I think a 5th time of mentioning orange squash and Mona Lisa will be even funnier, than the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th times.... especially if you put the Mona Lisa parts in capitals.
I think a 5th time of mentioning orange squash and Mona Lisa will be even funnier, than the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th times.... especially if you put the Mona Lisa parts in capitals.
Must be just like listening to you MOAN, MOAN, MOAN ad infinitum trying to outdo STORMY DANIELS having to humour DONALD TRUMP, pretending he's a real STUD
...... whilst you're on STORMZY's leg, humping away ......'coz you didn't quite get it right
I don't wish you gone, or bad beats rain down on you the reverse. I want you to see the site with it's worn out R.N.G. tweaked or not, is what you get if you decide to play on here. Suck it up or spit it out Love it or hate it we all have choices. Skill does play part.
I wonder how many the opponents have had too, i wont get to see showdown on many....
Player
Action
Cards
Amount
Pot
Balance
DEKSCAR531
Small blind
10.00
10.00
1490.00
TheWaddy
Big blind
20.00
30.00
1480.00
Your hole cards
10
10
5
8
DEKSCAR531
Call
10.00
40.00
1480.00
TheWaddy
Check
Flop
J
3
3
TheWaddy
Check
DEKSCAR531
Check
Turn
3
TheWaddy
Bet
20.00
60.00
1460.00
DEKSCAR531
Call
20.00
80.00
1460.00
River
2
TheWaddy
Bet
40.00
120.00
1420.00
DEKSCAR531
Raise
80.00
200.00
1380.00
TheWaddy
Call
40.00
240.00
1380.00
DEKSCAR531
Show
8
10
3
K
TheWaddy
Muck
10
10
5
8
DEKSCAR531
Win high
Four 3s
240.00
1620.00
No qualifying low hand
That is 1 of the reasons why people underestimate the frequency of quads-they are often not seen.
In the example you give here, do you actually realise how common it is that your opponent has quads?
So-there is one 3 left in the pack. But you can see 9 cards-the community cards, plus your hand.
The chances your opponent has the 3 amongst his cards is (1/43) + (1/42) + (1/41) + (1/40).
Just under 10% (roughly 9.6%). That is true every time the community cards have 3 of a kind and you don't have quads. And it is not unusual for the Community cards to show 3 of a kind.
Bit different to your initial notion that it happens once every 20,000 hands...
As you are well aware, this was not my notion. If you search 'odds of 4 of a kind in omaha' this is the headline.
Four-of-a-kind in Omaha is trickier because the player can only (and must) use two of his or her four hole cards. The probability of making four-of-a-kind in an Omaha game is 0.0048%.28 Apr 2022
The article is suggesting you wont see it every hour or so, believe! It even mentions the word 'rare'.
For readers of this post, you have 2 choices. To believe the top article of the biggest information platform known to man.... or a bloke from Essex who is going above and beyond to defend something he believes is run off rubber bands and sinclair spectrum left overs (his words, not mine... i personally believe its a very very sophistictaed bit of kit).
Its tough choice, but i somehow think you very intelligent beings will stick with the Essex choice! And that my friends, is what we are dealing with here.....
'The probability of at least one player having quads is 219/11981 in hold'em and 350/3243 in Omaha'. Very easy to check it waddy, right at the top of the page if you Google it.
The bloke from Essex shows how he arrived at his numbers.
You arrive at your figures because you "looked it up".
Can you show us how Phil is wrong and the article is correct?
To be fair he did look it up, sadly the first reference he came to was this thread and he therefore took it, and his previous mention of the same quote, as the absolute bible on £1 HU PLO8.
As you are well aware, this was not my notion. If you search 'odds of 4 of a kind in omaha' this is the headline.
Four-of-a-kind in Omaha is trickier because the player can only (and must) use two of his or her four hole cards. The probability of making four-of-a-kind in an Omaha game is 0.0048%.28 Apr 2022
The article is suggesting you wont see it every hour or so, believe! It even mentions the word 'rare'.
For readers of this post, you have 2 choices. To believe the top article of the biggest information platform known to man.... or a bloke from Essex who is going above and beyond to defend something he believes is run off rubber bands and sinclair spectrum left overs (his words, not mine... i personally believe its a very very sophistictaed bit of kit).
Its tough choice, but i somehow think you very intelligent beings will stick with the Essex choice! And that my friends, is what we are dealing with here.....
I've already said this. But I will say it again for the hard of thinking.
