I do not want this thread to get derailed please, it is not a whine post or a scam post or anything of the like, I plain and simply hope someone can break down the math for me.

I was just at a play money table on ClubWPT, yes just play chips, when I sat down another player won the first 2 hands I was there for uncontested ( Pre flop bet drove everyone away ), now that same player actually won the next 8 hands in a row played to the river. I was not in any of these hands. Here are the hole cards he had for those 8 hands in a row.

Ad Ac
Qs Qc
Kd Ks
Qd Qs
Qd Qc
Qh Qs
Qc Qs
Ad As

He then left the table.

My question is this, what are the actual odds of catching those 8 hands in a row? Then also what are the odds of catching ANY 8 PP's in a row? Thank you for the help from any of you math wizards on here.

Hand histories?

The odds of catching those hands in that specific order is going to be a lot higher then catching primo hands 8 times in a row.

You don't need a math wizard. You just need someone who finished Grade 7 math.

There is a 1/17 probability of being dealt any pocket pair (since you are dealt 1 card, then there are 3 out of the remaining 52 cards in the deck that match the first card you received). Then there is (1/17)^8 which is roughly 1 in 7 billion to be dealt 8 pocket pairs in a row.

However, this is the probability that a single person was dealt 8 pocket pairs in a row. I'm assuming you still would have asked this question if anyone at the table was dealt 8 pocket pairs in a row which is more likely depending on the number of people at the table.

For your first question, it kind of depends what you are asking. Do you mean the probability of that one person is dealt pocket aces, then pocket queens, then pocket kings etc consecutively? Or did you mean the probability of being dealt either QQ, KK, or AA 8 times in a row? Because it makes a big difference. The probability also changes if you still consider it valid if any person on the table was dealt this hand.

Gunth0807 and DVDA4life, thank you for your responses, I just looked at the hand history and there were 10 people at the table for the first 6 hands then 9 people for the last 2. And yes I was wondering the odds that the same 1 person got those exact hole cards for those 8 hands in a row, which is what happened. What blows my mind is he/she then left the table, on a streak like that you would have to shoot me to leave.

I could copy paste the hand history but I am in NO way accusing anyone of cheating or anything of the like. I am not a paying member of ClubWPT or anything so honestly do not really care to that extent. I honestly was just amazed at how rare it must be for one person to get those 8 hands in a row.

The odds of getting 72 offsuit 8 times in a row too is astronomically low as well...

Do they deal Royal Hold'em?

I never have seen something like that but it would be rare if nobody never would have seen something like that. Anything must happen someday.

But asking about those exact 8 hands in a row is silly. The odds are exactly the same as they are of seeing J2, K4, T6, 45, 29, A7, Q8, 77 in a row, yet you would never ask about that. What you find exceptional is that they are all very good hands, so I think the question should be what the odds are of getting 8 QQ+ hands in a row.

Long time I don't solve a probability problem.

Gonna try solve the problem you're saying BoBo.

Question. What's the probability of getting 8 times in a row QQ+?

Answer. {Question. What's the probability of getting QQ or KK or AA?
Answer. 1/221+1/221+1/221 = 3/221}

So probability of getting 8 times in a row QQ+ should be (3/221)^8 ~ 1/(73.7)^8 => order-> 0.0000000000000001

...or roughly the chance AP/UB pays out

If that would be the case then 100k$ UB woudn't be worth 1 cent

Are you suggesting that is inaccurate?

post some hand histories so we know its not a fish tale, if its legit thye cheated some how compromised the software plain and simple

This reference is ironic, given this: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...lives-1025450/

Too right. With all that cold, hard play money up for grabs, she'd have to be mental to leave.

Perhaps though she decided to join a real money table as she was running extremely hot. Alternatively, she might be intelligent enough to realise that the fact she has run well for a few hands has absolutely no bearing on how she will run on subsequent hands. We shall never know.

headasplode.gif

They use the old UB software, So anything is possible

Have seen it on "Rise"/NLOP but nowhere else. That doesn't mean it does not get spread somewhere, of course.

I don't know if anyone noticed this post before, but it appears they do. As did UB, so that would make sense.

So, does anyone want to recalculate those odds now?

Ah, I guess someone did notice my post.

Just to be clear, I'm not having much luck finding Royal Hold'em on their website, but I found a thread on another forum from last April that says they offer it:

http://www.cardschat.com/f10/clubwpt-196703/

And since UB offered it, and they use the same software, it would make sense that they do. And of course then the posted hands would make a lot more sense.

It seems that Royal Holdem can only be played 6 handed max due to a severe lack of cards after 10s. The OP claimed 9 or 10 so IDK

Ah, right. Well, it seemed like a logical explanation; perhaps not.

It was my first thought as well. A friend sat at a table on some site a few years back and couldn't believe the great hands he got two or three hands in a row, nor the amazingly good hands being shown down, not until he realized it was royal holdem, lol.

I thought this too, only it would have meant that the OP also would have received runs of big hands.

A friend of mine lost a fair bit one session, back in the day, playing on Betfair. He was going off in chat to all the other players about how he was being coolered hand after hand. His opponents kept quiet or just told him how unlucky he was. He emailed support, complaining about their games being rigged with the evidence of the cold deck hands. They responsed that he was at one of their Royal tables, so he felt a bit silly.