blonde poker forum

Ok, start off, this is not a bad beat story/rant/whinge.

I played the UKIPT yday (day 1b, table 31). To say the least it was grind. I went 9 (1 hour) levels without seeing a pair over 88. (not an exaggeration)

I'm trying to increase my live play, but as of yet i haven't played in many more than 10 big(ish) live tournaments (£/$500+). I Multitable MTTs online, but because of this i have nothing to relate being this card dead to, as you're not concentrating on just one table.

Does anyone with more live experience know if this happens occasionally, or is just pretty ridiculous.

(pretty lame thread, but i'm just curious)
thanks

Only 9 hours you was lucky!!!

Ps 9 hours live is less than 300 hands

Should of seen AA at least once in 300 hands IMO!!

10 hours for me, but of course I would never mention it.  ;whistle;

Yeah right girgy, some of us wait years to see aces

Im approaching 7 years of live poker without a hand, so dont worry im sure its normal

so pretty standard, will happen every so often? or are these all typical live player exaggerated/cliché resposnes

 i wasnt happy, ~300 hands

you'll have a 2 hour period where you get dealt premium 3 times an orbit, just hope it comes in an EPT and not in a £200 freezeout

I think that some poker players pretend to have good hands when in fact they don't, I haven't worked out how to do that tho.

I have gone 12 hour session online 4 tabling without seeing AK or pair better than jacks but I have also seen aa on 3 of the tables at same time

I get AA at least 4 times a comp! I just need to learn how to hold!!

9 hrs without a hand seems pretty standard for me both live and online!

I personally have really good hands all the time.

was s illy for me to think this would turn into anything other than an "i run bad all the time" thread.

take it its kinda standard.

brill!

 /thread

I think this is right: 1 / ((215 / 221)^300) / 100

i.e. about 39/1 to not get a pair higher than eights in 300 hands.

Think that qualifies as occasionally.

ahhh some maths, thanks, wasn't sure if i could get a figure that accurate, but thats what i was after, ty

Can't be bothered doing the maths myself but that figure won't be quite correct I don't think. There's more combinations of unpaired hands than paired hands so you can't simply do total number of hands - 6.

Think we're both wrong. I got the total number of possible hands wrong. Yes, there are more unpaired hands than paired (156 v 13) but why is not just 6/169 for the change of getting dealt 99-AA?

So it should be 1 / ((163 / 169)^300)

Duuno why I put  / 100 in there too - meant I was out by 100 first time  ;smackedbottom;

So latest estimate is 51254/1. ul OP.

The chance of getting aces is not 1/169 is it?

It is 1/221 as once you are dealt one ace, there are only 3 aces left in the deck. Whereas for unpaired hand, ak for example, there are still 4 kings left in the deck.

So it is 6/221 as the same maths applies for all pairs.

So 1/((215/221)^300)= whatever

A spell like this seems completely standard in my experience. Frustrating, but standard.

Can be very difficult for predominantly online players to cope with, not only do they have far fewer hands to get used to but patience when card dead is highly difficult I see this often when live updating!   

Forget all the maths mumbo jumbo because the truth is some people are lucky at cards and some aren't. If you were lucky at cards you would deffo have got a few AKs in that 9 hour period. Time to face the truth brother.

Heh, looks like I now know that I know that I know just enough probability to probably get it wrong...

There are 169 starting hands but they are not all equally likely[1], as Longy rightly points out you're 220/1 to get a specific pp.

So, strike #3....

There are 1326 possible starting hands taking into account order and suits [2].

There are 6 pocket pairs higher than eights. There are 6 ways of getting each of those pairs taking into account order and suits[3]. So 6x6 out of 1326 of getting 99+.

1/((1290/1326)^300) = 3855/1.

 ;grr;


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_hold_%27em_starting_hands
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_hold_%27em_starting_hands
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability_%28Texas_hold_%27em%29

i had AKo once and AQo 3 times, cool post tho

Hilarious post imo :)

The AQs don't count. If they were suited they might have counted but not off suit. Sorry, it all seems to add up to you were born unlucky my friend.