Probability is 0.0048. When expressed as a percentage chance, as opposed to a probability, that comes out at 0.48%. Not 0.0048%.
I am right. And that information platform is wrong. And, if no-one on that platform has realised that their info is wrong, then I thoroughly recommend that no-one uses it.
Probability of Flopping Quads in Omaha Hand PrHand PrQf given H/B] Pr Qf No Pair 67.6% 0.023% 0.016% 1 Pair 30.4% 0.28% 0.084% 2Pair 1.0% 0.56% 0.006%
The total probability is about 0.11%. Clearly, flopping quads in Omaha has a very low probability.
Just a few mins ago...... after all this previous talk. I think you are being 'owned' here Phil, what you make of this just to make the odds a bit longer as clearly the other combined long shots not long enough for you;
Player
Action
Cards
Amount
Pot
Balance
hague17
Small blind
10.00
10.00
1160.00
TheWaddy
Big blind
20.00
30.00
1810.00
Your hole cards
8
10
Q
8
hague17
Raise
30.00
60.00
1130.00
TheWaddy
Call
20.00
80.00
1790.00
Flop
8
8
A
TheWaddy
Check
hague17
Bet
80.00
160.00
1050.00
TheWaddy
Raise
320.00
480.00
1470.00
hague17
Raise
960.00
1440.00
90.00
TheWaddy
All-in
1470.00
2910.00
0.00
hague17
All-in
90.00
3000.00
0.00
TheWaddy
Unmatched bet
660.00
2340.00
660.00
hague17
Show
4
K
Q
J
TheWaddy
Show
8
10
Q
8
Turn
10
River
J
TheWaddy
Win high
Four 8s
2340.00
3000.00
No qualifying low hand
I would say even if the bloke from Essex was correct at 0.48%, on quads not flopped... i am seeing a huge amount of quads given my modest time at the tables.
Glad to see you guys have run with Poker.Org being incorrect.
Does a site using a sinclair spectrum/rubber bands effect these odds or is that part of the equation?
Here is some real-time probability. In the hands you have shown.
You say that someone has calculated the odds of flopping quads at 0.11%. Yet despite this, you continue to maintain the fiction that the odds of getting quads by the River is lower. You claim 0.0048%. I say that that is the probability figure, and that the correct figure is 0.48%.
Here's some simple maths. Small sample-but it is your sample on this thread.
You show 15 hands of quads. Now, if the odds of flopping quads are roughly 1/5 of the odds of getting quads by the River (like 0.11% to 0.48%), then, on average, your 15 examples of quads would contain 3 where the quads are flopped, and 12 where they do not. And-guess what? That is exactly what has happened.
You claim that it is mathematically impossible for quads to turn up as often as they do. Whereas, in the real world, they turn up just as often/just as rarely as probability indicates. It's just your maths that is faulty.
The bloke from Essex shows how he arrived at his numbers.
You arrive at your figures because you "looked it up".
Can you show us how Phil is wrong and the article is correct?
To be fair he did look it up, sadly the first reference he came to was this thread and he therefore took it, and his previous mention of the same quote, as the absolute bible on £1 HU PLO8.
Well well, what a turn up. Waddy doesn't know how the odds work.
If I remember correctly, he mentioned something about the gambling commission not understanding how poker works.
I cringe to think what he said to them.
This isn't looking good Mr waddy.
Google misterPJ, he could teach you a thing or two.
Lets face it if its me posting and EssexPhil comes up with theres a 0.48% of Martians landing tomorrow, you would roll with it!
How many times can he tell lies in his posts and you still follow this guy like some kind of guru!??? At least i back it up with actual hands and quotes from reliable poker sites. This guy speaks and backed up fact goes out the window!
He says ive called the site 'corrupt'.... i dont know how many times ive defended the site against that word, so a complete lie.... he says that i have said getting quads this much 'is mathematically impossible'... utter rubbish....i have used this term for other instances but not in the quads argument...
He assures you online poker is ok to wager large amounts of money and pokes fun at micro stakes, whilst telling you the sites technology is made up of rubber bands and sinclair spectrum type capacities...
On top of all this, he is making claims that its all within poker odds, without knowing how many hands ive played to make the quads ive made! How does that work???
Comments
Highly unlikely.....until the Guests arrive at the Orange Squash Poker Party, ready to listen to MOANER
trying to outdo STORMY DANIELS having to humour DONALD TRUMP, pretending he's a real STUD
...... whilst you're on STORMZY's leg, humping away ......'coz you didn't quite get it right
In the example you give here, do you actually realise how common it is that your opponent has quads?
