MHB Probability of Drawing 3 Hearts and 3 Diamonds from a 52-Card Deck

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the probability of drawing 3 hearts and 3 diamonds from a standard 52-card deck. One participant suggests using a probability tree method, while another proposes a formula involving combinations: (13 choose 3 for hearts) multiplied by (13 choose 3 for diamonds) divided by (52 choose 6). This method yields a probability of approximately 0.00401777732, which is slightly higher than the simulation result of 1/250, or 0.004. The conversation highlights the differences in approaches to solving probability problems involving card draws without replacement. The mathematical approach appears to validate the simulation results.
Wilmer
Messages
303
Reaction score
0
Code:
1:                                  1 (26/52)*
2:           11 (12/51)**                                     12 (13/51)***
3:  111            112                          121                        122
4:  1112     1121        1122           1211         1212            1221       1222
5:  11122    11212   11221  11222       12112    12121  12122    12211  12212   12221
6:  111222   112122  112212 112221      121122   121212 121221   122112 122121  122211
6 cards are drawn at random (no replacement) from a regular 52 cards deck.

What is probability that 3 will be hearts and 3 will be diamonds?

1 = hearts : 2 = diamonds
* 26/52 chance to draw 1 or 2 at 1st draw: make it a 1.
** 12/51 chance that 2nd card is a 1
*** 13/51 chance that 2nd card is a 2
...and so on

Is that the proper way to "attack" this?

My 1st time dealing with "probability trees"; doesn't seem like much fun!

I got probability of 1/250 by simulation...trying to confirm it...
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I'm not completely confident in this approach but I believe the answer can be found simply by:

[math]\frac{ \binom{13}{3} \binom{13}{3}}{\binom{52}{6}}[/math]

This gives a different answer than you found but this is normally how I approach card problems with no replacement.
 
Thanks; that computes to .00401777732...
Which is slightly above what I got: 1/250 = .004
So at least my simulation is confirmed (Nod)
 
Thread 'Erroneously  finding discrepancy in transpose rule'
Obviously, there is something elementary I am missing here. To form the transpose of a matrix, one exchanges rows and columns, so the transpose of a scalar, considered as (or isomorphic to) a one-entry matrix, should stay the same, including if the scalar is a complex number. On the other hand, in the isomorphism between the complex plane and the real plane, a complex number a+bi corresponds to a matrix in the real plane; taking the transpose we get which then corresponds to a-bi...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K