Burn Cards

Suggestions & Feedback
42

Tacos,
I am currently trying to develop an overall formula to describe the thread @ hand. Problem is, do I want to use … Apples, Oranges, Bananas, Grapes, or something else.

You might know some of the cards, none of the cards, or all of the cards. Does that now mean I need 3 formulas? Is there a grand unified formula that takes into account all 3 of those possibilities ? Does it even matter ?

I have so far tried to come @ this problem from the standpoint :

  1. I know none of the cards, but I know the card in question is still avilable.
  2. How does having or not having burn cards, effect the implied adj. odds.

Problem is to have a complete answer, I must have a formula that describes ALL possibilities, but if some variables are ignored, the formula still works just fine.

My premise all along was :
Having a bigger pool of cards to draw from ( assuming the card in question has NOT already been used/dealt out/burned ) there is a increase in odds that any 1 specific card can be the next card. Mainly because if the card in question is already gone, your odds are , well… 0% chance, no different than drawing dead.

To me, that was a DUHHHHH (yes), just like saying if you spread all cards face down on a table and can draw 1 or 5 cards, does drawing 5 cards increase your odds of drawing 1 specific card, which I hope we all agree, is a Duhhhh (yes).

Because of some of the replies to my posts, kept adding back in “known cards” in some way, I finally decided to add a part to my formula to describe accurately, or account for , my assumption that you don’t know if the card is “gone”. Lets look now @ what the possibilities are…

  1. you know none of the cards.
  2. you know your cards, and community cards.
  3. you know the dead cards, including burn cards ( if there are any )
  4. some combination of the above #2 & #3 options.

As you move from 1 to 2, then 2 to 3, and finally 3 to 4… your formula gets more complicated, so thats why originally I chose option #1, with the only caviot being… the card in question has NOT been used/dealt out/burned. That is a form of “knowing” , so then I need’d a way to express that in the formula… because if the card in question is gone and your odds are 0%, any small chg in the odds , from there on, end up still being 0%. Other posters, kept adding back in some form of “knowing” , or ignoring I said… “assuming the card in question is still available”.

Basic odds here, if you are not a card-mechanic or a magician, and you spread all cards on a table face down ( yes randomized )… are 1:52 or 1.923%, that you can correctly draw 1 specific card, and since its the 1st card… your odds are 100% that card is still available. Therefore you effectively have a 100% chance of having a 1.923% chance.
( or 1 times .01923 = a 1.923% chance ) From there, this thread in my opinion seemed to devolve into a plethera of different answers. From the 2nd card on, you have 2 possibilties. Either it is gone and your chance is 0%, OR it is not gone, and depending on a few variables you chance is something other than a 0%.

To that end I tried to use the dice example, where success depended on rolling two Dice ( independantly ) and then combining those odds to a overall adjusted odds for success, by multiply’n them together. ( if you have (2) 6-sided dice, you need a 1-2 on the 1st one, and a 6 on the 2nd one (( so 2:6 times 1:6 )) therefore an adjusted odds of 1:18 (( 1:3 x 1:6 ))) … We both agreed on, 1:18 is correct, in that example. ( the 45 min talk with an un-named source.)

I spoke with someone in realtime here online, I won’t say whom, but after 45 minutes we could not agree on the correct way to … describe a generic way to combine 0% and something else, AND how that effected any other basic odds there are. I tried to tackle them 1 @ a time, but that didn’t seem to work well… I became frustrated, he had to get back to his day job, so the conversation ended without a resolution we both could agree apon. I thank’d him for the time he spent, and we went our separate ways.
I spoke to 2 ppl in Real Life, who only heard the orig question, not our discussions, who both told me “Yes” , having or not having Burn Cards does effect the odds.

