My Trip to Red Rock Las Vegas

[onemoretry]

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 1
Odds 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)



I thought that the original poster was referring to the liklihood of hitting two royals on a triple play machine, having been dealt four to the royal.  The above noted odds have nothing to do with that.
 
In fact, as was pointed out by Frank, the odds against a multiple hit in that situation are not as astronomical as was suggested in the original post.
 

[billslim]

Congratulations!!   I believe the odds of hitting that are a lot harder than the "numbers" would show.  I have rarely seen it done and personally have never done it.  Congrats! Next time take a picture!

[shadowman]

Congrats on the nice hit.
 
I've played a fair amount of triple play and never hit two royals. I've never been dealt one either. However, I know two people who have drawn the RF on all 3 lines.

[binoy]

just let the man enjoy his win, no need for rude comments

[golfing_gregg]

I was very curious to find the probability of hitting 2 Royals on a triple play machine when dealt 4 to a royal on the first hand.  Here's the answer according to www.wizardof odds.com: 





How does one calculate the probability of hitting on a *specific* number of draws in n-play video poker? Example: drawing to a four-card Royal on a triple-play machine, the odds of *at least* one hit are 1-(46/47)3 = 0.0625, correct? But how do you determine the odds of hitting exactly 1, 2 or all 3 Royals? - John from Milwaukee, USA
The probability of hitting x royals in an n-play machine when drawing to a 4-card royal is combin(n,x) * (1/47)x * (46/47)n-x. For an explanation of the combin(n,x) function visit my section on probabilities in poker. In the case of 3-play the probabilities are as follows: 0 royals: 0.937519

1 royal: 0.061143

2 royals: 0.001329

3 royals: 0.000010      

[mws813]

Congrats on your win! I too didnt think Franks post was necessary or helpful.

[Frank Kneeland]

Here's a general reply to anyone that wonders why I post what I post. This isn't about this thread specifically, for which I wrote a separate apology.I don't have the luxury of being a general poster, since I am what is essential tantamount to a public spokesperson for video poker. With a how-to book on professional video poker and my radio show on professional gambling, I find myself in an almost constant quandary of moral malaise. Let me summarize.1. One can only imagine that some of the people that read my book or have listened to my radio show will be encouraged to gamble.2. In the twenty three years I have been a pro gambler I have known many people that have made successful careers doing it, and for them it has changed their lives for the better.3. For every one of these successful gamblers I have known, I have met at least ten people who's lives have been destroyed by gambling, many of whom still struggle with it as an all consuming addiction to this day.4 Even some of the financially sucessful pro gamblers I know would meet the criteria for pathalogical gambling, and other than money, have little of value in their lives as gambling has pushed out all else, and left them bereft of the very things they began gambling to get.5. Every book I've read on the subject of problem gambling lists risk factors for developing gambling problems, which I'm sorry to say, are the very things that provide the enjoyment, excitement, and entertainment value to the experience. 500 doctors surveyed: What is "fun" and "exciting" is also addictive.6. I published my book to help people, not hurt them and lead them astray. I therefore make a strong attempt to temper my talk of making money all these years as a pro with the other side of the coin to offer a balanced and fair point of view. (Even if it sells far far less books)7. It is impossible for me on the other side of a computer screen to know anymore about a person other than what they say...and if what they say happens to be about how much fun and excitement they just had hitting some jackpot, all I do know for sure is that they just flagged themselves as having what psychology considers to be the worst risk factor for gambling addiction.If I speak out of turn, it really hurts no one. If I say nothing the reverse need not be true, and an opportunity to help someone will have been lost forever. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.I so totally know I can be a bummer sometimes, believe me I know. I'm just trying to do something, anything, in my own tiny inconsequential way to help what psychologists are saying is America's fastest growing problem.I would love it if my book helped someone make more money as a pro. If it ended up encouraging even one person to gamble that ended up having a gambling problem, I would feel just awful if I had at not at least offered the negative side of the argument.It is worth nothing that what's best for profit in the world of pro gambling is most often the dullest and least interesting. When I hear the words "fun" and "exciting" connected with gambling I worry...and believe you me I'm not the only one.Current research puts a huge amount of the entertainment value of gambling as the result of cognitive distortion and other negative personality traits which are contributing factors for many personality disorders. The remaining "fun" is accounted for by variable schedule conditioning familiar to anyone that studied Pavlov's experiments on dogs.If you think any of this is my idea I recommend reading any modern book on the subject. Seriously, any of them. My favorite is listed below. If you aren't well read on the subject you'll not be able to understand why I am so concerned. If you are well read on the subject you'll be worried as well. And don't take my word for it, read up.And dare I say it, "Have fun out there". Just do it well informed.Recommended reading: Best Possible Odds by William G McCown~FKP.S. It is widely believed that Pavlov would not have won the Nobel prize for his work in behavioral conditioning had he published his cat results.

