PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The roulette principle.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The roulette principle.

    For my example we will use pp <pocket pair> aces, versus pp tens, with random suits.

    Preflop pp aces v pp tens.

    80.749% against 19.251%.

    If we break this down into further detail.

    Aces.

    Chance of getting a Straight Flush on the flop: Impossible
    Chance of getting 4-of-a-kind on the flop: 0.24%
    Chance of getting a Full House on the flop: 0.98%
    Chance of getting a Flush on the flop: Impossible
    Chance of getting a Straight on the flop: Impossible
    Chance of getting 3-of-a-kind on the flop: 10.78%
    Chance of getting 2 Pair on the flop: 16.16%
    Chance of only keeping 1 Pair on the flop: 71.84%
    Chance of getting a Four Flush on the flop: 2.24%
    Chance of NO over cards coming down on the flop: Definite
    Chance of ONE over card coming down on the flop: Impossible
    Chance of TWO over cards coming down on the flop: Impossible
    Chance of THREE over cards coming down on the flop: Impossible
    Chance of ANY over cards coming down on the flop: Impossible

    Tens.

    Chance of getting a Straight Flush on the flop: Impossible
    Chance of getting 4-of-a-kind on the flop: 0.24%
    Chance of getting a Full House on the flop: 0.98%
    Chance of getting a Flush on the flop: Impossible
    Chance of getting a Straight on the flop: Impossible
    Chance of getting 3-of-a-kind on the flop: 10.78%
    Chance of getting 2 Pair on the flop: 16.16%
    Chance of only keeping 1 Pair on the flop: 71.84%
    Chance of getting a Four Flush on the flop: 2.24%
    Chance of NO over cards coming down on the flop: 30.53%
    Chance of ONE over card coming down on the flop: 45.80%
    Chance of TWO over cards coming down on the flop: 20.82%
    Chance of THREE over cards coming down on the flop: 2.86%
    Chance of ANY over cards coming down on the flop: 69.47%

    Even though mathematically statistics show us that preflop, the aces are a huge favorite to win the hand, the mathematically breakdown shows us that in fact, the number of outs and the chance of hitting a hand are not that far apart, except a big concern that the flop will almost always produce a higher card.

    Now I would like you to clear your minds of all the poker maths and percentages you do know, and this will make it easier to understand this concept of the roulette principle.

    Imagine the outs as a roulette wheel, this in fact is the randomness of the cards to come.

    Example:

    937AQ are drawn.

    KJ572 is next drawn outs.

    AA3J4 then follows.

    In roulette format it would look like - 937AQKJ572AA3J4 and so on.

    Why the roulette principle?

    In roulette if black for example, is spun 12 times, you know it is a good bet to bet red, your not guaranteed it will be red, but the odds are more in your favor than the black coming again.

    Where and why would I want to use this in my play as a poker player?.

    As my example shows, so lets say three hands in , we are sitting there with pp tens.
    We have all ready ranged our opponent, theres a big chance he/she as pp aces.

    Using the roulette principle can really help in this situation, we know by the outs that have already come, theres a good chance of seeing the ten come out.
    Because of randomness we can nether be 100% accurate, but this can give us more of an edge into predicting the outs.

    The same principle can be used in reverse.

    Example.

    The outs before produced a ten, we are sitting with pp tens the next hand, maths states that the odds and outs are the same and do not dipher.

    Statistically though your tens have very little chance of hitting for a second time in a row, this helps to make an easier fold decision.

    I am not saying go off and use this solely as your basics for poker, I am saying to remember this it may help you out in a sticky situation.

    Hope this helps you in some way and questions related to this I will gladly answer.

  • #2
    Originally posted by holdemace486 View Post
    In roulette if black for example, is spun 12 times, you know it is a good bet to bet red, your not guaranteed it will be red, but the odds are more in your favor than the black coming again.
    See this please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

    And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_independence

    And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represe...ness_heuristic
    Last edited by JDean; Sun Feb 12, 2012, 12:32 PM.
    Double Bracelet Winner

    Comment


    • #3
      holdem. you should prolly credit wherever you got that article from, 'cause we all know you didn't write it.

