Basic Statistics...

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pokey - doesn't the fact that other Aces or Kings may have been dealt to the other players at the table alter the result?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I dont think so, because it is all equal since we dont see the other cards.

For instance, when calculating your outs do you discount them because "maybe my queen is already dealt"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Jay is correct and your comparision is not. We ain't got no clue what the other players has been dealt in you Q example. But if we know the first player at the 6-handed table doesn't have AA or KK, the probability that the second one has goes up. And so on...

[Tickner]

ahhhh, ok, ty for clearing that up

[tarheeljks]

from BruceZ in the probability forum:

[ QUOTE ]
For at least 1, we can get the exact answer from the inclusion-exclusion principle similar to these problems to get:

6*12/C(52,2) -
C(6,2)*12*7/C(52,2)/C(50,2) +
C(6,3)*12*(6*2+1*6)/C(52,2)/C(50,2)/C(48,2) -
C(6,4)*12*(6*2+1*6)/C(52,2)/C(50,2)/C(48,2)/C(46,2)

=~5.35%


For exactly 1, we make the following modification:

6*12/C(52,2) -
2*C(6,2)*12*7/C(52,2)/C(50,2) +
3*C(6,3)*12*(6*2+1*6)/C(52,2)/C(50,2)/C(48,2) -
4*C(6,4)*12*(6*2+1*6)/C(52,2)/C(50,2)/C(48,2)/C(46,2)

=~ 5.28%



[/ QUOTE ]

[Xanta]

[ QUOTE ]
Pokey - doesn't the fact that other Aces or Kings may have been dealt to the other players at the table alter the result?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nah, it's kinda like counting burn cards as outs still since they're unknown. The times that aces and kings are dealt elsewhere does reduce the chance of getting dealt AA or KK, but the times that no one is dealt an ace or a king improves the chance of getting dealt AA or KK. If it's all unknown, it all balances out.

Now, if you're talking about a second person getting dealt AA-KK, this is the pain in the ass pokey is talking about. It matters very little.

[Worm75]

[ QUOTE ]
Please stay , Pokey.

[/ QUOTE ]

favorite ssnl poster by far [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]