# Thread: How clever do you think you are, work this out! lets see if science is what i hope it is and you are all really clever.

1. Ok, I am hoping some one on here is really mathmatically smart, lets see.

Online poker varies in the rules of poker, compared to live poker.

Online poker is very cleverly designed, or designed without knowing , of a sequence anomaly change from live poker, that creates much more action, making the live game of +ev, into an internet game of possibably even EV/-EV.

Basically this allows the online companies to recieve much more rakes, in fact only 10% of players online win, so 90% of players lose, mainly to each other, swapping pots creating more rake.

Eventually the online companies end up with it all in rakes.

1. Live poker after the players are dealt their cards, there is an 8 card sequence, 3 cards blind to the players,casted aside in the sequence of, 1 blind 3 over, 1 blind 1 over,1 blind 1 over.

2. Internet poker after the players have been dealt their cards, there is only a 5 card sequence, there is no blind cards cast to the side.
3 down, 1 down, 1 down.

Example number one, takes away possible combinations, you can not hit quads if one of your cards is casted aside, straight draws , flushes etc are lessened.

Example number two, creates more action, as there is an obvious a 3 card difference, creating more possible combinations.

As for the maths to work the difference out, im at a loss, can any one work this out?

2.

3. Jesus that could not be less clear. I know poker well and have no clue what you talk about. But i m guessing you got some wrong assumptions.

Live rake varies wildly in different countries. In france its so high that only the bank wins, perhaps 0,1% of players too.

4. Theorist specialises in obscurity.
It's mainly due to him being clueless.

5. Originally Posted by Ximlab
Jesus that could not be less clear. I know poker well and have no clue what you talk about. But i m guessing you got some wrong assumptions.

Live rake varies wildly in different countries. In france its so high that only the bank wins, perhaps 0,1% of players too.
live poker uses burn cards, internet poker does not.

6. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Theorist specialises in obscurity.
It's mainly due to him being clueless.
Do the maths if you think im clueless. Internet poker as a much higher variance.

7. Burn cards are used in live play to stop "card marking" as it means you can't see the next card that will be dealt just the burn card. Obviously on line this can't happen as there are no physical cards. Whether burn cards are used or not has no effect on the odds if each unknown card is valued equally as you have no knowledge of what the burn cards are, see here for example.

8. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Burn cards are used in live play to stop "card marking" as it means you can't see the next card that will be dealt just the burn card. Obviously on line this can't happen as there are no physical cards. Whether burn cards are used or not has no effect on the odds if each unknown card is valued equally as you have no knowledge of what the burn cards are, see here for example.
Hi PH, yes i am aware of the idea that burn cards were invented to stop cheating in the game in live play, but what was never considered is that this takes away peoples outs.

I have aces in my hand for example and the first card is burnt,is an ace, although I do not know it is an ace that takes away my outs.

There is 3 random cards burnt, this takes away a mutitude of combinations.

Online there is no burn cards as you say it si a virtual deck but without 3 random cards been removed this improves peoples out.

I have called this fish variance.

As the worse players often hit more than they should fishing. This is because there is a multitude of extra combinations the 3 cards make.

I take away 3 lottery balls of 49, so now 1-46 witht the same rules. there would be more winners.

9. But it doesn't change the odds if you do not know what the burn cards are. This is explained in the link I posted. Read it carefully. As for your example no, if you do not know which 3 lottery balls were removed your calculated odds would still be the same as you have no way of knowing whether it was your "outs" that were removed or not.

10. Originally Posted by PhDemon
But it doesn't change the odds if you do not know what the burn cards are. This is explained in the link I posted. Read it carefully. As for your example no, if you do not know which 3 lottery balls were removed your calculated odds would still be the same as you have no way of knowing whether it was your "outs" that were removed or not.
Yes I do understand that the odds with not knowing what is burnt will be the same, in a maths sense. But it does unknowingly change the ''odds'' of the outs. Im calling it odds, but really I dont know the word for it. There is a big change from a 8 card sequence to a five card sequence of about 40% .
A 40% sequency change must have a huge impact?
On the interent i have noticed several hundred times that the card that beats me should of never been there, it would of been in a burnt position live.
Too many straights, to many flushes, to many sets,quads, produced by these 3 extra cards.

