What are the chances?

pele1515

Hey guys thought this was funny and extremely unlikely to happen so I thought I would share the hand. Home game, .25/.50 cash game, 6 handed.

Hero 110$
Villian 90$

Family pot for 1.50$ each.

Hero 44

Flop comes Kd 2d 6c

UTG leads for 3$ one caller. I think I haven't hit a set all night lets peel one more off. I call.

3 players to the turn

4c BINGO

UTG checks, MP bets 11$, I raise 22$, MP re-raises to 42$, I shove, he calls.

He turned over 35dd for the made straight and flush draw. We agreed to run it 3 times and this is where is gets interesting.

The board paired all three rivers and I scoop. So my question is how unlikely is this and what are the odds of it happening?

compuease

Well with 1 card to come you are approx. 23% to win, so wouldn't it be .23*.23*.23 = 1.2%.. Actually slightly lower than this as each time you pair the board it lowers the chance of it pairing again.. Perhaps 1.0% to pair all three times...?
Anyone with any other thoughts?

Milo

It is too hot to disagree . . . even if I thought you might be wrong.

DataMn

Comp is close, but as he said you have to take into account that there are less cards once each board pairs.

The true percentage is (10/42) (9/41) (8/40)... About 0.9%

Incidentally, his odds of scooping you we're 45.2%

compuease

compuease;353199 wrote Perhaps 1.0% to pair all three times...?
Anyone with any other thoughts?

DataMn;353208 wroteComp is close, but as he said you have to take into account that there are less cards once each board pairs.

The true percentage is (10/42) (9/41) (8/40)... About 0.9%

Incidentally, his odds of scooping you we're 45.2%

Nit... :)

compuease

DataMn;353208 wroteComp is close, but as he said you have to take into account that there are less cards once each board pairs.

The true percentage is (10/42) (9/41) (8/40)... About 0.9%

Incidentally, his odds of scooping you we're 45.2%

And just to show you I'm more of a nit... It's were.. not we're.. :)

DataMn

compuease;353212 wroteAnd just to show you I'm more of a nit... It's were.. not we're.. :)

Autocorrect f*cker.

Oops... it must have autocorrected again ;-)