User talk:Valoem/Poker probability (Omaha)

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

NA

This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This page is supported by WikiProject Poker.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this page.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

This user page was nominated for deletion on 6 June 2017. The result of the discussion was delete.

Alignment?

At least for me, the tables in 2.3.1 overlap with the text. Does this occur for anyone else? (I'm running Firefox 2 on Ubuntu, 1920x1200 screen resolution). Neilc 07:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on looking closer, it seems the text overlapping with the tables has abated, but I think the table layout could do with some improvement in any case: the text winds its way through the tables, which are enormous, which makes it fairly hard to read. I can post screenshots of how the page renders on my machine if it looks fine elsewhere, but it definitely looks a bit off here. Neilc 07:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text is not supposed to wind through the tables, and does not on IE 6.0 running on XP. There are <div>'s that allow (or at least are supposed to allow) the three related tables for the flop, turn and river to either layout as

F  R
T

or

F
T
R

The text should not be displayed side-by-side with the tables but rather be normally aligned between each group of three tables. A screen shot would be useful to see what you are getting in Firefox. When it lays out correctly using the first layout above, the size of the tables is a little more manageable. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while the layout problem persists on certain browsers (Safari on the Mac being another one), the tables in question have been moved to Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making rank-based hands. Any assistance with fixing the layout on these other browsers would be appreciated. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is their some way to force an early page break before a table to keep the table on one page and not have it split on two pages? And if the table is too large for one page to have the headers copied to the second page. I would like to print a nicely formated version of this. Also Shrink to fit on printing seems to cut off the right edge of some of the tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.101.231 (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Flush Probabilities?

there seems to be something wrong with the odds calculated here. Eg it says that the odds of a RF by the river is 59.11 : 1 and a straight flush 10:1. On a single hand? The odds of a RF in omaha is about 10000:1 according to http://www.math.sfu.ca/~faculty/alspach/art8.pdf . This agrees roughly with my experience having one RF in two years and 4 straight flushes. Am I reading this wrong? Baggier 11:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is giving the probabilities that a royal flush is the best possible hand on the river. That requires only 3 cards not 5

160.36.86.138 06:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per the discussion at Talk:Poker probability#Royal flush as a separate hand, I combined the probabilities for royal flush and straight flush. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

The article size has been increased to 103 KB. Please follow the guidelines for MoS. See Wikipedia:Article size for more. You may consider summarizing it. Thank you, Shyam ^(T/C) 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I previously moved some of the tables out of the article into Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands and Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making rank-based hands after the article topped 300K. Regarding the length of the article, as WP:SIZE discusses, it is the readable prose length of the article that determines when the article is too long. The size of the text in these articles is primarily due to the tables, math markup, and table mark up. The readable prose portion of the articles does not exceed the recommendations in WP:SIZE.

Also, I summarized one of the tables in the main article and put the complete table into Poker probability (Omaha)/Making low nuts, although since I also added the complement of that table to the main article, the size only reduced from 129K to 122K. Also, the 304K subpage Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands is for reference purposes mostly. It's only going to be interesting to a small subset of the people interested in the main article. I could break it up into individual pages for each section, but that would really work against the usefulness of the page.

If you're experiencing long load times, this has somewhat to do with the large number of formulas on the pages as much as with the size of the page (perhaps more so, actually). This is because the TeX formulae are rendered as PNG files, so each formula is a small image download. Not much to do about that, and removing the formulas would reduce the usefulness of the pages considerably. The only section I could also move to a subpage without breaking the continuity of the main article would be the derivations for the nut boards, but this would only reduce the size by 11K, so I'm inclined to leave it in the main article. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub article up for deletion

Someone should have mentioned this here! Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was keep. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making a straight ; wrong calculations?

Hi,

I think that in the "Making a straight" section, the sentence "and twelve of type 442" should be replaced by "and twelve of type 433" and hence the formula "(2 × 64) + (6 × 48) + (12 × 32) = 800" should be "(2 × 64) + (6 × 48) + (12 × 36)=848". Moreover the P_f=C/17296=4,2% formula in this intance is incorrect whether C=800 or 848. I wonder if I'm missing something here, as far as I understand it should be 4,9%.

I'm new on wikipedia, so I'm not going to make this change (I have no idea what is the policy for making changes or even discussing changes ...)

Jeaan (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nut Flush

Maybe I'm mistaken, but as I see it, there is no possibility of a nut flush on the flop. Even if you have a flush on the flop without any chance of a streaight flush, there is stil the possibility that one of the three cards is paired up twice on the turn and river. Somebody holding the fourth card of that rank would then have a better hand (four of a kind). Example:

Starting hand: Aa7aAb7b Flop: Ka8a3a

According to the article, you now have a nut flush I don't think this is correct:

Turn: Ka8a3aKb River: Ka8a3aKbKc

Anyone holding Kd would win. You can only counterfeit two of the 3 ranks that fall on the flop so this is, imho, always possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.242.239 (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what about if you flop a royal flush? This is the uncounterfeitable nuts. Anyhow, when people talk about the nuts on the flop or the turn they mean the best possible hand given the cards so far. This is why Bob Chiaffone(?sp)'s book about Omaha talks about drawing hands being favourites over the nut hand on the flop and turn in some situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.4.131.140 (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]