Probability of a single pair poker hand

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The total number of one-pair 5-card poker hands from a standard 52-card deck is calculated using the formula n = {}^{13}C_1 \cdot {}^{4}C_2 \cdot {}^{12}C_3 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 \cdot {}^{4}C_1, resulting in 1,098,240 unique hands. The confusion arises from the alternative method n = {}^{13}C_4 \cdot {}^{4}C_2 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 \cdot {}^{4}C_1, which underestimates the count by a factor of 4 due to the arrangement of suits. The logic behind the calculations is confirmed through consistent reasoning across various hand types, including three of a kind and four of a kind.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of combinatorial mathematics, specifically binomial coefficients.
  • Familiarity with poker hand rankings and structures.
  • Knowledge of basic probability principles.
  • Ability to manipulate factorial expressions in mathematical equations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of binomial coefficients in depth, focusing on their applications in probability.
  • Learn about combinatorial game theory and its relevance to card games.
  • Explore advanced poker hand probabilities, including two pairs and full houses.
  • Investigate the mathematical principles behind permutations and combinations.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, poker enthusiasts, game theorists, and anyone interested in the statistical analysis of card games will benefit from this discussion.

hotvette
Homework Helper
Messages
1,001
Reaction score
11

Homework Statement


How many one-pair 5-card poker hands are there in a standard 52-card deck?

Homework Equations


<br /> {}^nC_k = \frac{n!}{(n-k)!}<br />

3. The Attempt at a Solution
I've seen the following solution in several different places:
<br /> n = {}^{13}C_1 \cdot {}^{4}C_2 \cdot {}^{12}C_3 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 = 1098240<br /> and every term makes perfect sense. What I don't understand though, is why the following:
n = {}^{13}C4 \cdot {}^{4}C_2 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 \cdot {}^4C_1<br /> underestimates the answer by a factor of 4. To me 13 choose 4 makes just as much sense as 13 choose one followed by 12 choose three, but of course one is correct and the other isn't. Can someone explain?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
That's fine but you need to count the number of suites you can pick.
 
Hmm, doesn't the 4C2 take care of suits? After thinking about this for a while, it seems to me the factor of 4 comes from the fact that {xx yzw} can be arranged 4 ways given that the order of yzw doesn't matter. Is this the correct way to look at it?

I think so, because I tried the same logic with 3 of a kind {xxx yz}. One solution is 13C1 x 4C3 x 12C2 x 4C1 x 4C1 = 54912 but a second way is 13C3 x 4C3 x 4C1 x 4C1 x 3C1 where the last 3C1 is the number of ways to arrange 3 values in {xxx yz} given the order of yz doesn't matter.

I also tried it with 4 of a kind {xxxx y}. One solution is 13C1 x 4C4 x 12C1 x 4C1 = 624 but a second way is 13C2 x 4C4 x 4C1 x 2C1 where the last 2C1 is the number of says to arrange 2 values in {xxx y}.

If my logic is correct, this is all (finally) making sense.
 
Last edited:
hotvette said:

Homework Statement


How many one-pair 5-card poker hands are there in a standard 52-card deck?

Homework Equations


<br /> {}^nC_k = \frac{n!}{(n-k)!}<br />[/B]

The Attempt at a Solution


I've seen the following solution in several different places:
<br /> n = {}^{13}C_1 \cdot {}^{4}C_2 \cdot {}^{12}C_3 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 = 1098240<br /> and every term makes perfect sense. What I don't understand though, is why the following:
n = {}^{13}C4 \cdot {}^{4}C_2 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 \cdot {}^{4}C_1 \cdot {}^4C_1<br /> underestimates the answer by a factor of 4. To me 13 choose 4 makes just as much sense as 13 choose one followed by 12 choose three, but of course one is correct and the other isn't. Can someone explain?[/B]
Pleas turn off the bold font; it makes it look like you are yelling at us, and is very distracting.

Anyway, I do not understand where your ##{13 \choose 4} \equiv {}^{13}C_4## comes from. What is the logic behind that way of writing things?
 
Strange, I never turned bold on in the first place, but clearly it was bold. Fixed now. Anyway, my logic was that for a single pair, I'm ultimately choosing 4 different cards from a pool of 13, one for the pair plus the remaining three. The math works if I consider that there are 4 different ways to group the 4 cards when using that scenario (each of the 4 cards could be the pair and the order of the remaining three does not matter). The logic seems to work for all of the scenarios I tried (one pair, two pair, four of a kind, 4 of a kind).
 
hotvette said:
Strange, I never turned bold on in the first place, but clearly it was bold. Fixed now. Anyway, my logic was that for a single pair, I'm ultimately choosing 4 different cards from a pool of 13, one for the pair plus the remaining three. The math works if I consider that there are 4 different ways to group the 4 cards when using that scenario (each of the 4 cards could be the pair and the order of the remaining three does not matter). The logic seems to work for all of the scenarios I tried (one pair, two pair, four of a kind, 4 of a kind).

After you have chosen 4 different cards from the 13 ranks, you need to pick ONE of those 4 ranks for duplication across suits, so there are ##C^4_1 = 4## ways of choosing the rank to be paired, then ##C^4_2## ways of choosing the pair from the 4 suits at that rank. Then, of course, for each of the other three ranks there are ##C^4_1## ways of choosing the suit. That gives the total number as ##C^{13}_4\, C^4_1 \,C^4_2 \, C^4_1 \, C^4_1 \, C^4_1 = 1098240##. THIS is the same as the other computation you mentioned!
 
Thanks, I think you confirmed what I was asking.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K