I don’t use Odds-Calculators, but those rely on someone knowing thier cards, the community cards/lack thereof, and the range of thier opponents cards. I have never heard of an odds calculator including “burn cards/no burn cards”… but they must have taken into account somehow “cards removed from play, ie- the burn cards”. For the simple fact that on some level, if the question is concerning the River, they MUST account for ALL the cards that came before and are no longer in the “pool” of cards that are available “on the river”.

So, lets start by spreading all 52 cards on a table, face down ( assuming no funny buisness ). You can pick 1 card, thus your odds are 1:52 or 1.923% of correctly picking 1 “named card”.
Now I take away 3 cards, I do NOT look @ them. As described above, the “named card” is either gone, or its not. IF its gone, your chance is 0%, if its not gone ( 100% ) your chance is 1:49 or 2.041% of drawing that “named card”.

If we “assume” the card is not gone ( 100% ), your chance has increased from 1.923% to 2.041%. ( I bet we don’t all agree ). So, in order to “not assume” we must develop a mathmatical way to corretly assign a value between 0% & 100%, to eliminate that assumption. Then multiply that % chance, with whatever the odds are going forward, just like I did in my Dice example. ( I really think we don’t all agree ) Thus achieving a “adjusted” odds for success.

I really don’t think we need to go any further here. If the chances are NOT 0%, then it should be true your odds have increased from 1.923% to 2.041%, and the only other number we need to find and then multiply with, is what are the exact odds that those 3 cards are NOT the “named card”.

So, in my above Dice example it would look like ( ? % times 1:6 or (16.666667%)), yet this is exactly where everyone seems to to diverge and have different answers or claim I’m wrong, or its impossible to do it that way.

If I do the simple math (49/52) to represent the odds of the 49 cards left, thus containing the “named card” , multiplied by (1/49) to represent the odds of picking 1 of the remaining cards… therefore we get (49/52)(1/49)= .01812 … or 1.812% chance of picking the named card.

  1. 1.812% is Less than 1.923% , that by removing 3 cards ( representing the Burn Cards ) and accounting for unknown-unknown (the card might have been removed) the adjusted implied odds have gone Down in reguard to someone picking the 1st card, and only 1 card.

  2. But, if we say those 3 cards are known-unknown ( the card has Not been removed ), the adjusted implied odds have gone UP , from 1.923% to 2.041%, in reguard to someone picking the 1st card, and only 1 card.

  3. Obviously if the 3 cards are known-unknown ( and 1 of them is the named card ) the adjusted implied odds are 0%, in reguard to someone picking the 1st card, and only 1 card.

  4. Obviously when I say “picking the 1st card” I am refferring to the 1st card picked from any/all remaining cards on the table, and it being the “named card”.

  5. Obviously I am using a term often used in the military… known-known , known-unknown, and an unknown-unknown. ( like the threat country is XXXX and the threat is from YYYY … so we can know both, just 1, or neither )

  6. Having burn cards do change the implied odds, when compared to the orig odds of having 52 cards, which was 1.923 %

My original hypothetical, mirror’d #2 and corroborated #6. We don’t really know any of the cards, but we did know that the target card was still available. Then due to no burn cards or with burn cards, what are the effective adjusted implied odds of drawing a named card, and is there a difference between the two, if so is it a increase or decrease.

I think we can ALL AGREE, that ( picking up cards 1 by 1 )… knowing you have NOT picked the target card, you odds steadially increase on each successive card.
I hope I have shown that by eliminating burn cards, thus increasing the pool of cards to draw from, and knowing the target card is still available… the effective adjusted implied odds, go UP of picking the named card.

This is a very narrow, semantically specific, hypothetical situation. Any rebuttle, can only change the outcome ( show how I am incorrect ), but not change the hypothetical itself. I welcome and hope actually, that if I am still wrong, someone sets me straight so I do NOT make this mistake in the future.
Sassy

43

Let’s take a simplified example. Imagine that we are playing with a deck that contains only two cards - the ace of spades and the king of hearts. I shuffle the deck fairly to begin.

Now I am going to deal one card to you. If you get the ace of spades you win.

