Two Royal Flushes

[poppyp]

In the '70s, I was a dealer in Vegas. I remember the Las Vegas Review Journal announcing that there were two royal flushes in the final hand of a Sahara poker tournament, involving big time players! Can't remember their names. Is anyone else aware of this phenomenal occurance, and what would be the odds? The players split the pot, which was reputed to be over $80,000.
Can I get a witness?

------------------

[Fyodor]

virtually impossible. The combination of such a rarity-two ROYAL flushes-being in the finals of a big time Vegas poker tournament oozes urban myth from every pore.

[Boris B]

Oh, the odds of Royal Flushes aren't too bad. If you're using wild cards. I mean, that's the way me and my friends play! Yo, my three natural kings beat your king and two wild threes!

But I don't know if the pros ever use wild cards. They might be too frowny and serious for that.

------------------
Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.
- Boris Badenov

[AWB]

poppyp: In the '70s, I was a dealer in Vegas. I remember the Las Vegas Review Journal announcing that there were two royal flushes in the final hand of a Sahara poker tournament, involving big time players! Can't remember their names. Is anyone else aware of this phenomenal occurance, and what would be the odds?

Here are the odds with stud poker. It's tough to calculate the draw poker odds, but they'd be less.
Odds of drawing the first Royal Flush:
<font face="courier">
52!
4 X --------- = 649,740 to 1
(52-5)!5!
</font>
Odds of drawing the second Royal Flush:
<font face="courier">
47! 1
3 X --------- = 852,188 - to 1
(47-5)!5! 3
</font>
Multiplying these together gives 553,700,847,700 to 1. Not impossible nor improbable, but the odds are greater than Powerball (80,000,000 to 1).

But given that it was probably a draw poker game, the players were aiming their draw to make the Royal Flushes. The odds are probably in the low billions, so it's in the realm of possibilities.

[AWB]

Crap! The spaces got crunched. Lemmee try again...

Odds of drawing the first Royal Flush:
<code>
52!
4 X --------- = 649,740 to 1
(52-5)!5!
</code>
Odds of drawing the second Royal Flush:
<code>
47! 1
3 X --------- = 852,188 - to 1
(47-5)!5! 3
</code>

[AWB]

OK, straight-line equations then:

Odds of drawing the first Royal Flush:
<code>
4 X 52!/((52-5)!5!) = 649,740 to 1
</code>
Odds of drawing the second Royal Flush:
<code>
3 X 47!/((47-5)!5!) = 852,188 1/3 to 1
</code>

[tanstaafl]

Sorry. I thought this thread had something to do with his and hers toilets in the palace.

[Sam Stone]

There are 2,598,960 possible 5-card poker hands. Royal Flushes make up 4 of them, so the odds of being dealt a pat royal flush are 649,739 to 1.

Most poker tournaments are 7 card stud or Texas Holdem, where you can make the best 5-card hand out of 7 cards. It's impossible in Holdem to have two players with Royal Flushes, since five of the cards are 'community' cards. So it would have to have been a 7-stud tournament. With 7 cards dealt, the chance of making a royal flush is about 31,000 to 1.

Calculating the odds of two players being dealt a royal is a bit more complex. Assuming one player already has a royal, and there are six other players in the game, the chance of one of them having a royal flush drops to about 3,000 to 1.

The average poker dealer deals about 25 hands per hour. If there are 8 players in the game, that's 200 hands per hour being dealt. So someone will be dealt a royal flush roughly once every 155 hours. So, a 7-stud dealer would deal a royal flush to two players in the same hand once every 53 years.

It's fairly meaningless anyway. The short answer is that there are a LOT of hands dealt in poker tournaments, and there are a LOT of poker tournaments. If one dealer will deal a double royal flush every 50 years or so, and the average tournament has 20 tables, then each tournament will run into a double royal situation every couple of years. And there are hundreds of tournaments around the country.

So the chance of two people being dealt a royal flush isn't all that farfetched.

Even this isn't a very good answer, because seeing two royal flushes is just one of many different types of longshots that you might see. And you remember the longshots when they happen. Thinking something is extraordinary after the fact is 'data mining', and it's one way in which statistics are used to justify all kinds of bogus claims.