      But thanks for trying to contribute something other than quitting.

      Comment


      • #4
        Very interesting read J.dean, thank you for the link. However, I have said do not use this idea to solely base your poker plays on, but on a now and again basis, surely this gives a person an edge over variance itself?.
        I understand the gamblers fallacy totally, but by trying to judge the outcome occasionally is that not just common sense similar to lets say a multiple choice quiz with a,b,c choices.
        Where as 3-1 chance of guessing correctly,the maths stay the same and the odds, but i feel that to a degree and with a bit of thought on the outs, not all of obviously, can be interpreted as a good call or bad call preflop making it an easier decision.

        example.

        A player wins on AQ, the next hand you are dealt AQ the maths and probabilities are the same, but
        to me the chances of winning on a hand that as all ready won the previous hand are less even though the maths suggests over wise.
        Randomness cannot be calculated by maths alone in my opinion, but by using the maths and then thinking about the probabilities does this not help?.
        Last edited by holdemace486; Sun Feb 12, 2012, 01:01 PM. Reason: spell mistake

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by crossing View Post
          holdem. you should prolly credit wherever you got that article from, 'cause we all know you didn't write it.

          But thanks for trying to contribute something other than quitting.
          Thank you mc, but i did write this article and can see why you would think I have not, I feel this is an interesting subject based on the presumptions of people I have played against in the past, they bad beat me for example on 62, I have asked them why they shoved 62 and they explained because they had not seen a 6 or 2 for a while.

          Comment


          • #6
            Don't know if the link was to any statistics for roulette, but I will tell you it can be summarized in just two words:

            INDEPENDENT VARIABLE


            The fact that black hit on a spin, or that black hit on the last eight, has no affect on the next spin of the wheel. Here's the "behind the scenes" story at the casino. The house noticed the drop on the number of players at roulette. One casino designed a light pole that displayed the last ten spins of the wheel with three colored lights. (red for red, green for green, and white for black.) Within a week, the revenue from the roulette wheels doubled. The reason: your logic about red and black - "If black/red hit five times, then red/black must hit." It doesn't.

            Another concept people forget is the green spots. Ask anyone the odds of red or black hitting, or the odds on any even money bet, and they will tell you 50/50. The casino loves you, my friend. Everyone forgets the zero and the double zero. Your true odds are 48/52 in favor of the house.

            Comment


            • #7
              Poker, or any card game, is not an independent variable within the deal. That is, if card X is played, there is no way it can hit a second time in that hand. Its removal affects the odds of all other cards within that hand.

              In your example regarding the Ace-Queen, the hands are independent variables. However, odds for other cards can be determined.

              Let me see if I can say this clearer. If the odds of winning a poker hand with pocket aces is 85%, then there is a 15% chance of losing. Statistically speaking, if you have one hundred hands dealt with pocket aces, you can anticipate losing on 15 hands.




              (Hedgehog has no idea how it happened, but this half of my post never appeared. Please cue the "Twilight Zone" theme.)

              Comment


              • #8
                Hello cairn, I appreciate that yes you have independent variables. This is in fact all based theoretically, however I have used this on occasion to good effect. I sore 99 trip the board for example, sitting on the button the next hand I had 99, utg + 3 raises, I was in a push or fold situation and opted to fold.
                The bb called etc and I would of lost, so in theory in the right hand in the right spot this can help.
                Also it gives us an understanding why some players do push all in on mediocre hands, I believe this is their thinking pattern sometimes.
                To understand the enemy at the table will allow the better players to win with the right thinking.
                I think the outs are of a real similarity to the roulette system and its variables. Understanding the true meaning of randomness will certainly help people to forget about bad beats completely,
                this in fact will and should have a knock on effect, making less tilters and more winners in theory.
                Like I said its not something I would recommend doing all the time, But surely any edge against variance should not be over looked as poker players.
                We see it regular on television, pro players calling the outs, yes lucky guess, but I personally would rather have something than all in completely blind when the crunch comes to the crunch if you can follow that.