What are your chances of winning if I deal you the top card? What are your chances if I instead burn the top card and give you the second card?

44

Played several 5 handed Hold-em games with 32 burn cards Yesterday. Now We know.

45

There seems to be a problem with your calculator. (49/52)*(1/49) = 0.01923…, or 1.923%, which is equal to 1/52. Removing those three unknown cards did nothing to change the odds of selecting a named card with the next draw, which is the result one would expect.

46

After reviewing my post, after @WannabeCoder pointed out a mistake, I went out on the web and did some searches. I refused to D/L the pdf from the WSOP site for thier official rules, and the only site I found was @ pokerlistings dot com, that said that Burn Cards are part of the official rules to Texas Hold’em. Therefore, not only did I make myself look stupid, but it gave me an epiphany.

  1. Somehow Coder, I hit (49/52)(1/52) that did = 1.182%, that was a mistake.
  2. My premise was : having 3 xtra cards increased the % that the card I wanted was still available. (But while that was correct, it is also correct that having more cards to choose from decreases the % that I will actually get that card) so that was a mistake, because they cancel each other out.
  3. My ultimate take-away : Just like on a poker table , perception is reality.

Whether its the perception that your opponent is ahead therefore you fold, or your perception is the site ( any site ) is Fixed, therefore you find another site… In both cases perception trumps reality.

Even when MY perception was that I was right, reality smack’d me in the face after tryng to make the math fit the premise, ohh about 15 times. It took me proving to myself, using my math, using my hypothetical, that I was wrong. So I’d like to take this opportunity to apologize for my mistake.

Many people will tell you, correctly, that you learn more from failure than you do from success. That led me to : my perception clouded my judgement

I will not address the RNG in this post whatsoever, what I would like to address is how perception alot of the time, IS reality.

If a person goes to a poker site, and thier perception is that that site is fixed, more often than not, they do find another site where thier perception is different. If a person also learns Texas Hold’em by watching live events, thier perception is that Burn cards are just part of the rules. A common mistake is that when players see 5-7x as many hands per hour, thier perception is that bad beats happen more frequently than @ live events. They forget they are see’n 5-7x as many hands per hour.

Why is this even applicable here @ ReplayPoker, well it is… perception is still reality to most people. Therefore I was right about something else. That being, if all online poker sites omit Burn Cards, and Replay has them… then perception kicks in again, and they perceive Replay to be more reputable than other sites, but more to the point … if Replay uses Burn Cards and everyone else doesn’t, then Replay can advertize a more life-like poker experience than thier competition. ( ie- they do it correctly and other sites do not ). That directly goes to the “trust” issue.

In buisness, in this case ( burn cards ), it can be very lucretive for Replay to buck the system, and include Burn cards. There will always be a segment of the poker community @ large, that trusts an online site when what they see is Exactly what they see while watching it on TV or live. That segment will gravitate to those sites, that offer exactly what they see on TV or live. Also, when ppl trust 1 site more than another, they have a better chance of spending money on that site. So its twofold, more players and more players that spend money.

Does it really matter if I was right or wrong in the grand scheme of life, only to me it does, but perception should matter to ReplayPoker because it can severely effect thier bottom line. When you offer what noone else does, you effectively have cornered the market. Since it is prolly true that Burn Cards are ( optional ), per the official rules ( by Hoyle ) of Texas Hold’em and the associated variants, Replay can do whatever they want to. If perception hurts thier bottom line , then its up to them to decide whether or not to change ppls perception, by including Burn Cards… thus helping thier bottom line. ( works no different than the RNG debate )

My perception is reality, in that I’d rather admit my mistake and be on the side of whats right… Than to continue thinking things that are untrue. This was also the case in my efforts to solve a 70 year old math problem. Had I got it right on the 1st try, rather than proving myself wrong at some point, I never would’ve ended up on the right path and solved that problem. ( I know don’t say it, lol )

I like ReplayPoker alot, can they do it better… Yes… Do I think with the HTML5 update should they include ( correctly implemented ) Burn Cards, of course I do. I think it can only improve thier bottom line for a small expense of xtra programming while its not that much skin off thier back now to do so. It allows them to advertize the most realistic experience of playing poker online compared to live WSOP events, and compared to thier competition. To me its a no-brainer, include them. Its not up to me to make that decision, thats for people like ChaseTheRiver, Shakeraise, and Mr. Replay.

