Four to a royal question

[backsider]

Im not very good at converting a dealt four to a royal into a royal, in fact, Ive never done it and it seems every time I play I get at least one of these disappointing hands. In September I decided to start spending some of my spare time here and on the airplane rides home looking at this a little harder on one of the software programs I and almost everybody has along with a few online free sites. I get dealt a vp hand, I hold any four cards, then I pick one card left in the deck and see if it comes up. This should be the same thing as getting dealt four to a royal and hoping to hit it. Ive tallied up playing almost 4100 hands that way, and I have a grand total of 3 pre identified cards that appeared on the draw. In a shorter sample I sat with 4 of my coworkers after hours and we each did the same thing 100 times, but with a real deck of cards. None of us got the card we announced we were looking for. Thats 3 calls in 4600 tries.  I know what the math says, that players should see an average of one royal every 47 tries, right? Or does it not mean that? What I believe after doing this is that since we have a 1 in 47 chance of getting that one needed card, its possible to never see a royal that way because you have to be DAMN LUCKY to get one card out of 47 remainders, and every time! Ive seen a lot of posters on the forums complain about their conversion rates, and I always see the math savvy guys say it all evens out in the long run. Im calling BS after this. The math might say one thing but it doesnt mean pee-pee unless it happens to work out that way by chance. Anyone else share this dilemma?

[edog743]

Well it is a proven fact that the RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR is not random at all. Also a proven fact is that the casino has employees that their only job its to crack open the seal on the RNG and alter it. So I would assume that is the reason for your problem with the four to a royal.

[spxChrome]

I have had it work both ways.  I have had trip Aces dealt to me 108 times before finally drawing the 4th Ace then going another 93 times before getting it again.  That is 200 times and it only happend 2x compared to the 8.6 times it should have happend  (1/23). But I have also drawn that 5th card to the Royal one day and came make 5 days later to do it again. 
 
But I agree with your point.  One thing I have learned from VP is what the math says and what actually happens is two different things.  And while they say you can't argue "the math" in reality what actually happens is the truth.

[Eduardo]

In a shorter sample I sat with 4 of my coworkers after hours and we each did the same thing 100 times, but with a real deck of cards. None of us got the card we announced we were looking for.
 I think you are exagerating, kept poor records (maybe your coworkers are guilty of this) or something else. Did everyone write down their pick before revealing it? If they were just thinking of a card in their head, there are problems with that as a method.  The odds of that happening 400 times are very low. Much lower than the odds of drawing to a royal flush.  It's not just the math that says so. I say so too.

[faygo]

[QUOTE=backsider] In a shorter sample I sat with 4 of my coworkers after hours and we each did the same thing 100 times, but with a real deck of cards. None of us got the card we announced we were looking for.
 
I think you are exagerating, kept poor records (maybe your coworkers are guilty of this) or something else. Did everyone write down their pick before revealing it? If they were just thinking of a card in their head, there are problems with that as a method.
 
The odds of that happening 400 times are very low. Much lower than the odds of drawing to a royal flush.
 
It's not just the math that says so. I say so too.[/QUOTE]
 
Now that this settled, next topic please.

[shadowman]

Just proves that the casinos are not only screwing with the chips in their machines, but in their spare time, altering "a real deck of cards". It would seem that we can no longer assume our real decks of cards are honest.They have all been tampered with by those evil casinos.


 
Time to throw away all our real decks of cards and replace them with unreal decks of cards.

[shadowman]

Im calling BS after this. The math might say one thing but it doesnt mean pee-pee unless it happens to work out that way by chance.


 
Funny, that's exactly what the math says too.

[faygo]

Just proves that the casinos are not only screwing with the chips in their machines, but in their spare time, altering "a real deck of cards". It would seem that we can no longer assume our real decks of cards are honest.They have all been tampered with by those evil casinos.


 
Time to throw away all our real decks of cards and replace them with unreal decks of cards.
 
Virtural cards! Now that is an idea. We could play cards on-line or on a  terminal type thing in a large gaudly lit building.

[backsider]

Belligerent responses from the ivy league crowd that couldnt get good looking girlfriends. Now thats what I was looking for. I suppose its because no one else has kept data and everyone again is being led down the path with their eyes firmly closed shut and 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. That way you are sure to feel safe the next time you part with your money inside some casino. Eduardo, we all called out the card before the draw in front of 5 people every time.  

[edog743]

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.