                Comment


                • #9
                  so many lol's itt

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by roomik17 View Post
                    so many lol's itt
                    Lol roomik, yes it does sound absurd, but just because of that it does not make it wrong. I know you can post great literature so would you like to emphasis on why you think lol, debates for and against is my aim of the post. That way we can come up with the answers of un asked questions about the game of poker.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In roulette if black for example, is spun 12 times, you know it is a good bet to bet red, your not guaranteed it will be red, but the odds are more in your favor than the black coming again.

                      Read more: The roulette principle. - PokerSchoolOnline Forum http://www.pokerschoolonline.com/for...#ixzz1mB9WdUaY
                      not so.. it's the same odds as any red/black spin

                      sigh...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by r0ck.carver View Post
                        In roulette if black for example, is spun 12 times, you know it is a good bet to bet red, your not guaranteed it will be red, but the odds are more in your favor than the black coming again.

                        Read more: The roulette principle. - PokerSchoolOnline Forum http://www.pokerschoolonline.com/for...#ixzz1mB9WdUaY
                        not so.. it's the same odds as any red/black spin

                        sigh...
                        Hi rock, I do say that its not guaranteed, but also, surely something is better than nothing?.
                        And ok change the words from odds to probabilities. Does that make any more sense to the theory.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by holdemace486 View Post
                          Hi rock, I do say that its not guaranteed, but also, surely something is better than nothing?.
                          And ok change the words from odds to probabilities. Does that make any more sense to the theory.
                          If you could prove that somehow at somepoint in time red and black don't have an equal chance of winning....... not only would you be rich and famous, but you would probably win the nobel prize.

                          I'm going to go ahead and say it is guaranteed. Also, I'm with roomik. Some sort of explaination is needed for the original post. Either your not capable of being the writer of it(therefore having stolen it or had someone post as you), or you REALLY don't care about how hard you make it for people to read your regular posts. The answer, either way, kind of pisses me off. I will be going back to ignoring your posts. Done feeding trolls. Good day sir.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            i'm confused,

                            is the earth flat after all ?
                            17 Time Bracelet Winner

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by holdemace486 View Post
                              Hi rock, I do say that its not guaranteed, but also, surely something is better than nothing?.
                              And ok change the words from odds to probabilities. Does that make any more sense to the theory.

                              Another mistake here is considering the terms synonomous. When one talks odds, this is something based on a mathamatical formula. Thus the odds for black, red, high, low, even, or odd remains a constant 49/51 in the house's favor. Exact odds being 18 divided by 38 in your favor.

                              Probabilities has too much of the human element inserted. If black/red hit five times in a row, then it is probable that red/black will hit next. Yes, you are right that there is an eventually in that statement, but mathamatically, the odds are firm.

                              Now let's go to the poker analogy. The odds of any card appearing is 1 in 52. The odds of four cards might appear to be 1 in 13, but it is slightly less. However, I'll not talk odds here. I'll talk human perception. The first thing we must agree to is the honesty of the deal. If we cannot agree that the cards are random, that a legitimate shuffle has occurred, this discussion becomes moot.

                              Accepting the honesty and randomness of the shuffle, the probability that a specific card appears is the same from one hand to the next. Even the odds of a specific card, the nines in your example, remains constant.

                              What changes is human perception. You remember seeing nines in the prior hand. Therefore, you reason, nines cannot come up this time. You remember spades on the board last hand, and deduce spades cannot be on the board this hand. The six and two have yet to come onto the board during the last three hands, therefore shoving all-in with six-two this hand offers me the greater chance of making a winner.

                              Such thinking is false since the mathamatical probabilities, odds, remains a constant. Yes, we are all guilty of such illogical logic. It doesn't change the facts if one accepts the shuffle as an honest one. This is why we find it impossible to believe that nine hitting the river, this hand's community is all spades, or that there was no six or two in this community. When these things do happen, (no nines, no spades, and 6-6-2 hitting the flop), we see this as confirmation of our perception.

                              I'm thinking that is possibly the biggest hurdle to playing cards professionally. You have got to separate perception of probabilities from the mathematical odds of a hand.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              X Cookies Information

                              We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.