SAID. You're squabiling over 7.7% and 7.57% from TOP to BOTTOM. This is not statistically meaningful to me if I were playing the game. As in, it would NOT make me play more hands with a 2 in them.
Page 1
Sadly, you more than likely had already seen that thread/graph from 2+2 so you're tryign to post-facto make bets on known outcomes. This should be a suspendable/bannable offence in my opinion as it's just very shady/slimy/etc/etc. Sorry I got to the conclusion in about 30 seconds with my brain and decades experience and you were spoon fed the graphs from people smarter than you.
Lol, bets I already know the outcome of. No I did not know the outcome, but I was sure I was right. I even said in my opening statement that I thought I saw a website with the stats on. So don't give me any BS about shady/slimy tactics. You with your "decades of poker playing" should know this sort stuff...... I was right, you were wrong. FACT.
I'll put this into poker terms you may understand. You were dominated preflop, behind on every street and drawing dead.
All mouth and no minerals. Your last post just confirms this even more.
Quote: Romes "all mouth and no minerals"Lastly, I WAS RIGHT WITH WHAT I SAID. You're squabiling over 7.7% and 7.57% from TOP to BOTTOM. This is not statistically meaningful to me if I were playing the game. As in, it would NOT make me play more hands with a 2 in them..
Quote: HeyMrDJI'm having a debate with some guy over on 2+2 regarding flop prop bets. I say the best cards to pick are twos as they flop more often than other cards.
Quote: WizardThat is an outstanding post you link to. Pretty much proves that Hey was right.
The bet was not about playing more hands, or being profitable. The bet was more 2's show up than any other card. Last time I looked, 7.7% was larger than 7.57%
So no, you were not right with what you said at all. You got your ass handed to you, dude. Hurts to be beat by someone less smart than you doesn't it? LOL
Im having a great day by the way :-)
Now before this turns in to a complete sh*t show I'll take my leave, with all the posts in writing to confirm exactly what I've said the entire time. Expect zero discussion/input/etc on any thread you ever post.
Quote: Romes "all mouth no minerals"You clearly just ignore plain text. On the first page I said the number would be technically greater, but that it wasn't statistically meaningful and carried on with that throughout the thread... 7.7% is not statistically meaningful to 7.57%. Thanks.
Now before this turns in to a complete sh*t show I'll take my leave, with all the posts in writing to confirm exactly what I've said the entire time. Expect zero discussion/input/etc on any thread you ever post.
Yeah I missed this on the first page.....
Quote: Romes "all mouth no minerals"Every single card should have the same probability of coming on the flop.
Im soooooo gutted you'll never post on my threads again...... LOL
1. All flops that do occur is not the same as all flops that CAN occur.
2. The reason for that is that some hands are over before the flop, either because no one plays or a raise ends the hand preflop.
3. The flops that do occur happen because at least two players consider their hands worth playing.
4. Players prefer to play high cards rather than low ones.
5. Therefore, the flops that contain low cards would be seen slightly more often than those that contain high cards--some slightly greater proportion of the latter would be in pots that were ended preflop.
6. This effect does exist, so deuces would be seen slightly more often. The premise is correct.
7. The magnitude of the effect is roughly the same as that of the effect of a single cockroach fart on the earth's orbit.
8. A player betting $1 billion on this proposition would be ahead by four cents after ten thousand trials.
9. Does not!
10. Does too!
11. Your mama does various disgusting things!
12. I am never reading your threads again!
Romes, I don't get your posts here. HeyMrDJ offered to take 2s versus the field. You then seemingly said "well, you're correct, but it's not statistically significant," but then seemed to argue he wasn't even correct.
It seems weird to me you think it's statistically indistinguishable, but yet still think the entire field is not +EV versus 2s. I don't understand why you, as an AP, wouldn't be interested in the bet. I guess maybe counterparty risk?
Personally, I think HeyMrDJ's argument makes sense. Typically, when a hand goes to the flop, it is because multiple players like their hands preflop. With multiple strong hands, low cards are more likely to be under-represented within player hole cards, meaning the undealt deck is more likely to be rich in low cards than high cards.
I still don't know if HeyMrDJ's bet is good because I don't have much intuition on whether 2s would be favored versus the FIELD. I think they'd be favored over any other individual card, but not sure if the discrepancy is enough that he should feel confident. I don't want either side of the bet because I think anyone willing to make it has likely done more and better analysis than I have.
This discussion reminds me of the "bet the previous number" strategy in roulette, which is better than picking numbers randomly, because it's identical for an unbiased wheel but results in betting the biased numbers more often on a biased wheel. It's a thought exercise. No one is arguing that the magnitude is significant or distinguishable by the human eye or with a small number of trials.
Quote: RomesYou clearly just ignore plain text. On the first page I said the number would be technically greater, but that it wasn't statistically meaningful and carried on with that throughout the thread... 7.7% is not statistically meaningful to 7.57%. Thanks.
This may be the most perfect example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The original question was for information about which card appears more, not how meaningful it is
He just can't find it in himself to admit he was wrong. Instead, he tries to make me look a fool by coming out with some BS about it not being significantly important. But he just made himself look more foolish.
I would bet that had one card beaten the twos by 0.0000001% he would have collected the bet. I can also say that I would have accepted the defeat and chalked it up. You can't buy class. You either have it, or you don't.