Its gonna take a while for MY perception to catch up with reality, but thats on me, not them. So in retrospect, I still learned something from this thread. That by no means, means that I have to be happy about it. I hate ever being wrong, but in the end all that matters is now I’m the side of reality. :face_with_symbols_over_mouth:

I have decided not to go back and delete all my posts, to clense my concience and obscure that fact that I make mistakes. It serves me better to leave them up so next time I do more homework, so that when I do publically say XXX, I’m right about XXX. Does this mean I have been wrong about everything I have ever said here, of course not. It just means I’m human.

Will there be a few ppl that rip me up one side and down the other, sure there will be. But equally I hope, there will be a few ppl that say, Bravo Sassy, @least you fess’d up to your mistake, and fixed it.
Sassy

5 Likes
47

At this point in the thread I can’t help but admire my restraint.

1 Like
48

Watching Best of Friday Night Poker on TV (free)
They use Burn cards too…

49

Oh so you were that 1 spectator watching. We were wondering and betting who that was at break.

50

This thread continues to haunt me.
While I understand and agree that if you have 3 more cards to choose from your odds are less that you can draw 1 specific ( of those ) cards, but there are still 3 xtra cards to choose from…

Lets say you need that 1 outter on the river. (9max , 9 ppl playing)
No burn cards won’t chg the odds 1 of your opponents, might have it.
No burn cards will chg the odds that it “might be” available on the river.

Take 52 cards, randomly eliminate 3 of them. What are the odds the A Spades is gone, well thats easy about 6%.
Take same 52 cards, remove NONE of them. What are the odds the A Spades is gone, well thats also easy 0%.

In the grand scheme of life, IF it really doesn’t matter,
those 2 percentages would be the SAME, and they are NOT.
This is not up for debate, its a FACT. Just as its a FACT, that
what we see live or on TV, is a different game with burn cards.

Sure, we can debate till the cows come home, How its different. We can also debate till the cows come home, is that difference good or bad… but whats not up for debate is that it IS different, in the 1st place.

It can be said, well its different for us all so its not a problem. Just in saying that, even then it would be a fact that its different… right ??

One of the recent promotions, had 10 person tables, thats Different. The new HTML5 tables have an animation for muck’n your cards, thats Different.

In a world where diferentiation is a standard buisness practice, is it not a fact, that being different certainly can help the bottom line ? There’s even a special term for that, “niche”. Usually a niche market means 1 company offers something noone else does, therefore they have customers who have no other place to go if they want that. Usually then 1 of the “bigboys” in that market… adopts or sells to that same niche market, to take away that other company’s comparative advantage.

How cool would it actually be if ReplayPoker, while doing thier HTML5 update, added in correctly implemented Burn Cards… then advertized the heck outta it. Even if down the road someone else does that, ReplayPoker would always be known as the 1st poker site to do so.

If add’n in an animation for muck’d cards, or having 10 person tables is a change from what we have now, then change itself is possible. After the HTML5 update is finished it will be easier to say, well we just made alot of changes… so for right now other big changes are on not possible anytime soon. This is a rare opportunity for ReplayPoker, to implement this change. They then become the market leader, not a market follower.

Whats the saying ??? Lead, follow, or get outta the way… Replay Poker can lead, and tell every other poker site to … get outta thier way, cause we’re comming through. If change is possible, and as some have said, it doesn’t matter… all thats left is the fact that whomever offers it, instantly becomes the market leader in offerring (1st) what everyone else does NOT. Thats callled a comparative advantage.

