I Ain’t A Gambling Man (IAAGM), but I am often surprised by the logic to the winning hands in Poker (i.e.: what beats what). I was wondering how the heirarchy to Poker’s winning hands was decided? Was it trial and error, or was some statistical analysis done? I am surprised by the power a full house possesses, for one. And, IIRC, a flush is weaker than I would have guessed.
The few times I’ve played (just for fun, mind you), it seemed full houses came quite easily to me. Maybe I had built hands (in draw poker) that were “weak” full houses…perhaps too weak for the liking of a gambling man? I WAG a more experienced Draw Poker player would have been less conservative than I opting for an even better potentially-winning hand? (i.e.: going for the flush when I might have been too hesitant?)
Anyone know the history behind the ranking of Poker hands?
As far as I know, it’s based on the probability that each hand will occur. A pair is fairly likely, two pairs a bit less likely, three of a kind a bit less likely, and so on to a royal flush. That is the only possible way of judging a hand’s strength, I believe.
If I had a deck of cards in front of me, I could tell you the odds of each hand. The brand of cards I buy include a card that gives the rank and odds of each hand.
It’s not as simple as it might seem. For example, the odds of completing an inside straight in draw poker (i.e. drawing a 7 to complete 4-5-6-?-8) are higher than odds of getting the proper card)s) to go on either end of your nascent straight.
Moe has a 4,5,6 and 8 and is trying to get a 7 to make a straight.
Larry has a 10, Jack, Queen and King, and is hoping to get EITHER a 9 or an Ace to make a straight.
You’re saying that Moe has better odds??
I concede, I’ve been wrong many times in the past, when it comes to judging probability, and this may be one of those times. But, to say the least, this seems counterintuitive. Care to set me straight, and show me why?
What Mr. Duality and tjblack are trying to say is that the odds against filling an inside straight are higher; there is no such animal as “the odds of” doing something.
One thing to keep in mind is that Full houses are built on top of reasanobly strong hands. You start with a three of a kind or two pair, and hope to draw into it. If you fail, you still have a hand you can bet with. Flushes and straights, however, are all-or-nothing. You draw your one card, and that’s it. If you miss, you’ve got nothing. Therefore, you’re less likely to stay in, hoping to get a flush or straight, since your chances of ending up with crap are pretty good.
I’ve always wondered why they don’t include:
2,4,6,8,10 (in the same suit) as a winning hand.
I have to question Mr. Duality’s site.
It says the odds of being DEALT the following hands.
I don’t that takes into account discarding and getting another draw for the cards you discarded.
Being dealt those hands is a lot harder than keeping a few cards to try to better your hand.
I play a lot of video poker and every so often I will be dealt 4 of a kind, or a full house right off the bat - but 99% of the time, I have to hold a card or more to get those winning hands.
As I understand it, the rank order of poker hand was originally worked out on the basis of the experience and observation of long time players and then was put on a sound theoretical basis by the use of probability theory.
The hands are ranked according to their probability in 5-card stud. Obviously, the odds change in other variations. GAMES magazine, for instance, once facetiously mentioned a mythical variant in which all cards are wild. In that case, I think, the odds of “one pair” are probably pretty low. A bit more realistically, I have played poker variants (admittedly, pretty far-out variants) in which it’s almost impossible to not get a flush.