I’ve been playing holdem online today, and in 89 hands, I’ve been dealt a grand total of 0 pocket pairs. The chances of this happening on any given hand are 3/51, so the chances of this happening 89 times in a row is (3/51)^89 = .3090622752 * 10^-109. That means that I’m one in .3235593860 * 10^110, or 1 in 3 billion googol. 
I feel special, although not in a very encouraging way. I stopped playing after hand 89, when I finally turned a profit. Who knows how long my ungodly “lucky” streak will continue.
Maybe I should be playing Razz . . .
Sorry to burst your bubble of specialness, but you did your math wrong. If the odds of getting a pocket pair are 3/51, then the odds of not getting a pocket pair are 48/51. Thus, the odds of not getting a pocket pair 89 times in a row is only (48/51)^89. I don’t have my calculator handy right now, but I’m guessing it’s less than 1 in a googol. 
Giraffe, may I introduce Google Calculator.
Just go to Google, type in (48/51)^89, and you get (48 / 51)^89 = 0.00453653696 which is almost 0.5%. To put that into “one in…” terms, copy the new answer into the search bar and put “1/” before it. Or retype the original, but stick a “-” in before the 89. Either way you get 220.43246. So it’s about 1 in 220, assuming I didn’t screw that up somewhere along the way.
Still pretty unlikely though. And it sounds pretty annoying too. I think the calculation in the OP is the odds of getting pocket pairs 89 times in a row, which would be rather impressive.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
Sorry to burst your bubble of specialness, but you did your math wrong. If the odds of getting a pocket pair are 3/51, then the odds of not getting a pocket pair are 48/51. Thus, the odds of not getting a pocket pair 89 times in a row is only (48/51)^89. I don’t have my calculator handy right now, but I’m guessing it’s less than 1 in a googol. 
[/QUOTE]
Wow. :eek: That’s the most egregious mathematical error I can recall making. Rerunning with the correct numbers, I’m actually 1 in 220. Not quite so impressive. And I can’t believe I made that mistake. That would have been acceptable in the seventh grade, but sheesh. Not good for last year’s state math champion (I got a trophy and everything), an aspiring mathematician. :smack: :smack: :smack: :wally
[Mayo Hides in shame and hopes he gets this out of his system before next week’s Calculus final]
And I’m still special in my book, dadgummit!
[QUOTE=TJdude825]
<snip>
I think the calculation in the OP is the odds of getting pocket pairs 89 times in a row, which would be rather impressive.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that’s exactly what I calculated. I’m an idiot. I am to mathematics what Raven Symone is to acting.
And when I do get 89 consecutive pocket pairs, I WILL be on in a googol. It’ll happen. I feel lucky, if a bit stupid.
So how many hands would it take to really reach one in a google then?
Google calc doesn’t like (48/51)^X=10^100
googol :smack: I knew that
[QUOTE=Eleusis]
So how many hands would it take to really reach one in a google then?
[/QUOTE]
3799 hands of no pocket pairs.
[QUOTE=Praetor]
3799 hands of no pocket pairs.
[/QUOTE]
Well, *my *streak’s still alive. I’ll let everyone know when I’ve hit 3799. 