11. No, read the link, if you don't know what the burn cards are you don't know whether you have removed any outs or not. Your level of knowledge has not changed so the calculated odds have not changed. The odds of any particular hand are unchanged as you are equally likely to remove any card as any other. The link I posted explained this is words of one syllable what is your problem?

12. Originally Posted by PhDemon
No, read the link, if you don't know what the burn cards are you don't know whether you have removed any outs or not. Your level of knowledge has not changed so the calculated odds have not changed. The odds of any particular hand are unchanged as you are equally likely to remove any card as any other. The link I posted explained this is words of one syllable what is your problem?
It is an awkward concept I agree, It is not about calculated odds, it is the fact that this creates more action, the bad players cancellling out the good players by hitting more than they should. You will hit a set 3 of a kind , by the river they have 4 suited cards on the board and have a flush.

Yet the four suited cards that come out would of been split by the random burn cards.

OK I will move on to the second problem which is easier to see.

1.live poker uses one deck of 52 cards reshuffled at the table.

2.internet poker uses a new deck every hand from a que system of freshly shuffled decks.

The first table that finishes an hand, gets the next deck in the que,

This completely kills probabilities of distribution.

13. No. It IS about calculated probability unless you think you have some mystical way of knowing the identity of the burn cards. How does it create more action? The probability of being dealt any hand is the same regardless of the quality of the players. I've explained this a few times now and given you a link that explains it in case I was unclear. If you still don't understand it's your problem not mine.

As to the second problem, what difference would it make? One deck properly shuffled between hands used repeatedly or a new randomly shuffled deck for each hand give the same odds as they all contain the same cards in a random order.

14. Originally Posted by PhDemon
No. It IS about calculated probability unless you think you have some mystical way of knowing the identity of the burn cards. How does it create more action? The probability of being dealt any hand is the same regardless of the quality of the players. I've explained this a few times now and given you a link that explains it in case I was unclear. If you still don't understand it's your problem not mine.

As to the second problem, what difference would it make? One deck properly shuffled between hands used repeatedly or a new randomly shuffled deck for each hand give the same odds as they all contain the same cards in a random order.

Well I thought I explained the second part simple, you have not answered my original question of maths.

The maths if it can be calculated will show the difference i refer too.

The second part is simple, it is a big difference on probabilities. I have expected probability,average of been dealt aces 1/221 hands.
This is from a single shuffled deck, the next deck we recieve at the table on the internet as some one elses expected averages , it was meant for them.

So distribution probibilities been tampered with is basically messing with peoples luck. I could recieve bad cards by bad timing of the decks instead of my own luck as such. I could recieve aces 3-4 times in a row, which i have, which is against probabilities.

15. Originally Posted by PhDemon
...

16. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by PhDemon
...
lol I havent found any one yet who can do the maths on any sight

17. Originally Posted by theorist
I could recieve bad cards by bad timing of the decks instead of my own luck as such.
There is no such thing as "my own luck" or "your cards".

I could recieve aces 3-4 times in a row, which i have, which is against probabilities.
It isn't "against probability" (whatever that means). It is just unlikely - but exactly the same odds as getting any other specific card.

18. Originally Posted by theorist
Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by PhDemon
...
lol I havent found any one yet who can do the maths on any sight
The "maths" if you want to dignify dividing two numbers to get a probability as maths is explained in the link I gave, why would I need to reproduce it?

Originally Posted by from link given
For instance, take a standard deck of 52 cards, remove two of the Aces and "burn" half of the deck, or 25 cards, without looking at them. If you drew the next card, what are the chances of it being an Ace? It would be 2/50 (2 Aces left out of 50 unseen cards). It would NOT be 2/25 just because you burned half the deck. Okay, do the same thing again, but this time you get to look at the burn cards. Let's say that of all the cards you burned, none were an ace. Now your odds are 2/25 because there are still two Aces and now only 25 "unseen cards".
The fact you haven't read (or haven't understood) the information provided just confirms you are not here to learn and are probably trolling. I say probably as it's hard to tell with someone as thick as you whether it's trolling or stupidity. And now I really am finished with this thread.