As this filters out to the wider poker audience and more sites will have the same discussion we are having, then if someone googles “poker sites whom use burn cards”, ReplayPoker becomes the top of that list, till another site copies Replay. AND, Replay would forever be known as the 1st poker site to offer exactly what we see on TV or in a live game.

Im not saying, add in an animation, but don’t actually burn those cards ( when they should be burned ) because down the road it will be exposed that they lied. I’m saying correctly implement Burn Cards, and advertize the heck outta it. There are many ways to advertize that costs NO money, just a little effort. At the very least there’s always word-of-mouth advertizing, that is to be proven to be worth its weight in gold.

Different = Different. Perception (can) = Reality, therefore if the perception is that different = bad, then players that don’t want “bad” would flock to ReplayPoker in droves. In buisness its commonly said, getting a customer to walk in the door is the hardest thing there is. On SharkTank, I’ve heard way too many times “cost of customer aquisition” which is 2fold. Getting the customer to walk in the door AND offering a product that customers are willing to buy. After that , the key is “customer retention”.

Offering Burn Cards when noone else does, will get more people to walk in the door. (try replay poker). Getting them to Stay here @ ReplayPoker, will be determined by the product that Replay offers.

The Odds that current customers will say, crap now there’s burn cards and leave … are much much smaller than the Odds of an increase in players who will come and stay because of Burn Cards. We constantly use “Odds” to determine risk/reward around here, while playing poker. So, I say the Reward far outpaces the Risk, in overall increasing the playerbase here @ ReplayPoker, should correctly implemented Burn Cards be introduced here during the HTML5 update. ( you will have to advertize somehow tho ) The more customers who walk in the door, the more chances Replay Poker gets to sell someone a Chip Pkg, thus increasing revenue to Replay. The side benefit is an increase in the perception overall, that Replay is legitimate, basically not Fix’d.

How is this not a good thing ?
Sassy

51

I understand what you are saying about how you describe it…however no matter how you look at it from a deck of cards that havnt been looked at then everyone has a 1/52 chance of pulling the As or any given card at the start of the deal It doesnt matter whether someone else has it or its burnt or in the deck still. the only time you could figure the odds to be different is taking your 2 cards and lets say the flop and turn (those 6 cards are the only cards you know and assuming the As didnt show up) Now i would think you would have a 1/46 chance that the As will be dealt to you on the river, with or without burn cards because you have no more info on the As other than you not seeing it out of the only 6 cards you can see. It doesnt change the fact that there are 52 cards and only 1 As that could be dealt to anyone or not dealt to anyone, burn or no burn cards. If you are dealt 1 card and they burn 51, what are your chances of getting any given card? 1/52 If you are dealt 59 cards and they burn 1 card what are the chances that that 1 card they didnt deal you could be the As? 1/52 That proves right there that the most extreme amount of burn cards they use or the minimum amount of burn cards meaning zero has no effect on changing the 1/52 chance before the deal, after the deal you can only subtract your 2 hole cards and as each card comes out as far as any odds change for the turn or river pulling up that card. Odds can only be calculated on what you know or dont know, or both. All we know is that there is an As in a 52 card deck and the 6 cards you have seen doesnt show it. You have no info as far as where its at, the other players hands? one of the burn cards? or still in the deck? so you only can calculate you hitting it on the river as 1/46. thats my take on it.