I've logged thousands of hours of casino and tournament poker. I've seen two players with straight flushes on several occasions. I've been dealt a royal flush 4 times. I've never seen two players get dealt a Royal Flush, but then I play mostly Holdem and Omaha where that can't happen.

[John W. Kennedy]

The odds of the deck going that way randomly are pretty incredible.

The odds of a factory-new deck getting a couple of perfect shuffles aren't so bad, though.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[divemaster]

I play a lot of hold 'em and have been 'dealt' a Royal Flush once. (I say 'dealt' because of the fact that five cards are community cards). On that occassion, another player at the table also got a Royal Flush two hands later. Improbable, yes; but not totally far-fetched (as dhanson's numbers would point out).

[CurlyGirlLasVegas]

In the 1960's and 70's my parents, FRANK AND MIRIAM ROSEN OF SKOKIE, ILLINOIS .... went to Las Vegas and stayed at the Sahara, where my father played some poker... NOT IN A POKER TOURNAMENT....JUST IN THE REGULAR POKER ROOM AT A $2 LIMIT TABLE...... I repeat...A $2 LIMIT TABLE...... the game was NOT Texas Hold-em..... that game was almost unknown in the 70's .... most of the poker tables at that time were either 7 Card Stud or 5 Card Draw........ Daddy was playing 7 card stud at a $2 limit table and GOT DEALT A ROYAL FLUSH......
............. HE BEGAN RAISING UNTIL ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS, EXCEPT THE GUY ACROSS THE TABLE FROM HIM, HAD DROPPED OUT........ Daddy fiqured the other guy probably had a full house..... or some other decent hand......
.................they both raised until they ran out of money............. when they showed their hands....THE GUY ACROSS THE TABLE ALSO HAD A ROYAL FLUSH.......
................the guy across the table was named Joe Esposito...........I think he lived in Las Vegas........................

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''THE SAHARA CALLED IN "JIMMY THE GREEK" A FAMOUS ODDSMAKER......TO FIQURE THE ODDS, WHICH WERE ASTRONOMICAL....... there had never been two Royals in the same hand in Vegas history, and hasn't been since, either.............
..........................there was a HUGE amount of publicity....both in LV and in Chicago........Daddy was interviewed on local TV programs and Radio shows........
.............his picture was on the wall of the Sahara for many years and he carried the news clipping with him for awhile.............
..................as for the claim there was $80,000 in the pot...... that is purely an urban legend......... there was less than $100 in the pot and it was split between Daddy and Mr. Esposito................ in poker one suit isn't higher than another...

............I repeat..... NOT a Poker Tournament....... Not $80,000......

the archives of the Review-Journal has this on file and will show my father's name along with Joe Esposito's........... this should clear up all these fantasys and speculations and people who think they known what they are talking about and really know NOTHING...........
................................the Sahara got so much publicity from this that they gave my parents a free trip back to stay at the Sahara again..........

[CurlyGirlLasVegas]

see post from CurlyGirlLasVegas..... CLEARS THIS UP 100%
PLEASE READ ALL OF IT

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by CurlyGirlLasVegas

see post from CurlyGirlLasVegas..... CLEARS THIS UP 100%
PLEASE READ ALL OF IT

Sports Illustrated article from '74.

Thanks, CurlyGirlLasVegas

[chaoticbear]

WHAT KIND of POKER do zombies PLAY?

trick QUESTION: THEY play SPAAAAAAAADES.

(eh. Best I could come up with.)

[Chefguy]

Hey, it's a zombie, so I can relate a story of my own. I was in a game in the military wherein my four nines were beaten by another guy with four tens. Expensive hand, but not as expensive as the next hand where the same guy beat my four jacks with four kings. Natural. Ruined poker for me for many years.

[Crazyhorse]

I think when it's the first factual answer to the OP it's not so much a zombie as an "amazing recovery".

I once lost with 4 kings to a straight flush at a 5/10 limit holdem table. It was a pretty expensive lesson in thinking "what are the odds of that?" and assuming he had a full house.

