Same Hand In Multiple Tournaments

I was playin in multiple tournaments over the past few days, and a few times I got the same hand in both at the same time (different suits).

I was just wonderin how often this happens to other people, and also the odds of it happening. My best guess would be the same as getting a 2-pair during a game, but at multiple tables I really don't know.

I don't know, but why don't you post your birthday bash flyer in the forum, so we all can crash your party!

I seem to get this so often its untrue.

The best one ever was multitabling 3 SNGs and at the same time on all three tables I had AK diamonds.

And guess what... I lost with all three of them...

When this happens, I try to see if the flops are the same and wonder whether it will help me predict the turn and river on the other table. But that doesn't happen as often as being dealt the same hand.

Ian wrote:

I seem to get this so often its untrue.

The best one ever was multitabling 3 SNGs and at the same time on all three tables I had AK diamonds.

And guess what... I lost with all three of them...

This has happened to me too... happened JUST the other day with Aces (that time was on two diff sites but it goes both ways) made me wonder if these sites arent all using the same 'random number' algorithms or something like that... I also wonder if there is a way to USE it... Probably not... and I HAVE tried. It is wierd though... I mean the chances of getting the SAME hand on more than one table at the SAME time (whether on different sites or not) is just OUTRAGEOUS, especially if you factor in suits... *sighs*

OK, I am getting DANGEROUSLY close to conspiracy talk here!

I must say, glad I ain't the only one who has been noticing this...

I think it's happened to me at least 4 or 5 times over the past few days. The odds must not be as low as one would think, but who knows.

I think I'll have to start playing in 3 games at a time more often, because THAT would really be somethin

How about two EXACT same hands in a row? Haha i just got 6 spade 3 diamond consecutively

lol

TopJimmy99 wrote:

How about two EXACT same hands in a row? Haha i just got 6 spade 3 diamond consecutively

Hope you played them, and won.


I've called people the hand after they have shown AA only for them to have the exact same hand again.
I did the maths and concluded it must be rigged.
The bouncers at the casino clearly couldn't understand the complex mathematical proof.




* perhaps embellished for dramatic effect.

Haha, yeah I wish. I actually thought about playing the second just to see the flop but, unfortunately, I couldn't make the call with those cards.

I've resisted getting involved in this debate for obvious reasons (it's perfectly explainable, it's not rigged, they are not using the same rng and getting the same cards!!!!, and they won't help you to predict the other table)

but in case no-one has thought of it, you are all aware that you are not comparing two hands?

Unless the hands are dealt and ended at exactly the same time you are comparing the hand at table 1 with the hand that is then dealt at table 2, then comparing that hand (table 2) with the next hand at table 1 when the first is folded.
Most hands get compared with 2 others!
If you are playing three tables, EACH hand on every table is probably being compared with 4 others on the other tables!

This, combined with the very large numbers of hands that you see, means that it's really not that surprising!

CoddBrunson is a fool and a rubbish poker player

I agree with chemist

Samango wrote:

I've resisted getting involved in this debate for obvious reasons (it's perfectly explainable, it's not rigged, they are not using the same rng and getting the same cards!!!!, and they won't help you to predict the other table)

but in case no-one has thought of it, you are all aware that you are not comparing two hands?

Unless the hands are dealt and ended at exactly the same time you are comparing the hand at table 1 with the hand that is then dealt at table 2, then comparing that hand (table 2) with the next hand at table 1 when the first is folded.
Most hands get compared with 2 others!
If you are playing three tables, EACH hand on every table is probably being compared with 4 others on the other tables!

This, combined with the very large numbers of hands that you see, means that it's really not that surprising!

You still have to admit though, that during the hand overlap, being dealt the exact same two pocket cards (suited and sequenced) is still a pretty interesting coincidence.

I can't make an argument for the mathematics behind it, but I normally play two tables and I've gotten 4 of a kind more times than I've seen this.

