Which is more RARE in a poker game...

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
stop playing with wild cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially four of them.

[ShannonRyu]

[ QUOTE ]
When did this new generation of poker players become such a bunch of nits? Variety is the spice of life.

[/ QUOTE ]I know. I have been hosting weekly card games for 8 years, and we never played Hold'em until about 3-4 years ago. Now, we have to play hold'em, usually a tournament, then those interested (usually 1/3, 6-8 players) stick around for a few more hours to play DC. Wild cards are present in about 1/3-1/2 of the games called and we only allow 1 card (4) to be wild, unless it's Midnight Baseball which has 8.

So, 5 of a kind is technically ranked higher than a royal flush with dueces wild playing 5 card draw?

[recipro]

[ QUOTE ]
1 Wild card together with 4 of a kind - there are 48 combinations of this.

2 Wild cards together with three of a kind -- There are 72 combinations of this.
<font color="red">By my math, there are 6 ways to get 2 wild cards, and 48 ways to get three of a kind in non-wild cards. 12*48 is 288.</font>

3 Wild Cards together with a pair -- There are 288 combinations of this.

4 wild cards together with anyother card -- There are 12 combinations of this.
<font color="red">There are 48 non-wild cards in the deck.</font>

Total ways to make 5 of a kind -- 420
<font color="red">I get 672.</font>

Now to Make a Royal Flushithout any wild cards in the hand there are 4 combinations to make a royal.

with one wild card There are 80 comibinations to make a royal.

With 2 wild cards there are 240 combinations to make a royal

With 3 wild cards there are 160 combinations to make a royal

<font color="red">If we don't start from the assumpiton 5 of a kind beats royals, there are also 20 ways to make a royal with 4 wild cards. (These are, of course, double-counted with our 5-of-a-kinds.)</font>

There are a total of 484 ways to make a royal with dueces wild.

<font color="red">Or 504 counting the 4 wild card royals.</font>

So 5 of a kind is in fact more rare than a royal in a 52 card deck with dueces as wild.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this final statement--royals are more rare than five-of-a-kind with four wild deuces. (And even moreso with four wild jacks or queens, etc.)

I could be wrong, however.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1 Wild card together with 4 of a kind - there are 48 combinations of this.

2 Wild cards together with three of a kind -- There are 72 combinations of this.
<font color="red">By my math, there are 6 ways to get 2 wild cards, and 48 ways to get three of a kind in non-wild cards. 12*48 is 288.</font>

3 Wild Cards together with a pair -- There are 288 combinations of this.

4 wild cards together with anyother card -- There are 12 combinations of this.
<font color="red">There are 48 non-wild cards in the deck.</font>

Total ways to make 5 of a kind -- 420
<font color="red">I get 672.</font>

Now to Make a Royal Flushithout any wild cards in the hand there are 4 combinations to make a royal.

with one wild card There are 80 comibinations to make a royal.

With 2 wild cards there are 240 combinations to make a royal

With 3 wild cards there are 160 combinations to make a royal

<font color="red">If we don't start from the assumpiton 5 of a kind beats royals, there are also 20 ways to make a royal with 4 wild cards. (These are, of course, double-counted with our 5-of-a-kinds.)</font>

There are a total of 484 ways to make a royal with dueces wild.

<font color="red">Or 504 counting the 4 wild card royals.</font>

So 5 of a kind is in fact more rare than a royal in a 52 card deck with dueces as wild.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this final statement--royals are more rare than five-of-a-kind with four wild deuces. (And even moreso with four wild jacks or queens, etc.)

I could be wrong, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

No i think you are right. When I did this I kept thinking something was wrong but couldn't figure out where I mad ethe mistake. Now I see. Thanks

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this final statement--royals are more rare than five-of-a-kind with four wild deuces. (And even moreso with four wild jacks or queens, etc.)

I could be wrong, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without the time to go through the math, logically it seems that your statement should be incorrect.

When you start adding wild cards, you immediately have 5K hands as the rarest hand. That's why 5K hands are ranked first, over straight flushes (including royals).

As you add wild cards, it shouldn't knock out THAT many combinations of the natural hands. Also, you're removing a rank of 5K hands as a possibility- with four deuces as wild, there are no deuce 5K hands that you can make.

I'll have to walk through the math again, similar to the above, and see if I can recalculate this.

ONE OTHER POINT- separating royal flushes, which are merely Ace-high straight flushes, as a "special" ranking category seems as foolish as making King-high flushes a separate category.

Also, 6-4 razz hands are rarer than straights, flushes, possibly full houses. Do we rank them "higher" in poker? Where does it stop?

If we'd stick to ranking 5K vs. SF vs 4K hands, I think it removes a pointless distinction on the straight flush category.
Straight flushes are straight flushes; Ace-high straight flushes are just the highest, by rank. That's how all of the other poker hands work. We don't compare the odds of getting a King-high flush vs. a 7-high flush and say the 7xxxx flush is ranked "higher" due to lower odds.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
ONE OTHER POINT- separating royal flushes, which are merely Ace-high straight flushes, as a "special" ranking category seems as foolish as making King-high flushes a separate category.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with this, but the initial poster asked which was more rare, Royals or 5 of a kind so that was the question I addressed.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ONE OTHER POINT- separating royal flushes, which are merely Ace-high straight flushes, as a "special" ranking category seems as foolish as making King-high flushes a separate category.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with this, but the initial poster asked which was more rare, Royals or 5 of a kind so that was the question I addressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, it was a general statement

[ShannonRyu]

Thanks for the help. I've decided to post official rules ranking the Royal Flush (or the Ace high straight flush) as a better hand than 5K, then SF then 4K.

I know that the RF is just a type of SF, but I like the novelty of it, and if you have the RF you should NEVER have to worry about losing with it. Thanks again.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the help. I've decided to post official rules ranking the Royal Flush (or the Ace high straight flush) as a better hand than 5K, then SF then 4K.

I know that the RF is just a type of SF, but I like the novelty of it, and if you have the RF you should NEVER have to worry about losing with it. Thanks again.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine, it's your home game rules. Just be aware that you might be going against the odds of getting one hand vs. another (just like the old days, when they thought that straights should be ranked higher than flushes).

Oh yeah, be sure to explain that rule to new players, so they aren't surprised.

[pleasefish]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the help. I've decided to post official rules ranking the Royal Flush (or the Ace high straight flush) as a better hand than 5K, then SF then 4K.

I know that the RF is just a type of SF, but I like the novelty of it, and if you have the RF you should NEVER have to worry about losing with it. Thanks again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is dumb. AAAAA is much harder to get than an ace-high straight flush, why should an ace-high straight flush beat it? Just because it has a special name?

You should NEVER have to worry about losing with AAAAA because it is the best possible hand. Go ahead and give it a special name if it makes you feel better, but don't rank a worse hand higher than it.