4AwK or Royal?

[Rob.Singer]

Axel, can you say without reservation that you actually get nine times the number of SF's as you do royals? Not in theory, but actually. I never have. Not even close.

Still LMFAO!! Supposed to make SF's nine times more than royals? HAHAHAHA!!! That's some funny shit, Robbie. World's greatest video poker player? HAHAHAHA!!! World's biggest gambling quack is more like it. Quack! Quack! Quack! Damn, that's funny. And you wonder why everybody laughs at you? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

The alcohol has taken over again. Read with understanding next time.

[mickeycrimm]

Axel, can you say without reservation that you actually get nine times the number of SF's as you do royals? Not in theory, but actually. I never have. Not even close.

Still LMFAO!! Supposed to make SF's nine times more than royals? HAHAHAHA!!! That's some funny shit, Robbie. World's greatest video poker player? HAHAHAHA!!! World's biggest gambling quack is more like it. Quack! Quack! Quack! Damn, that's funny. And you wonder why everybody laughs at you? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

The alcohol has taken over again. Read with understanding next time.

That dog won't hunt, Robocchio. There is a reason you have never ever discussed the mathematics of video poker or any other form of gambling. You have no expertise in it or any understanding of it.

[mickeycrimm]

A pet peeve of mine is the SF. There's 36 of them, and some years I get more royals than SF's. And in the years I see more SF's it's no where near 9:1 in favor of the SF. Plus, they should pay more than 250 in every game.
Let the insults begin!

Axel, can you say without reservation that you actually get nine times the number of SF's as you do royals? Not in theory, but actually. I never have. Not even close.

Robocchio, it is quite clear by your two statements here that you believe Straight Flushes should happen 9 times as often as Royal Flushes. You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the game....and are quite uninformed as to the odds in the game. In short, your claim to be an expert at video poker is bogus.

And no amount of smoke and mirrors, which you are about to hit us with to try and save face, is going to fool anyone.

[Rob.Singer]

Again with the "dog won't hunt" cliche'---wish you were Sam Elliott instead of the uneducated bum you are?

I believe you're aware that all you any and most everyone else does on forums is get their gambling calculations info from WOO, then post it. Not that tough mickey when someone like you can do it. What's hard is actually knowing how to read, then determining what was meant. And because you're not equipped to do that you turn to trolling. Now I'll do what you do: waaa....waaa....Oh dear Dan!, please execute the troll!!

I just thought of something that might make it easier for an untrained simpleton mind likes yours to "hammer out" (liking the tough guy talk?) such a tough problem:
I've been dealt more royals in my lifetime than dealt SF's.
Get it yet?

Wise up.

[mickeycrimm]

A pet peeve of mine is the SF. There's 36 of them, and some years I get more royals than SF's. And in the years I see more SF's it's no where near 9:1 in favor of the SF. Plus, they should pay more than 250 in every game.

Let the insults begin!

Axel, can you say without reservation that you actually get nine times the number of SF's as you do royals? Not in theory, but actually. I never have. Not even close.

A pet peeve of mine is the SF. There's 36 of them, and some years I get more royals than SF's. And in the years I see more SF's it's no where near 9:1 in favor of the SF. Plus, they should pay more than 250 in every game. Let the insults begin!

Well, you leave me no choice but to insult your intelligence. This is a big tell on your knowledge of video poker. In the Jacks or Better games the odds of a SF are around 9,000. The odds of a royal are around 40,000. You make a SF about 4.5 times as often as a royal, not 9 times as you have written above. Thanks for showing how ignorant and uninformed you are on the subject.

You hew hawed your way into this one.

Again with the "dog won't hunt" cliche'---wish you were Sam Elliott instead of the uneducated bum you are?

I believe you're aware that all you any and most everyone else does on forums is get their gambling calculations info from WOO, then post it. Not that tough mickey when someone like you can do it. What's hard is actually knowing how to read, then determining what was meant. And because you're not equipped to do that you turn to trolling. Now I'll do what you do: waaa....waaa....Oh dear Dan!, please execute the troll!!

Wise up.

Like I said, smoke and mirrors ain't gonna fool anyone, Robocchio. But go ahead and keep the charade up. Everyone likes watching you flail around trying to save face. It's hysterically funny.

[The Boz]

Don’t know about everyone, but I’m sure laughing at him. He should be thanking you for offering to wise up a chump, something a wise man said you should never do.

But you have to give Robbo props for consistency. Is there anything he is saying he observed any different from the same shit he has spewed for years and expects us to believe?

Sure a Kindergarten Marh education shoes it to be impossible but he keeps putting out there.

[redietz]

Don’t know about everyone, but I’m sure laughing at him. He should be thanking you for offering to wise up a chump, something a wise man said you should never do.

But you have to give Robbo props for consistency. Is there anything he is saying he observed any different from the same shit he has spewed for years and expects us to believe?

Sure a Kindergarten Marh education shoes it to be impossible but he keeps putting out there.