[Autolycus]

Thanks for the story It was really nice to finally have that cleared up I thought for sure it would have been an urban legend Also props to Samstone for making the math much more clear oh And if my post seems strange it's because somebody used up all the periods already Sorry

[Really Not All That Bright]

THIS IS A FASCINATING thread"""""""""""

[Crazyhorse]

Our early ancestors on this board (many of which are still here today) were missing 2 key benefits that we enjoy today. Our ability to google for information with much better results, and others' ability to google for information and find threads here. When the two collide sometimes you might get the right answer to a 10 year old question that was incorrectly answered at the time.

I haven't regretted reading any of this thread except the snark about it being re-opened after so long. I view that as a waste of the re-opener's time, not the other way around. (and so apologize for this continuation of it...)

[Colibri]

Since this is about cards, let's move it to the Game Room. Some interesting new information has been added.

Responders please note this thread is over 11 years old.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by chaoticbear

WHAT KIND of POKER do zombies PLAY?

trick QUESTION: THEY play SPAAAAAAAADES.

(eh. Best I could come up with.)

I'll bet 2 cerebellums and a pituitary gland.

I'll see your bet, and raise you a frontal cortex and 2 medulla oblongatas.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

It's impossible in Holdem to have two players with Royal Flushes, since five of the cards are 'community' cards.

I'm a nitpicker by both inclination and vocation, but have never had a chance to pick a zombie's nit before.

Is it not instead true that two players in Holdem can both have Royal Flushes (though then all players will)?

[Really Not All That Bright]

No. There are only five community cards, and three must be used to make a hand. So for me to have a royal flush, at least three of the five community cards must be in the same suit as the cards in my hand.

That means there cannot be three cards of any other suit on the board, so nobody else can complete a flush, much less a royal flush.

Wait, I see what you're saying. If the five community cards combine to form a royal flush...

That's a well picked nit.

[RealityChuck]

You think that's rare? On "I've Got a Secret" in the 60s, they had four bridge players who, in a tournament, each had all the cards in a given suit (i.e, one had all clubs, one had all diamonds, one had all hearts and the last had all spades.) The odds given for that was several quadrillion to one.

[notfrommensa]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

No. There are only five community cards, and three must be used to make a hand. So for me to have a royal flush, at least three of the five community cards must be in the same suit as the cards in my hand.

That means there cannot be three cards of any other suit on the board, so nobody else can complete a flush, much less a royal flush.

Wait, I see what you're saying. If the five community cards combine to form a royal flush...

That's a well picked nit.

Not in Hold'm. You are correct that there are 5 community cards, but 3 or even 4 or even 5 can be used to make a hand. if the community cards are the Ace, King, Queen, Jack, and Ten of Hearts, then everyone still in the hand has a Royal Flush.

(That is why Bad Beat Jackpots usually require that the winner of the BB Jackpot must use both his hole cards)

[Really Not All That Bright]

*ahem* Read the last two lines of the post you're quoting.

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

Hey, it's a zombie, so I can relate a story of my own. I was in a game in the military wherein my four nines were beaten by another guy with four tens. Expensive hand, but not as expensive as the next hand where the same guy beat my four jacks with four kings. Natural. Ruined poker for me for many years.

Heh. The one time I lost with quads against quads, it was also 9's against 10's.

I still should have won though, I had pocket nines, he only had one ten in the hole with three on the board.

[Chronos]

If there were three tens on the board, shouldn't you have seriously considered the possibility that some player had the fourth one, and bet accordingly? Or is that what the winky is for?

Quoth RealityChuck:

You think that's rare? On "I've Got a Secret" in the 60s, they had four bridge players who, in a tournament, each had all the cards in a given suit (i.e, one had all clubs, one had all diamonds, one had all hearts and the last had all spades.) The odds given for that was several quadrillion to one.

I'd almost guarantee that that was from a bad (i.e., perfect) shuffle.

And I make it 1 chance in 8.9e27, or one in nearly ten octillion.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Chronos

If there were three tens on the board, shouldn't you have seriously considered the possibility that some player had the fourth one, and bet accordingly? Or is that what the winky is for?

