The first Ace, would slightly favor the early played because they get a card first so they always win the ties so to speak aka a person down the line never gets a chance to get their ace. However, if a card was given to each player matter what and in the event of two (or more) aces then just those players repeat the process it would be 100% fair. Right now early players win ties.
Your videos are great, but I would have liked it more if you told us the reason why this happens or the reason why with a random number this phenomenon won't occur. :)
+Sanyam Gupta This would be fair (with 4 players) if we were waiting for one particular card, say the Ace of Spades, as its position in the deck is random - i.e. it has an equal chance of being in any position from 1st to 52nd. However, for the position of the FIRST ace, the probabilities are skewed towards the start of the deck. In fact, every position has a different probability. e.g. P(1st)=1/13, P(2nd)=16/221, P(3rd)=376/5225, ... , P(52nd)=0 So the probabilities of each player receiving the first ace are... 1st player... P(1st) + P(5th) + P(9th) + ... 2nd player... P(2nd) + P(6th) + P(10th) + ... Etc. So you can see why the probabilities are different for each player; i.e. it's not fair.
@@matthewcooke4011 Not true. Probabalities to get an ace are same for every position. What skews the percentages is the evaluation. First guy has 4/52 to get an ace and start. Second needs an ace and first guy not having an ace: 4/52 * 48/52, etc. Imagine everyone got dealed an ace. First guy will start then.
Your simulation had a crazy amount of variance. You did have statistical significance for the null hypothesis that the probabilities were the same, but you also had statistical significance for the null hypothesis using the theoretical probabilities.
This is not done each deal. This is done once, to start the whole shebang. The one selected for first deal is a skewed decision under this method, and no amount of rotation can reverse that certain players are advantaged.
What difference does it make if the deal rotates after each hand? Does the dealer of the first hand of the evening have any advantage or disadvantage over the other players?
The first Ace, would slightly favor the early played because they get a card first so they always win the ties so to speak aka a person down the line never gets a chance to get their ace.
However, if a card was given to each player matter what and in the event of two (or more) aces then just those players repeat the process it would be 100% fair.
Right now early players win ties.
Your videos are great, but I would have liked it more if you told us the reason why this happens or the reason why with a random number this phenomenon won't occur. :)
+Sanyam Gupta This would be fair (with 4 players) if we were waiting for one particular card, say the Ace of Spades, as its position in the deck is random - i.e. it has an equal chance of being in any position from 1st to 52nd.
However, for the position of the FIRST ace, the probabilities are skewed towards the start of the deck. In fact, every position has a different probability. e.g. P(1st)=1/13, P(2nd)=16/221, P(3rd)=376/5225, ... , P(52nd)=0
So the probabilities of each player receiving the first ace are...
1st player... P(1st) + P(5th) + P(9th) + ...
2nd player... P(2nd) + P(6th) + P(10th) + ...
Etc.
So you can see why the probabilities are different for each player; i.e. it's not fair.
For more explanation, here is a link:
mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2010/10/26/choosing-the-dealer-in-poker-is-dealing-to-the-first-ace-a-fair-system/
Because if two different people are both going to get an ace on, say, the 4th card they receive, then the earlier one wins.
@@matthewcooke4011 How did you calculate the probabilities 1/13, 16/221, 376/5225 ?
@@matthewcooke4011 Not true. Probabalities to get an ace are same for every position. What skews the percentages is the evaluation.
First guy has 4/52 to get an ace and start. Second needs an ace and first guy not having an ace: 4/52 * 48/52, etc.
Imagine everyone got dealed an ace. First guy will start then.
Your simulation had a crazy amount of variance. You did have statistical significance for the null hypothesis that the probabilities were the same, but you also had statistical significance for the null hypothesis using the theoretical probabilities.
Don’t understand. We talking one deck of cards? Would shuffling the cards (beginning & after each draw) introduce randomness?
I cannot understand why the probability would change unless you shuffled the pack after each deal?
This is not done each deal. This is done once, to start the whole shebang. The one selected for first deal is a skewed decision under this method, and no amount of rotation can reverse that certain players are advantaged.
We deal x cards face down with only one of them an ace. Then the players all pick a card. Whoever picks the ace is the dealer.
What difference does it make if the deal rotates after each hand? Does the dealer of the first hand of the evening have any advantage or disadvantage over the other players?
Absolute nonsense !!!