52

@Sassy_Sarah
Can you explain exactly what your question is here and what you are trying to achieve?. Are you
(a) hoping for further clarification of the odds or
(b) are you lobbying for the addition of burn cards.
If its (a) The math behind the cards cannot change. The deck is finite and therefore ‘target’ card will appear in each position a little below 2%.
If its (b) The vast majority of online players have little prior knowledge of this game. They will never play in a live casino. For them its a social event where they can spend $10 a week to natter with friends from here, there and everywhere. Its entertainment, no more & no less. Its about staying engaged and connected and challenging themselves. Most would ask " what are burn cards"…
Burn cards were introduced to the game to prevent cheating in a live setting where players can see the back of a potentially marked deck. Online we are using a virtual deck generated by Replay Poker so that issue is mute. One of the biggest threads on here is “The Fairness Debate” where players used to (repeat … used to) be able to question, or rant about, the fairness of the deal, game etc. Can You just imagine the flood of “Replay stole my winning hand” or “Replay dealers are burning my winning hand and bla bla bla diyyi bla”

55

Since I introduced this discussion, let me just say this. People (average) don’t really care about percentages. What they care about is accuracy when playing online. And ever since Terry Moneymaker brought Texas Hold-em to be recognized and followed by millions of people to learn the game at the World Series of Poker Championship back in 2003 or 2004, people saw and realized burn cards IS a part of the game. And hopefully Replay Poker will realize this and initiate burn cards into their system for the accuracy of Texas Hold-Em. We as regular players enjoy accuracy and makes us feel comfortable playing their game. And most players online DO know that burn cards Are a part of the game.

1 Like
57

@feelmysins,
Since everyone keeps changing apples to oranges, I’m wondering if some ppl around here can even read… no Im not asking for any clarification of any sort (a). Furthermore this thread was started by someone saying the opposite, and it being kinda a Fairness Debate post. They said point blank, there are no burn cards and it effects play.

1st off, the difference I spoke of, is the odds any card has been removed from play, thus giving the river a 0% chance of being a card. Not what are odds of then drawing that card. Thats a real and semantical difference. Its a fact that if 26 of 52 cards are removed, then the odds are 50% that there’s a 0% chance of ANY future card being any 1 card. I am not saying what are the odds you draw that card. I’m talking about the odds it was removed from play ONLY. People keep turning that into your odds of drawing that card… so if it has been removed from play your odds are 0%. So I only mentioned the odds that it was removed from play, 3 more cards is a 6% greater chance it was removed from play.

2nd of all Feelmysins, the bulk of my last post was on buisness decisions (b). You say the vast majority of players never played in a casino, but reading the “how did I come to replay” thread its clear, that ppl after talking to someone else, watching it on TV/live, or hearing about the game from others, investigate on thier own and might come here. Even myself, take blackjack or baccarat, the cards are in a shoe, there are no cards burned, and thats in a Live Casino setting… but Hold’em always had burn cards, I for 1 thought that was a special rule for holdem for the longest time. No other Casino game used burn cards other than Holdem and its variants like Omaha.

So yes I was laying out a logical, rational, and ethical reason’d proof, for including them, from a buisness standpoint. If as everyone says it really doesn’t matter, then why not make online Holdem look, feel, sound, taste just like in a Casino or on TV.

You don’t go to Walmart to buy Saffron, you go to a specialty store. You don’t go to Safeway, to buy a whole Tuna… you go to a Fish market. If you want a Burma Ruby, don’t go where they sell ones from Madagascar or Lab created.

Constantly in buisness, companies differenciate themselves for a variety of reasons, concerning the product(s) they sell. They celebrate or try to say, “you can’t get it anywhere else but here, so buy from us”. Its a tried and true buisness practice. It Works. There is a real monetary potential, for increased profits… when you offer something that noone else does.

Take a Lab Created Diamond vs a Natural Diamond, chemically/physically its the same thing… One is Natural, the other Lab Created, thats the ONLY difference. But thats a real not imaginary difference. So , its a real not imaginary difference, between Live Hold’em and online Hold’em.

Replay is on the precipus of changes, now is the time if they want to, to include burn cards, while the cost of that change is negligable. The potential for it to HELP thier bottom line ( revenue/playerbase ) is Huge. Yes I am making the case for Replay to be the only poker site to do it just like on TV/Live.