Given that there a specific hand on one of the tables, it is 1 in 1326 that the same hand will be dealt on the second table, of course as I've pointed out, when the hand on the first table is folded and another is dealt we will naturally also compare that hand with the one on table 2, reducing the odds of the table two hand matching ONE of the table 1 hands to 1 in 663
There is NOTHING in this maths that prevents this from happening several times in a row (but it will all even out over a large sample size)

The flat odds of getting four of a kind 1 in 4,165 (i.e. in draw poker for example you could get dealt quads this often, of course in holdem you are very likely to fold your way out of the chance of hitting it)

On the basis of these figures it is unlikely that you have seen quads more often than you have seen the identical hands WHILST playing two tables (of course, without realizing it, you could be including all the times when you've also hit quads whilst only playing one table)
Either way it would take a very large sample size of diligently recorded data to see this accurately

You're right, it is a pretty interesting coincidence, nothing more!
Humans are hard wired to look for patterns and patterns are everywhere. Whether they are truly significant is another thing.

How about this:



Same exact hand. Same suits, in the same order, at the same time in the same matrix tournament. But it gets better.

The table on the right, TT gets beat by JJ:

The table on the left:

Only could have been better, if that Jack of Spades, was a Jack of Hearts. LOL.

What are the odds of this happening?

Wow that does look sick lol UL man

Certainly if you tried to predict that specific event it would be astronomical, but that is the important thing about probabilities, that they are only true BEFORE the event.

The reason is because there are so many other events that could have been just as sick that we would still be talking about now.

for example playing 4 tables

on Table 1 we are comparing each hand with 2 hands (the one dealt just before the tb1 hand and the one dealt just after)
on Table 2 and
on Table 3 and
on Table 4

we are also comparing each hand dealt on table 2 with 2 hands
on Table 3 and
on Table 4

and also each hand on Table 3 with 2 hands
on Table 4

the odds of getting matching hands is only about 100:1 You should see this fairly often.



Of course getting beaten by the Jacks is sick, but I would still be saying that if they had been Queens or Kings or Aces

or if AK, AQ, AJ had caught their card, underpair making trips, random cards making two pair, trips, straight or a flush.
The board straightening, flushing, straightflushing........

There are so many ways that would have looked just as sick
These obviously would still be very unlikely events, but one of them or something like it is a whole lot more probable than the specific JJ beats TT, and we would still be talking about it!

As I am talking about future events now, I can confidently predict that you are VERY VERY unlikely to see that specific event any time soon

well there are 52 cards in a deck, so the chances of getting a certain hand is one in 2704 (52 x 52.) Getting that at a different tourney at the same time would be one in 5408. I think thats right...

Glad I started this post, or we may never have seen this coincidence. Glad you took the screenshot - brought some life back to this thread

CoddBrunson wrote:

Only could have been better, if that Jack of Spades, was a Jack of Hearts. LOL.

And if the 5 had been a K

Sportserh
I'm not sure why you would multiply by 52
The first card can be any one of 52 cards but the second card can't, it can only be one of 51 cards left in the deck

52x51 is 2652 unique combinations BUT, although the order of the cards is the same in Codd's post, in general we will still call coincidence whether they are in the same order or not, so I would argue that 79 of spades, is the same as 97 of spades.
Half of all the unique combinations are the same cards as the other half

2652 ÷ 2 = 1326 That's the figure I gave on page 1:- 1 in 1326

I'm not sure why you got the figure 5408 in the second part of your argument ( I mean, I know it is 2704 x 2 , just not sure why)

As I said on page 1, If we assume that you have ANY hand dealt to you on the first table then the odds of that same hand THEN being dealt on the other table is still:- 1 in 1326 (but note this doesn't include the hand that is already on the second table, but of course we would still compare that too)

As I've already explained on Page 1, (and hinted at above) we are not comparing one hand with one hand though...... I'm not writing it all again, it's in the previous posts!