Yeah, it's really not fooling anybody. He's sort of gone off the rails the last couple of weeks, and it exposes certain things. The strange manic/depressive swings, when a football game wins or loses, is one tell that somebody's on tilt. One day, he's going to win whatever he lost on football by playing video poker; the next day, he's ready to win Round Three in an imaginary test of abilities with NFL oddsmakers, which is another strange way of breaking reality down into "sessions" for no good reason. Eight weeks isn't going to demonstrate much of anything, one way or the other. No reason to get all wound up. The way he wings it in sports, if any indication of how he conducts himself while doing other gambling, is really not confidence-inspiring.

Rob just lies through his teeth when he feels like it, such as the entire "I solicited him" bit. I suspect most of what he types is wholesale lying. It hasn't been nearly that obvious through most of his online career, but the last hundred posts or so, it's getting raggedy, as Charles Barkley said about Tiger Woods when Tiger was caught with the Pancake Cottage waitresses.

And Mr. Mendelson's recent comments and questions regarding various odds, plus the posting of his (again) raggedy video poker play, is interesting, because the he and Rob have pretty much blown their cover at the same time, more or less.

Seven thousand posts and no math. I guess there's probably a reason for that, eh? Dominant poster on a "Vegas Casino Talk" forum, and the guy almost never sets foot in Las Vegas. As I bring up in another thread elsewhere, that is very weird.

There's all this projection stuff. He obsesses over ID's and such, I suspect, because his whole act is vulnerable to exposure if anybody bothers to follow him around for a couple of weeks. But the no math in 7,000 posts -- hard to explain that, really.

Oh yeah, one other thing, the obsessiveness with amping up wagers week to week because he's allegedly garnering more familiarity on a week-to-week basis. That's pretty wild for someone who doesn't really gamble on sports except in brief spurts over decades. I wish him well. I actually need his lineup to do well today, because we have some serious contest overlap, so good luck, Rob!!

[tableplay]

What's even more odd is that supposedly Rob doesn't go for 3-card SF draws. Idk what % of SFs come from 3-card draws, but it's gotta be pretty high up there.

RS__, I'll take a stab at it:
For a given suit, there are three types of SF 3-draws:
Open, one gappa, and two gappa.
a) Open case: prob(SF)=3/1081
b) One gappa case: prob(SF)=2/1081
c) Two gappa case: prob(SF)=1/1081

So, since there are no other possible 3-card SF draws, we can sum these 3 probabilities to get the probability of getting a straight flush from a 3-card SF draw hold (assumes the three card SF draw is the optimum hold - we are not doing any "special plays" here and holding the 3-card two gappa over a high card for example, the way Singbot,Argentino, or Alan might do): 6/1081=0.005550416=0.555% of the time. So, you would pick up the straight flush from a 3-card SF draw about one in every 180 hands (180.167).

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm sorry but I'm not clear on what the SF argument is about. I went to Google and found there are 40 SF combinations, four of which are royals.

Do I get a ratio of nine SFs to one royal when I play? I don't know. But I've had several sessions when I've had more than one SF.

From Google search:

A Straight Flush consists of 5 consecutive cards in the same suit and may have a high card of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Jack, Queen, King, or Ace for a total of 10 different ranks. Each of these may be in any of 4 suits. Thus there are 40 possible Straight Flushes. An Ace high Straight Flush is a Royal Flush.
Poker Probabilities - Durango Bill
DurangoBill.com › Poker

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, these guys are wrestling with the fact that there are four RF combinations and 36 SF combinations, which equates to a 36:4 (aka, 9:1) ratio in favor of the SF.

Everybody knows that you don't hold a two-card SF or a 3-card SF as often as you would going for a royal--and that obviously holds back on the no. of SF's. But I introduced this point as a "pet peeve" of mine, which to the trained mind means that my experience has not been close to expectation. I in fact have seen more royals than SF's in my lifetime of play.

Mickey stupidly jumped all over it after he consulted with WOO, but the laugh, as usual, was on him.

[AxelWolf]

I'm sorry but I'm not clear on what the SF argument is about. I went to Google and found there are 40 SF combinations, four of which are royals.

Do I get a ratio of nine SFs to one royal when I play? I don't know. But I've had several sessions when I've had more than one SF.

From Google search:

A Straight Flush consists of 5 consecutive cards in the same suit and may have a high card of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Jack, Queen, King, or Ace for a total of 10 different ranks. Each of these may be in any of 4 suits. Thus there are 40 possible Straight Flushes. An Ace high Straight Flush is a Royal Flush.
Poker Probabilities - Durango Bill
DurangoBill.com › Poker

There is no real argument. People are laughing at Rob because he claims to be an expert on VP, and yet he thought a Straight Flush was 9x more likely to get than a Royal Flush. If he was an expert he would/should know the approximate cycles for hands on the pay-table.

[Alan Mendelson]

AxelWolf I still don't understand. Are the key words here "9x more likely"?

The ratio of combinations of SF to RF is nine to one. What is the argument, exactly?

Is it about three card draws?

[AxelWolf]

AxelWolf I still don't understand. Are the key words here "9x more likely"?

The ratio of combinations of SF to RF is nine to one. What is the argument, exactly?

Is it about three card draws?

