[slothy]

Its rubbish....

the likelihood of opponents hand containing singletons is totally independent of the circumstance of you having a singleton...

the other hands may be (more) distributional by virtue of yours being so ( in the sense that there are more cards in the suit(s) that you are short in and less cards in the one(s) you are long in)

but the probabililty of them having singletons still abides by the same probabilities (with regards to the number of cards available in a suit to be divided between remaining hands)


of course if you got

AKQxxxxxxxx
x
-
x

naturally at least two hands have a singleton or void in the spade suit....)
but how the remaining 39 cards, and especially for this argument, 37 cards in the non-spade suits, are distrtibuted RANDOMLY in the other hands makes all card permutations EQUALLY LIKELY and thus follow the same principles as when we are talking about the frequency distributions of the suit-cards in 4 hands...only thing that has changed is the number of hands and the number of cards..

in other words...the probability of balanced hands is more likely than unbalanced hands

[Chamaco]

I thought that the Law of Symmetry worked: usually when one player yells at his/her pard, he/she gets yelled back !

[slothy]

Chamaco, on Jan 24 2005, 10:56 AM, said:

I thought that the Law of Symmetry worked: usually when one player yells at his/her pard, he/she gets yelled back !

My dear Mauro,

Good principle...however if we are talking about 'probability' and 'frequency' WHY HAVE YOU written his/her he/she????

writing she and her is perfectly adequate (yet again talking statistically)

Your Local MCP

Slothy

[DrTodd13]

[quote name='xx1943' date='Jan 23 2005, 01:02 PM'] [quote name='pclayton' date='Jan 23 2005, 09:53 PM']

2) "Random" dealt hands by PC cannot be mathematical random at all. PC's can only produce "pseudo-random-numbers" [/quote]
While that used to be the case, it is not necessarily the case anymore. There are now true hardware random number generators on many processors and it is just a question of whether your library is getting its random numbers from the hardware or doing it the old way. Anyway, I'll predict that soon the default will be truly random but that pseudo-random will be retained under different names because it is still useful as a debugging tool. You can trust me on this since I work for Intel.

Todd

[slothy]

DrTodd13, on Jan 24 2005, 11:36 AM, said:

You can trust me on this since I work for Intel.

Todd

Todd, you couldnt ship me a Pentium 4 motherboard on the QT could oyu?

PS Promise i wont grass

[Fluffy]

Here a quick example:

you shuifle the 52 cards

you separate into 2 packs of 26

you shuffle 26 and give 13 randomly to 2partners

do you think the distrtibution of the OTHER 26 cards are affected by how the previous 26 cards were distributed at all?