Poker (was Re: NLP)

Paul Makepeace paulm at
Wed Sep 19 17:18:20 BST 2007

On 9/19/07, Simon Cozens <simon at> wrote:
> Paul Makepeace wrote:
> > The point of the original story tho' was that most people holding two
> > pair wouldn't necessarily connect that the board low-pairing could
> > break their hand to an overpair.
> While it's a good start to think what can and can't happen, that
> realisation is worthless until you then go on to work out the
> probabilities. Two pair has outs to the full house as well as to the
> broken overpair, so it's a bit more delicate than that.

Your probably of a full house is zero once the river is dealt and you
don't have one ;-)


> --
> An ASCII character walks into a bar and orders a double.  "Having a bad
> day?" asks the barman.  "Yeah, I have a parity error," replies the ASCII
> character.  The barman says, "Yeah, I thought you looked a bit off."
>     -- from Skud

More information about the mailing list