To quote Doyle Brunson, "You just don't worry about quads."

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by Chronos

If there were three tens on the board, shouldn't you have seriously considered the possibility that some player had the fourth one, and bet accordingly? Or is that what the winky is for?

I knew he had the ten of course. As I remember it:

I started with 99

Flop came with a 9, 10, 10. Betting was high with my full house against his trips.

Turn was a 9. I bet high, he flat called though he had very little money left.

Flop was the 10, and the rest of the money went in.

It was just a straight cooler, no real considering of possibilities for me to do.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

Hey, it's a zombie, so I can relate a story of my own. I was in a game in the military wherein my four nines were beaten by another guy with four tens. Expensive hand, but not as expensive as the next hand where the same guy beat my four jacks with four kings. Natural. Ruined poker for me for many years.

I don't want to start a family fight if you were playing with your brother-in-law or something, but there are plenty of quadrillion-to-one shots that happen more often than the odds would suggest. My son has had 29-point cribbage hands twice when I was dealing the cards, and long long ago playing bridge for fun I used to deal most of the Aces to a young blonde I found interesting.

Originally Posted by Damon Runyan(?)

When I was a young man about to go out into the world, my father says to me a very valuable thing. He says to me like this... "Son," the old guy says, "I am sorry that I am not able to bank roll you to a very large start, but not having any potatoes which to give you, I am now going to stake you to some very valuable advice. One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to come to you and show you a nice, brand new deck of cards on which the seal has not yet been broken. This man is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. Now son, do not bet this man, for as sure as you stand there, you are going to wind up with an earful of cider."

[chaoticbear]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

Our early ancestors on this board (many of which are still here today) were missing 2 key benefits that we enjoy today. Our ability to google for information with much better results, and others' ability to google for information and find threads here. When the two collide sometimes you might get the right answer to a 10 year old question that was incorrectly answered at the time.

I haven't regretted reading any of this thread except the snark about it being re-opened after so long. I view that as a waste of the re-opener's time, not the other way around. (and so apologize for this continuation of it...)

I always take zombie comments in good humor. Maybe not in this case, since it was a lame joke, but I generally find them good-natured. ::shrug::

[SCSimmons]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

I knew he had the ten of course. As I remember it:

I started with 99

Flop came with a 9, 10, 10. Betting was high with my full house against his trips.

Turn was a 9. I bet high, he flat called though he had very little money left.

Flop was the 10, and the rest of the money went in.

It was just a straight cooler, no real considering of possibilities for me to do.

Wow--that's gutsy betting on his part, if you're remembering correctly. Pretty obvious that you had a pair of nines if you weren't bluffing. I'd have folded rather than bet a lot of money in hopes of getting the fourth ten on the flop ...

[Chronos]

Wow--that's gutsy betting on his part, if you're remembering correctly. Pretty obvious that you had a pair of nines if you weren't bluffing.

Before the fourth ten flopped, couldn't the other guy have thought that bucketybuck was holding it?

[Really Not All That Bright]

That's what I would have put him on. If I had a ten with an A kicker I would have assumed I had him dead to rights.

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

That's what I would have put him on. If I had a ten with an A kicker I would have assumed I had him dead to rights.

Thats what I assumed all the way through, that he had a ten and thought it was good enough with whatever kicker he had. Even if I had a ten, I might still have had a nine for a full house, but this wasnt particulary high stakes, so he was never going to lay down his trips.

[Dahu]

Originally Posted by poppyp

In the '70s, I was a dealer in Vegas. I remember the Las Vegas Review Journal announcing that there were two royal flushes in the final hand of a Sahara poker tournament, involving big time players! Can't remember their names. Is anyone else aware of this phenomenal occurance, and what would be the odds? The players split the pot, which was reputed to be over $80,000.
Can I get a witness?

------------------

One thing that's puzzling me here. The final hand was a split pot, so how could it be the final hand? Were tournaments in the 70s played to a set number of hands or something?

[Really Not All That Bright]

See post 11- looks like the OP misremembered and conflated two stories. It wasn't a tournament but a ring game.

