My Trip to Red Rock Las Vegas

[golfing_gregg]

I hit my first 2 royal flushes on a triple play machine at Red Rock Casono Las Vegas this week.  I was dealt the AKQT spades and hit Royal Flush on the top and middle row.  Yes, that's right, the top and middle row for 2 Royals on the same hand!!  I could not belive my eyes and still astonished.  The odds of getting 2 Royals at the same time are astonishing. Unbelievable!

[Lucky Larry]

Congratulations Gregg.    

Red Rock is one of our favorite places. Welcome to the forum.

[Frank Kneeland]

I hit my first 2 royal flushes on a triple play machine at Red Rock Casono Las Vegas this week.  I was dealt the AKQT spades and hit Royal Flush on the top and middle row.  Yes, that's right, the top and middle row for 2 Royals on the same hand!!  I could not belive my eyes and still astonished.  The odds of getting 2 Royals at the same time are astonishing. Unbelievable!Well first welcome to the forum and congratulations, but I have a couple questions...I don't know how you are doing your calculations, but the odds of getting two Royals on a triple play are not that difficult at all drawing one card. It is assumed you have just gotten a Royal and then you have 2 chances in 47 to get another, which puts it at 1 in 23.5.What's so astonishing about 1 in 23.5???If all one played was triple-play, one would expect this to happen at least once a year...assuming about 1,000,000 hands played in a year, which is about a third to 1 half the hands everyone I know gets in an average year. And surprise surprise everyone I know has had this happen many times. Why did you think this was rare?Did I miss something?~FK

[Frank Kneeland]

[QUOTE=golfing_gregg]I hit my first 2 royal flushes on a triple play machine at Red Rock Casono Las Vegas this week.  I was dealt the AKQT spades and hit Royal Flush on the top and middle row.  Yes, that's right, the top and middle row for 2 Royals on the same hand!!  I could not belive my eyes and still astonished.  The odds of getting 2 Royals at the same time are astonishing. Unbelievable!Well first welcome to the forum and congratulations, but I have a couple questions...I don't know how you are doing your calculations, but the odds of getting two Royals on a triple play are not that difficult at all drawing one card. It is assumed you have just gotten a Royal and then you have 2 chances in 47 to get another, which puts it at 1 in 23.5.What's so astonishing about 1 in 23.5???If all one played was triple-play, one would expect this to happen at least once a year...assuming about 1,000,000 hands played in a year, which is about a third to 1 half the hands everyone I know gets in an average year. And surprise surprise everyone I know has had this happen many times. Why did you think this was rare?Did I miss something?~FK[/QUOTE]

[doris13]

frank, some of us play vp for fun and not business and we don't really need everything little thing analyzed.just say congrats and leave it at that.

[doris13]

sorry, meant to say every little thing analyzed

[Frank Kneeland]

frank, some of us play vp for fun and not business and we don't really need everything little thing analyzed.just say congrats and leave it at that.I have analyzed every little thing you said and will take it under advisement. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic, I appreciate the advice. Just understand that offering the not-for-fun viewpoint on these forums is really my only way to be contributory, as I have no other view point with which to chime in.Further, people finding common occurrences to be more exceptional than they really are is a possible source of gambling addiction, which is something I'm dedicated to help reduce. I cannot achieve that goal in silence. If you don't have a gambling problem, just assume the information wasn't for you. Every book on gambling problems that I have read states that the feeling of "specialness" and accomplishment people get from hitting jackpots, which are actually the inevitable result of playing a game where Jackpots are possible, contributes to the addictive potential as it gives people without a sense of accomplishment in their lives, a way to buy one. For many it is a costly endeavor and the sense of accomplishment is illusory, hollow, and fleeting, which only servers to deepen their need to do it again...creating a vicious cycle from which many never escape.And you are absolutely correct that this information is nothing anyone, especially those with issues are going to want to hear.~FK

[mendon]

    I agree!!!!!!  Always some negitive remark     Great hand !    

[Frank Kneeland]

[QUOTE=doris13]frank, some of us play vp for fun and not business and we don't really need everything little thing analyzed.just say congrats and leave it at that.I have analyzed every little thing you said and will take it under advisement. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic, I appreciate the advice. Just understand that offering the not-for-fun viewpoint on these forums is really my only way to be contributory, as I have no other view point with which to chime in.Further, people finding common occurrences to be more exceptional than they really are is a possible source of gambling addiction, which is something I'm dedicated to help reduce. I cannot achieve that goal in silence. If you don't have a gambling problem, just assume the information wasn't for you. Every book on gambling problems that I have read states that the feeling of "specialness" and accomplishment people get from hitting jackpots, which are actually the inevitable result of playing a game where Jackpots are possible, contributes to the addictive potential as it gives people without a sense of accomplishment in their lives, a way to buy one. For many it is a costly endeavor and the sense of accomplishment is illusory, hollow, and fleeting, which only servers to deepen their need to do it again...creating a vicious cycle from which many never escape.And you are absolutely correct that this information is nothing anyone, especially those with issues are going to want to hear. Do you understand that that gambling addiction is considered the fastest growing problem in America by psychologists??? I'm just trying to offer a balanced view on this subject since no one else seems to be touting anything but the positive aspects. Do you have any idea how irresponsible that is considering how serious this subject is???  Go down to a few GA meetings and then tell me I'm being overly negative. I'm not even being negative enough.~FK[/QUOTE]