19. Originally Posted by theorist
The maths if it can be calculated will show the difference i refer too.
No, it won't. This is what people find irritating about you. You don't know, but you think you know enough to tell somebody who does know that they are wrong. Now, learn how to calculate probability, or shut up about it when someone gives you an answer.

20. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by theorist
I could recieve bad cards by bad timing of the decks instead of my own luck as such.
There is no such thing as "my own luck" or "your cards".Maybe not but theres certainly averages.I for example could sit for three hours without seen nothing but 93s,62s, by bad timing of the next deck.

I could recieve aces 3-4 times in a row, which i have, which is against probabilities.
It isn't "against probability" (whatever that means). It is just unlikely - but exactly the same odds as getting any other specific card.

Yes very unlikely, I have witnessed this several times. I had 9 lots of quads in a week once, even more unlikely.
How can i explain, you dont just have to have one peice of luck by the shuffle favouring yourself, you also have got to hope that the timing of the hand to be finished gives you a deck that favours you from the que. So some days,weeks, months, you just run reallly bad by bad timing of decks.

21. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by theorist
The maths if it can be calculated will show the difference i refer too.
No, it won't. This is what people find irritating about you. You don't know, but you think you know enough to tell somebody who does know that they are wrong. Now, learn how to calculate probability, or shut up about it when someone gives you an answer.
I am sorry but it is also irritating when i do not get the answer i asked for, I asked a maths question, i would not know where to start. It is too complicated with an answer going into the millions.
It is that clever i do not think any one can work out the variance difference.
if its so easy please some one give me maths?

22. You were given an answer. There is no difference to calculate. You just refuse to accept it.

23. maybe i should reword the question,

how many possible combinations are there in texas holdem poker?

taking 3 randomcards away how many combinations would there be?

I suspect that to be the same answer for both.

How many combinations would there be accounting for 3 random variables removed?

24. Originally Posted by theorist
How can i explain, you dont just have to have one peice of luck by the shuffle favouring yourself, you also have got to hope that the timing of the hand to be finished gives you a deck that favours you from the que. So some days,weeks, months, you just run reallly bad by bad timing of decks.[/COLOR]
Whether you think it is due to the shuffle, timing, or the weather: it doesn't change the odds.

Working out odds for card games is trivially easy. If I knew anything about poker and could understand what you are saying, I might show you how to do it.

25. Originally Posted by theorist
maybe i should reword the question,

how many possible combinations are there in texas holdem poker?

taking 3 randomcards away how many combinations would there be?

I suspect that to be the same answer for both.
Yes, exactly the same for both cases (unless you look at one or more of the three cards).

Assuming you mean odds of getting a particular hand, when you say "combinations". There are obviously fewer total combinations possible because there are fewer cards; but that doesn't change the odds of you getting any particular combination.

How many combinations would there be accounting for 3 random variables removed?
What does "3 random variables" mean?

26. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by theorist
maybe i should reword the question,

how many possible combinations are there in texas holdem poker?

taking 3 randomcards away how many combinations would there be?

I suspect that to be the same answer for both.
Yes, exactly the same for both cases (unless you look at one or more of the three cards).

Assuming you mean odds of getting a particular hand, when you say "combinations". There are obviously fewer total combinations possible because there are fewer cards; but that doesn't change the odds of you getting any particular combination.

How many combinations would there be accounting for 3 random variables removed?
What does "3 random variables" mean?
Hi Strange, 3 random variables, i mean 3 burn cards that no one knows what they are, they are pulled to one side in an eight card sequence as in my first post in this thread.

On the internet they do not use these 3 random variables which allows a multitude of extra random combinations of hands, and im trying to find out the difference, not in odds, but the whole affect of not using these 3 cards which are technically blocker cards to making hands.

27. Originally Posted by theorist
Hi Strange, 3 random variables, i mean 3 burn cards that no one knows what they are, they are pulled to one side in an eight card sequence as in my first post in this thread.
How is that any different from:
taking 3 randomcards away how many combinations would there be?
In other words, the odds don't change.

but the whole affect of not using these 3 cards
If you were to play through the entire deck (I don't know if you can do that in poker) then it would obviously mean that certain hands could not be formed. But, before then, it makes no difference.

