Four to a royal question

[backsider]

[QUOTE=backsider]

Eduardo, we all called out the card before the draw in front of 5 people every time.
 I don't think you actually did 500 draws, but okay. Did you shuffle after each one? If not, people could have been calling cards that had no chance of being turned over.  [quote] being led down the path with their eyes firmly closed shut and are too lazy to do their own analysis[/quote] So your official analysis, based on your efforts, is that royal flushes might never actually happen, not only with machines but with a perfectly fair deck of cards being turned over by hand? I'm liking this theory.



[/QUOTE]
 We did do 500 draws exactly. I know I shuffled well but I cant say how the others did it.  No, I have four royals over the past 13 months, but not by holding four cards.

[backsider]

No ivy leaguer here just throwing your statements back at you. So you got what you expected and start name calling,calling our wives/girlfriends ugly. Then to top it off you whine when you get what you expected. If nothing else you are very predictable.
 If youre not an ivy leaguer and you believe I called ivy leaguers wives/girlfriends ugly, then you have no basis for the stupid reply.  I dont think you have what it takes to join them yet.

[backsider]

[QUOTE=backsider]

Belligerent responses from the ivy league crowd that couldnt get good looking girlfriends.I'm sure it is much more fun for the girlfriends to be with people who sit around calling for cards that never come.  I have an idea, since you are so unlucky as to be wrong much more frequently than expected, instead of saying "Ace of spades," when you want it, say, "Not the Ace of Spades."  I guess by your logic you would then get the identified card MORE than one time in 47 and fool the cosmos.  For your experiment to be correct, at least one of the other cards must be appearing more than one time in 47!  Unless, your friends and you have been too often calling for a card that was originally among the 5 dealt cards (or maybe you haven't been playing with a full deck; if the deuce of hearts is missing and you call for it often, that could skew your numbers).  Sidenote:  Being in agreement with the current state of science is hardly belligerent...but then again if I am hampered by understanding math too much, maybe I have no idea how to define "belligerent."   ...everyone...are too lazy to do their
own analysis. So because the oh so perfect math doesnt really pan out
in issues like this, better to sidestep it all in favor of ignorance.Hey, I admit it.  I don't have any friends that I would even think of asking to sit around and call out cards 100 times, let alone 1000.  Although I presume that they like to spend their time with other activities, I also admit that I have never asked them, so who knows?  Interesting premise though:  Math doesn't work.  So let's do some analysis.  But, wait, if math doesn't work, what tool does one use to do the analysis?  Drama class or home economics?  You are aware that you need math to do a statistical test of significance to see if actual results are too far away from expected, don't you?  Or is this where you are advertising that ignorance is better?  Are you really claiming that the people who understand and use mathematics are more ignorant than those who ignore it?  OK, good luck with that.  And the questions are rhetorical.[/QUOTE]
 Whatever it was you did another thesis on while trying too hard to be slick, you look like you graduated in eogs reading class. I wrote that five of us went through 100 hands apiece, and the other 4100 were done by me electronically. faygo, tell the truth, you were saying out loud as you drew to that royal "i know its going to be the jack of diamonds" 

[Eduardo]

King of diamonds.
 
BTW, don't you have to specify the 4 cards removed so we don't call them?
 Look, don't take this the wrong way, but that was a terrible guess. It was the 2 of clubs so you weren't even close. I'm going to have to insist someone else make the next guess in the interest of science. If they really need to know the 4 cards, I guess I'll provde that information. Deck shuffled. 3 hearts, 4 hearts, 5 hearts, 9 spades removed (what are the odds of that!) One card is facing down on the desk. Someone else guess who is better at these things.

[Tedlark]

Pop quiz hotshot; what do: Sarah Hughes, Angela Bassett, Jennifer Beals, Sigourney Weaver, Kellie Martin, Ashley Judd, Lisa Kudrow, Amanda Peet, Brooke Shileds, Natalie Portman, Jody Foster, Jennifer Connelly, Elizabeth Shue, Mira Sorvino, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Alcia Keys all have in common with Meryl Streep? Can you say: Ivy League graduates? Ugly?

[mammajamma]

Back never stated that the girls were ugly.

[edog743]

Last time I checked the opposite of good looking is ugly.

[faygo]

[QUOTE=New2vp] [QUOTE=backsider.[/QUOTE
 
faygo, tell the truth, you were saying out loud as you drew to that royal "i know its going to be the jack of diamonds" [/QUOTE]

 
Beiieve it or not I said out loud,Jack of hearts and voila. Didn't work 20 plays later when I needed the Ace of Diamonds.

[faygo]

Eduardo, 4 of Diamonds?

[mammajamma]

Last time I checked the opposite of good looking is ugly.He said they couldn't get any good looking girls. You people don't read well and then twist things around.No such thing as an ugly person, anyway.