[Frank Kneeland]

Oh everyone that thought my post in this thread was inappropriate because the poster is new to the forum and I had no information that they might have gambling issue was 100% correct to chastise me. I should just have congratulated them and waited to get to know them better before offering more serious advice (if any). I'll do this in the future.I just bumped into an old friend that developed gambling addiction issues because of trying to follow my lead, yesterday during TG, and it was fresh in my mind. It's not an excuse just an explanation.I am sorry and I'll try to do better.Sincerely,Frank Kneeland

[New2vp]

I thought that the original poster was referring to the liklihood of hitting two royals on a triple play machine, having been dealt four to the royal.  The above noted odds have nothing to do with that.
 
In fact, as was pointed out by Frank, the odds against a multiple hit in that situation are not as astronomical as was suggested in the original post.Hey 1mt, I can see by your other posts that you are a smart player, but I think you are on the wrong side of this argument.Reviewing,Gregg:  I hit my first 2 royal flushes.Gregg:  The odds of getting 2 Royals at the same time are astonishing.Frank:  The odds are 1 in 23.5, which translates to 22.5 to 1.Your interpretation may be correct but Gregg's sentences are separated, so it is certainly not clear that he meant to say the odds of 2 royals were astonishing only when being dealt 4 to the royal.  After reviewing what he wrote, I would vote against that interpretation.Either way, the odds of getting 2 royal flushes on the same play are exactly as I stated and I was clear in how I presented that.Frank's calculation understated the odds even given starting with 4 royal cards and drawing one.  You can infer this from Gregg's later post that the odds in this case are in fact 751 to 1, quite a bit less likely than 22.5 to 1.  But I don't think you can neglect the fact that only one hand in 2777 is indeed going to start you with 4 to a royal.  So, we are dealt 4 to a royal every 3 hours or so on average and we only hit these once every 752 times.  Well, I'm going to go with astonishing...especially when this idea is teamed with the idea that this happened to someone who has never before been blessed with any royal flush.You may still disagree with me, but if this were the NFL, I'd say that, upon further review, there is certainly not conclusive evidence to overturn the call.  Of course, if I were the official, I'd say the ruling on the field is confirmed!Edit:  On an unrelated side issue, congratulations on your big game/spin in the current monthly contest!  Hope the score holds up for you! 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...    The odds of getting 2 Royals
at the same time are astonishing. Unbelievable!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. 

[Frank Kneeland]

I believe New2vp calculations are accurate. I didn't go into that much detail, because my only real point was there is a tendency to overstate the unlikeliness of events based on one's personal experience. Now here's the funny part; I understated the unlikeliness of the same event based on my personal experience. (4 out of 5 of my partners have done this recently)And what can we learn from all this. Use anything but careful meticulous calculations to deduce anything about random events and our minds will tell us exactly what we want to hear. I'm not immune, you are not immune, no one is immune.There are no shortcuts, and no common sense that can substitute for doing the math.~FK