[New2vp]

EDIT:  PLEASE NOTE, FRANK, FOR SOME REASON I DID NOT SEE THE OTHERS' CRITICISM OF YOUR POST BEFORE MAKING THIS POST.  I DON'T THINK THE OTHER POSTS (NOR YOUR RESPONSE) WERE THERE WHEN I STARTED MY ANSWER.  IT PROBABLY TOOK ME TOO LONG TO COMPOSE MINE.  I THOUGHT I WAS MAKING AN ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION, NOT PILING ON.  (And the probability calculations were obviously original!)Great and interesting hit, gregg!  That is not something that I have ever done.Frank, I know you could not truthfully say what I said above; but actually, I think you are missing something in this post on more than one level.  I do think it was nice to welcome someone who is a first-time poster; but after that I'm not certain you did a good job of informing in this post.  I think that "raining on his parade" here might not have been appropriate, though I admit not understanding your motives here (I know you like to warn people about vp, but identifying this hit as nothing special could have the opposite effect of suggesting that continued play could make double royals a common occurrence.  I should note this is one of the few times that I think you missed the mark even a bit.  Accordingly, in my critique, I have tried not to be rancorous; but since reducing sarcasm is not one of my strong suits, I apologize in advance if I failed in this mission.)Everyone you know gets in 2 to 3 million dealt hands per year??  That's a pretty limited circle of people.  I understand that a large percentage of people who play video poker for a living receive that many deals; I'm just as certain that you must know a few people who don't play that many hands, maybe even one or two that play as seldom as gregg or I.  And, of course, we must remember the original poster's frame of reference, not yours, in making this response.  Since gregg said he never before had a royal, I am going to guess (with a high degree of confidence) that the number of dealt hands that he has pulled on a machine is considerably fewer than a million.Now, let's get to the odds and remember that this is the FIRST royal gregg has ever scored.  Getting 2 royals before you get any other royals on the same deal in triple play is a fairly rare occurrence; it is less frequent than even getting 3 royals on a triple play machine on the same deal.  Let's use 9-6 Jacks or Better here as an example to allow concrete evaluation of probabilities and odds.Odds of 1 royal in one deal:       14,569 to 1Odds of 2 royals in one deal: 1,973,387 to 1 (doesn't happen all that often)Odds of 3 royals in one deal:    648,274 to 1*Probability of 0 royals in one deal:  99.993% (most of the time, by a considerable margin)(Unofficial odds of two royals occurring as your FIRST royal:  as MasterCard has championed, PRICELESS)**If you lined up 96 of your one-million-hands-per-year friends and counted up multiple royals on one hand in Triple Play , the odds are better than 50-50 that NONE of them would get multiple royals prior to hitting their FIRST royal of the year.  True, slightly over 60% of them would be expected to get multiple royals at least once during the year, but 38 of them would be expected to have NONE for the entire first million hands of the year, even though all of them would have likely played more than gregg has in his entire life.I am going to guess that gregg may not know why you would have said "It is assumed you have just gotten a Royal and then you have 2 chances in 47 to get another, which puts it at 1 in 23.5," and I am going to suggest that you have misused this "rule of thumb" in making this calculation.A correct application of that rule would involve answering someone who said, "I just got 10 consecutive flushes on single line!  What are the odds?"  There it is appropriate to believe that he counted the flushes up after the fact.  He did not simply play 10 total hands and get 10 total flushes.  He waited until he got the first flush and then noted the odd occurrence of 9 consecutive repetitions.  There it is appropriate to calculate the odds considering only the final 9 hands.It is not the same thing at all when noting the probabilities on a fixed set of hands.  On 10-play, if one notes that they drew 3 royals when tossing one card, there are ONLY ten hands to consider.  We are not pulling 10 consecutive hands out of a long sequence and then noting only what happened on the final nine.  We are considering them as a whole and you should consider the odds of 3 successes with probability 1/47 out of 10 tries, NOT 2 successes with probability 1/47, out of 9 tries.  And if you were to consider the chances of having 10 drawn flushes on ten-play, again you would consider all 10, not just 9 out of 9.End of rant.  And gregg, I wish you continued unusual success throughout your vp career, but you'll probably also have some unusually long dry spells if you play enough, so celebrate this experience, but in the future be aware and beware.  *Before noting that the odds of a dealt royal are slightly higher, remember the tiny chance of drawing 3 royals must be added to the chance of a dealt royal.**Frank, II don't know if you golf (gregg probably does given his screen name), but I have a friend who took up golf after turning 40 who had a somewhat parallel experience though the following tale certainly also has differences.  He had an eagle before he ever had a birdie.  When he told me that, I did not say, "Well, I have had maybe 75 eagles in my life and most of the other people that I regularly golf with have had multiple eagles in a year, so it is not that rare of an achievement."  In fact, I am certain it is not singular, but making an eagle before ever making a birdie makes this friend's experience more unique than most.  <<Rest of the story:  This friend has become an avid golfer and has scored a few hundred birdies (he counts them, which I admit is a bit unusual) but hasn't tallied any more eagles, so his ratio of eagles to birdies is much more in the normal range now than it was at the start of his career.  Nevertheless, the uniqueness of his beginning play remains..>>