[clarkstar]

if there were 2 royal flushes it wouldn't have been the final hand, as the 2 would have tied and therefore split the pot

[clarkstar]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

See post 11- looks like the OP misremembered and conflated two stories. It wasn't a tournament but a ring game.

ok i understand. odds are incredibly against it though.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, that's why it hasn't been reported since 1974.

[Taomist]

I think it's pretty frackin' smackin' freakin' awesome that a question answered over a decade ago can be answered now. Big round of applause for everyone! I sure hope the original poster is still around, hehe!! Maybe someone should message him/her to let s/he know that the mystery has been solved

[Really Not All That Bright]

The OP hasn't posted since November '02, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Mahaloth]

I'd say the odds of two royal flushes happening are very low. It's like the chances of both remaining Star Wars Prequels and the (rumored) two Matrix sequels being terrible.

I mean, you just know they'll be decent, right?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

You think that's rare? On "I've Got a Secret" in the 60s, they had four bridge players who, in a tournament, each had all the cards in a given suit (i.e, one had all clubs, one had all diamonds, one had all hearts and the last had all spades.) The odds given for that was several quadrillion to one.

I would have loved to hear the bidding for that round. How quickly did they get to seven no trump?

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

I knew he had the ten of course. As I remember it:

I started with 99

Flop came with a 9, 10, 10. Betting was high with my full house against his trips.

Turn was a 9. I bet high, he flat called though he had very little money left.

Flop was the 10, and the rest of the money went in.

It was just a straight cooler, no real considering of possibilities for me to do.

My worst Bad Beat story is remarkably similar. I started with pocket queens and flopped the set. Picked up the fourth queen on the turn and was betting against a guy that filled his straight flush with the river card.

Bastard keep up with my raises when he had nothing. And spent the rest of the game crowing about what a genius he was. Asshole.

[Chronos]

Y'know, poker players really ought to be happy about bad beats. It's the bad beats that keep the suckers in the game, and eventually, if they stick around, skill will prevail and get you your money back.

[Really Not All That Bright]

A bad beat doesn't necessarily involve bad play.

[merrick]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I would have loved to hear the bidding for that round. How quickly did they get to seven no trump?

Given that seven no trump goes thirteen off, I'd guess "never". Presumably whoever had the spades called seven spades first chance and opponents called fix shortly afterwards.

[zoid]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

A bad beat doesn't necessarily involve bad play.

I thought that was why it was called a bad beat, because you did everything right and got hosed - no?

[Dead Cat]

Originally Posted by merrick

Given that seven no trump goes thirteen off, I'd guess "never". Presumably whoever had the spades called seven spades first chance and opponents called fix shortly afterwards.

Yes; the players should be able to work out what the deal was sooner or later, regardless of the order. For example, if the dealer holds all the clubs, next player has all the diamonds, etc., then the bidding would go 7C, 7D, 7H, 7S. By this time the dealer can have a pretty good idea that bidding 7NT in this spot would be suicide, and 7S makes. If the dealer holds all the spades, clearly he is going to open 7S. The next player to bid, seeing his hand full of hearts (but, of course, prevented from bidding 7H) must realise that in 7NT he will make no tricks, as he will never get on lead. Similarly for the other players, so on this deal 7S will always be bid and made.

I started typing this post thinking that the order of the hands could make a difference, but I now see that it does not.

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

A bad beat doesn't necessarily involve bad play.

Originally Posted by zoid

I thought that was why it was called a bad beat, because you did everything right and got hosed - no?

These two statements seem to be agreeing with each other. I agree also .

To elucidate further, RNATB seems to be rebutting Chronos's point, and he is correct. But I would say most bad beats will involve bad play, typically, as Bricker's story illustrates, someone staying in the betting long after it was mathematically correct for them to fold, and then hitting a very unlikely card to win the hand. Chronos is correct that in the long run, the better player will make more money. But unfortunately "the long run" is not very helpful when you are already broke . By analogy, this is why it has become unusual for a top professional player to win the WSOP - there are too many situations where the format forces you to try to get lucky, and at some point you will lose no matter how skilled you are.