28. Lets play an hand of poker,

Strange recieves 2 aces

Ph recieves 2 tens

I get 67

the burn cards not knowing to you are or me are 1st an ace,then 3 cards come down, 4, 5, king.then second burn card ace.

the turn card<4th card out> 7

final burn card, ten

river <5th card out> 3

45k73
I hit my straight and win

the internet would look like this

a45ka

to very different outcomes

29. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by theorist
Hi Strange, 3 random variables, i mean 3 burn cards that no one knows what they are, they are pulled to one side in an eight card sequence as in my first post in this thread.
How is that any different from:
taking 3 randomcards away how many combinations would there be?
In other words, the odds don't change.

but the whole affect of not using these 3 cards
If you were to play through the entire deck (I don't know if you can do that in poker) then it would obviously mean that certain hands could not be formed. But, before then, it makes no difference.

Its not about the odds its more to do with extra variance from added combinations.

30. burn a five, burn a ten, and straights are almost impossible and unlikely etc.

31.

32. How many more displays of theorist's fatuous and wilful ignorance do we have to put with?

33. Originally Posted by PhDemon

quote-A lot of you might wonder why we never factor the opponents' cards or the burn cards when figuring out how many cards are left. The reason is that we only consider "unseen cards" as potential outs. If you saw what the burn cards were, or an opponent showed you his hand, you would know that those cards are not going to be drawn and actually could use that information. In texas holdem poker though, we typically do not know what they have, so we don't even think about it when talking about odds.

I know the odds stay the same,it is not about the odds, it is about that the burn cards are although random they are blocker cards to making hands.

Without these blocker cards, there is more action.

even though the odds stay the same, of hitting your outs, you hit more outs, more combinations as do they creating a far more variance game that ends up cancelling each other out.

34. Originally Posted by theorist
Its not about the odds its more to do with extra variance from added combinations.[/COLOR]
What is "extra variance"?

35. Originally Posted by theorist
burn a five, burn a ten, and straights are almost impossible and unlikely etc.
But if those cards were instead at the bottom of the pack, then it makes no difference. Can you play the whole deck in poker?

36. Originally Posted by theorist
It's exactly the same link I gave earlier proving you didn't read it before carrying on with your nonsense.

Trash please mods, the OP has been answered it's now wilful stupidity or trolling from theorist. A guy who can't calculate odds (or whatever he means by "variance" which seems to near nothing in common with any definition I've seen) but think he knows what will make a difference to them. Talk about DK effect

37. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by theorist
burn a five, burn a ten, and straights are almost impossible and unlikely etc.
But if those cards were instead at the bottom of the pack, then it makes no difference. Can you play the whole deck in poker?
yes it is the same as having those cards at the bottom you can not play the whole deck, as you thought that is correct, but the point been whether it a 5 or suits for example, these are still blocker cards to making hands and combinations although it be based again on random blocks etc.

By extra variance, i mean this allows people to hit more combinations, etc, more action, and over time, we all mostly lose, 90% in fact lose online.

a fruit machine plays better and pays out better than onlinepoker .

38. Utter rubbish.

39. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by theorist
It's exactly the same link I gave earlier proving you didn't read it before carrying on with your nonsense.

Trash please mods, the OP has been answered it's now wilful stupidity or trolling from theorist. A guy who can't calculate odds (or whatever he means by "variance" which seems to near nothing in common with any definition I've seen) but think he knows what will make a difference to them. Talk about DK effect
I thought it looked familiar, i did read it earlier but then appropriate quote was required

40. Originally Posted by theorist
Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by theorist
It's exactly the same link I gave earlier proving you didn't read it before carrying on with your nonsense.

Trash please mods, the OP has been answered it's now wilful stupidity or trolling from theorist. A guy who can't calculate odds (or whatever he means by "variance" which seems to near nothing in common with any definition I've seen) but think he knows what will make a difference to them. Talk about DK effect
I thought it looked familiar, i did read it earlier but then appropriate quote was required
and p.s i have read articles like that a million times in the last 6 year, i have been on every poker forum with this, i know what is said about the odds but its not about the odds.

41. So in just over 2 hours you'd forgotten what you'd read. You must have the attention span of a goldfish as well as an inability to understand basic maths or logic and a complete imperviousness to reason. Seriously, what is wrong with you?

42. Enough is enough. If it hasn't sunk in yet, it's not going to sink in. Thread locked.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement