Chances of only ever getting 72o

[Asheh]

So, thinking about it it is possible that your lifetime, you only ever get delt 72o.

But if you got a person to sit down and reshuffle and redeal, youd never get 72o every hand, its very improbable.

But according to probability its not impossible.

But i think it is impossible without some kind of fixed deck. I think it is a flaw in probability it doesnt take into account every law of physics/motion/thought/etc, so probability is pretty much flawed.

Just because you get 72o one hand, doesnt mean your going to get it the next hand, but its the same amount of chance of getting 72o again.

[T50_Omaha8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

I suspect you haven't studied probability in depth. If there is a flaw in probability, this is certainly NOT it.

[DarkMagus]

Atoms are so small that you can't see them. Does that mean they don't exist?

[ncray]

[ QUOTE ]
So, thinking about it it is possible that your lifetime, you only ever get delt 72o.

But if you got a person to sit down and reshuffle and redeal, youd never (literally never? no, just very close to never) get 72o every hand, its very improbable.

But according to probability its not impossible.
(I don't see why you have a "but" here. you said it was very improbably and not impossible, two things which are in agreement with eachother)

But i think it is impossible (again, it's not impossible, just very improbably) without some kind of fixed deck. I think it is a flaw in probability it doesnt take into account every law of physics/motion/thought/etc, so probability is pretty much flawed.
Just because you get 72o one hand, doesnt mean your going to get it the next hand, but its the same amount of chance of getting 72o again.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ncray]

Okay, consider this. We can only get 72o if we get 7 and 2 not of the same suit. There are 4 7s and 4 2s and 4 combos where they are of the same suit, so there are 12*2(12 is just 7 and 2, there are 12 of 2 and then 7) out of 52*51, which is 2/221.

If the shuffling is fair, then getting 72o in one hand and getting it in another are independent events. So, the probability of getting only 72o is just (2/221)^n, where n is just your lifetime hands. Clearly, this is not zero for any finite n. It's not literally impossible, just very unlikely.

[mykey1961]

If I got 72o my first 4 hands, I would have to sit out for a while.

If when I sat back in, I got 72o again, I'd ask if we could play a hand with all the 2's removed from the deck.

If I got 72o again, bullets would fly.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
But according to probability its not impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's not; however, it's quite improbable

[ QUOTE ]
But i think it is impossible without some kind of fixed deck. I think it is a flaw in probability it doesn't take into account every law of physics/motion/thought/etc, so probability is pretty much flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

not be rude, but what you think doesn't change the nature of probability. also the last part is just absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you get 72o one hand, doesnt mean you're going to get it the next hand, but its the same amount of chance of getting 72o again.

[/ QUOTE ]

which is why it isn't impossible

[Some9]

I once got 99 4 times in a row.
Now according to probability it is possible to get it even more times in a row! So why didn't I get it more often in a row? Obviously the whole probability stuff is just huge nonsense. Agreed OP.

[AaronBrown]

If everyone in the world played five hands of hold'em, by random luck, one person would get 72o five times in a row.

You are correct that when events happen that are highly unlikely assuming random chance, it's reasonable to look for another explanation; like a bad shuffle, a rigged deck or 50 lost cards.

In fact, that's how a lot of statistics works. You compute the probability assuming random chance. If that's near zero, you look for a non-random explanation. If it's not near zero, you either assume things are random or look for more evidence. Without the precise calculation, people are apt to both overinterpret events that are likely from random chance and to ignore the evidence from things that are clearly non-random.

[mykey1961]

[ QUOTE ]
If everyone in the world played five hands of hold'em, by random luck, one person would get 72o five times in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we up to 16.5 billion already?