As I said there is no argument. There is no denying what he said or meant.

Axel, can you say without reservation that you actually get nine times the number of SF's as you do royals? Not in theory, but actually. I never have. Not even close.

[Rob.Singer]

AxelWolf I still don't understand. Are the key words here "9x more likely"?

The ratio of combinations of SF to RF is nine to one. What is the argument, exactly?

Is it about three card draws?

As I said there is no argument. There is no denying what he said or meant.

Axel, can you say without reservation that you actually get nine times the number of SF's as you do royals? Not in theory, but actually. I never have. Not even close.

Axel, don't prove to be as dumb as mickey. I asked you a question and stated nothing as fact. It was up to you to provide an a MN ever. Instead, mickey stepped into his own trap once again.

I like it!

[RS__]

What's even more odd is that supposedly Rob doesn't go for 3-card SF draws. Idk what % of SFs come from 3-card draws, but it's gotta be pretty high up there.

RS__, I'll take a stab at it:
For a given suit, there are three types of SF 3-draws:
Open, one gappa, and two gappa.
a) Open case: prob(SF)=3/1081
b) One gappa case: prob(SF)=2/1081
c) Two gappa case: prob(SF)=1/1081

So, since there are no other possible 3-card SF draws, we can sum these 3 probabilities to get the probability of getting a straight flush from a 3-card SF draw hold (assumes the three card SF draw is the optimum hold - we are not doing any "special plays" here and holding the 3-card two gappa over a high card for example, the way Singbot,Argentino, or Alan might do): 6/1081=0.005550416=0.555% of the time. So, you would pick up the straight flush from a 3-card SF draw about one in every 180 hands (180.167).

I don’t think that can be right, since you’re essentially stating the average case (1-in-180) is more frequent than best case (3-in-1081 or 1-in-360).

[AxelWolf]

As I said there is no argument. There is no denying what he said or meant.

Axel, can you say without reservation that you actually get nine times the number of SF's as you do royals? Not in theory, but actually. I never have. Not even close.

Axel, don't prove to be as dumb as mickey. I fact. It was up to you to provide an a MN ever. asked you a question and stated nothing as Instead, mickey stepped into his own trap once again.

I like it!

That question followed up a statement you made regarding the 9X. Add them both together and there's no doubt you had no clue how often a STF should come up. You based a pet peeve on something you thought was much easier to hit than it actully was.


You can deny it and make stuff up all you want, but it's clear as day to everyone else what you were claiming.

[Alan Mendelson]

I guess I read it wrong. I still don't understand the argument.

I will say this. Sometimes there are arguments just for the sake of arguing.

[RS__]

I guess I read it wrong. I still don't understand the argument.

I will say this. Sometimes there are arguments just for the sake of arguing.

Rob thinks you should hit 9 times as many straight flushes as you do royals.

[tableplay]

What's even more odd is that supposedly Rob doesn't go for 3-card SF draws. Idk what % of SFs come from 3-card draws, but it's gotta be pretty high up there.

RS__, I'll take a stab at it:
For a given suit, there are three types of SF 3-draws:
Open, one gappa, and two gappa.
a) Open case: prob(SF)=3/1081
b) One gappa case: prob(SF)=2/1081
c) Two gappa case: prob(SF)=1/1081

So, since there are no other possible 3-card SF draws, we can sum these 3 probabilities to get the probability of getting a straight flush from a 3-card SF draw hold (assumes the three card SF draw is the optimum hold - we are not doing any "special plays" here and holding the 3-card two gappa over a high card for example, the way Singbot,Argentino, or Alan might do): 6/1081=0.005550416=0.555% of the time. So, you would pick up the straight flush from a 3-card SF draw about one in every 180 hands (180.167).

I don’t think that can be right, since you’re essentially stating the average case (1-in-180) is more frequent than best case (3-in-1081 or 1-in-360).

Hi RS__, 1/180 is not the average case but rather the sum of all 3 cases (the sum of the open,one gap and two gap scenarios). If we divide the numerator and denominator of 6/1081 by 6, we get 1/(1081/6) which is 1/180.67. We would expect all three of the cases to create more straight flushes than the open case by itself (1/360). Since 1/180 is twice 1/360, we could say that a straight flush occurs from any case of 3 to a straight flush (open,1-gap,2-gap) twice as often as drawing to the open case only.

[mickeycrimm]

Alan, these guys are wrestling with the fact that there are four RF combinations and 36 SF combinations, which equates to a 36:4 (aka, 9:1) ratio in favor of the SF.

Everybody knows that you don't hold a two-card SF or a 3-card SF as often as you would going for a royal--and that obviously holds back on the no. of SF's. But I introduced this point as a "pet peeve" of mine, which to the trained mind means that my experience has not been close to expectation. I in fact have seen more royals than SF's in my lifetime of play.

Mickey stupidly jumped all over it after he consulted with WOO, but the laugh, as usual, was on him.

From what you've described of your play over 20 years you would have to be in million+ hands territory. There is no way you seen more royals than straight flushes in that large of a sample space. That is "18 yo's in a row" kind of malarkey.