So-there is one 3 left in the pack. But you can see 9 cards-the community cards, plus your hand.
The chances your opponent has the 3 amongst his cards is (1/43) + (1/42) + (1/41) + (1/40).
Just under 10% (roughly 9.6%). That is true every time the community cards have 3 of a kind and you don't have quads. And it is not unusual for the Community cards to show 3 of a kind.
Bit different to your initial notion that it happens once every 20,000 hands...
Four-of-a-kind in Omaha is trickier because the player can only (and must) use two of his or her four hole cards. The probability of making four-of-a-kind in an Omaha game is 0.0048%.28 Apr 2022
The article is suggesting you wont see it every hour or so, believe! It even mentions the word 'rare'.
For readers of this post, you have 2 choices. To believe the top article of the biggest information platform known to man.... or a bloke from Essex who is going above and beyond to defend something he believes is run off rubber bands and sinclair spectrum left overs (his words, not mine... i personally believe its a very very sophistictaed bit of kit).
Its tough choice, but i somehow think you very intelligent beings will stick with the Essex choice! And that my friends, is what we are dealing with here.....
You arrive at your figures because you "looked it up".
Can you show us how Phil is wrong and the article is correct?
But I will say it again for the hard of thinking.
Probability is 0.0048.
When expressed as a percentage chance, as opposed to a probability, that comes out at 0.48%. Not 0.0048%.
I am right. And that information platform is wrong. And, if no-one on that platform has realised that their info is wrong, then I thoroughly recommend that no-one uses it.
(H = hand, Qf = quads on flop)
Probability of Flopping Quads in Omaha
Hand PrHand PrQf given H/B] Pr Qf
No Pair 67.6% 0.023% 0.016%
1 Pair 30.4% 0.28% 0.084%
2Pair 1.0% 0.56% 0.006%
The total probability is about 0.11%. Clearly, flopping quads in Omaha has a very low probability.
Just a few mins ago...... after all this previous talk. I think you are being 'owned' here Phil, what you make of this just to make the odds a bit longer as clearly the other combined long shots not long enough for you;
I would say even if the bloke from Essex was correct at 0.48%, on quads not flopped... i am seeing a huge amount of quads given my modest time at the tables.
Glad to see you guys have run with Poker.Org being incorrect.
Does a site using a sinclair spectrum/rubber bands effect these odds or is that part of the equation?
So-within 3 community cards. As opposed to 5.
Tell you what-contact Poker.Org. Show them this thread. And watch them get really, really embarrassed.
You don't have to be expert in Maths to play poker. But if you get maths wrong by a factor of 100, you have a massive leak in your game.
You say that someone has calculated the odds of flopping quads at 0.11%. Yet despite this, you continue to maintain the fiction that the odds of getting quads by the River is lower. You claim 0.0048%. I say that that is the probability figure, and that the correct figure is 0.48%.
Here's some simple maths. Small sample-but it is your sample on this thread.
You show 15 hands of quads. Now, if the odds of flopping quads are roughly 1/5 of the odds of getting quads by the River (like 0.11% to 0.48%), then, on average, your 15 examples of quads would contain 3 where the quads are flopped, and 12 where they do not. And-guess what? That is exactly what has happened.
You claim that it is mathematically impossible for quads to turn up as often as they do. Whereas, in the real world, they turn up just as often/just as rarely as probability indicates. It's just your maths that is faulty.
Not the site.
Waddy doesn't know how the odds work.
If I remember correctly, he mentioned something about the gambling commission not understanding how poker works.
I cringe to think what he said to them.
This isn't looking good Mr waddy.
Google misterPJ, he could teach you a thing or two.
How many times can he tell lies in his posts and you still follow this guy like some kind of guru!??? At least i back it up with actual hands and quotes from reliable poker sites. This guy speaks and backed up fact goes out the window!
He says ive called the site 'corrupt'.... i dont know how many times ive defended the site against that word, so a complete lie.... he says that i have said getting quads this much 'is mathematically impossible'... utter rubbish....i have used this term for other instances but not in the quads argument...
He assures you online poker is ok to wager large amounts of money and pokes fun at micro stakes, whilst telling you the sites technology is made up of rubber bands and sinclair spectrum type capacities...
On top of all this, he is making claims that its all within poker odds, without knowing how many hands ive played to make the quads ive made! How does that work???
All hail the chosen one!