Count the number of posts in TheFairnessDebate ( in the thousands ) where someone said… " that just doesnt happen live or on TV, its gotta be fix’d ". I have defended ReplayPoker till the cows come home, thats its not fix’d. I have said thier shuffle is poorly implemented, thus the potential for patterns to exsist is correct, but thats not direct collusion on Replay’s part to “FIX” the game. Every online poker site has had accusations that thier site is fix’d, or even “Juiced” to make it more exciting or to foster bad beats , thus making more ppl buy chips and spend money.

Even Slot Machines, if they paid the “real odds” they would NOT be guarenteed , long term , to turn a profit. So they Skew the odds 1-2%, its not noticeable to the average customer enuff for ppl to complain, but it guarentees the Casino a profit long term. This is a proven FACT. Take Roulette, most of what you can bet on is #s 1-36 or red/black. The simple addition of 2 green numbers 0 and 00, skew the odds slightly, so in the end the house ALWAYS wins when players play for long amounts of time.

Therefore perhaps the dirty litte secret of online Texas Hold’em, is no burn cards. The rational the companies use, is the fact that online there are no marked cards therefore they are allowed to eliminate Burn Cards, which fundementally changes the game for everyone. It does create a condition where the card that MAY help/hurt you, MAY have not been removed from play.

The key words here are “may have been removed from play”. I am not, and did not say ANYTHING about your odds, just that the odds that any card has been removed from play decreases by ~6%.

So feelmysins, answer the following 2 questions as semantically written.
What are the odds if 26 cards are removed, from a full randomized deck (52 cards)
that any 1 card has been removed from play?
What are the odds if 23 cards are removed, from a full randomized deck (52 cards)
that any 1 card has been removed from play?

Then why are there no burn cards live, while playing BlackJack or Baccarat ? You can clearly see the top card in the shoe, why isn’t that burned ? ( rhetorical questions )

So Yes feelmysins , (b) was the main thrust of my post, I sidestepped the odds debate entirely. I focused on a comparative advantage to offer what noone else does. If the odds don’t change, then its no skin of Replay’s back. The ONLY thing that changes is the PERCEPTION, that its 100% like they see on TV/Live. That Perception transfers to legitamacy of the site, and the potential for increased players and profits.

Take the quintacential computer buisness game. “Lemonade Stand”. You get 2 variables known… cost of raw materials, and weather report. You then choose 2 variables… Cups produced (daily) and price of each cup. Max Profit is determined by the intersection of 2 straight lines, but while you play the game, you are NOT graphing out the lines, you’re taking a educated guess. Sure someone can say, well the other lemonade stand down the street has a better price and it will effect your sales ( and they’d be right ), in this specific senario ( lemonade stand ) that information is ommitted. ( or was in the original game release )

I therefore ommitted all other variables other than " % chance a card has been removed from play ". Not how that effects other odds or anything else, yet again FloridaJetSki added back in variables that I ommitted, thus changing the question to something I never mentioned.

I therefore simply ask’d… ( boolian, true/false )
Is what we have here exactly what we see live/on TV. (false)
Is there potential for a net gain in players/profit, with Burn Cards. (true)
Isn’t it Replay’s decision, not ours… to consider this. (true)

Since I have NEVER, ever, ever, ever heard that complaint about Live Texas Holdem, sure its possible, but it will be dwarf’d by the # of people that say “Finally, an online Holdem site that does it exactly like on TV/Live”.

If you really wanna talk odds, fine randomize a deck of 52 cards, divide them in 2 equal piles (26 cards each) A and B. The odds of the A Spades being in pile A or B is 50%. Now remove pile A. What are the odds you removed the A spades, again 50%.
Lets chg pile A to 13 cards and pile B to 39 cards, the odds the A Spades is in pile A is now 25%, and if pile A is removed, the odds the A Spades has been removed from play is 25%.

Sassy

58

Ok…

59

Thank you all for your comments. Replay always takes these on board but as this thread has reached saturation point I am now closing it.

2 Likes