Connection between poker and time fully explained

Connection between poker and time fully explained

There obviously is a serious connection between poker and time. These two 1-minute games undeniably prove that. You can play them even now, all you need is a 1/100 sec. stopwatch and memorizing the cards chart (hint: you can memorize only the 1st column, it's much easier then). A little bit of training will let you experience this connection on your own.

I think it's all possible thanks to the duration of time measurement units and rectangular deck arrangement. Is it one big coincidence ? I don't know. But certainly a deck of cards hidden within 1 minute is a cool thing, especially because just like each playing card has two sides: face and backside, there's not just one but two games combo !! They both can serve as an evidence.

Here are the 3 graphics I made. They contain all the rules:




) 1 View 1
16 January 2025 at 04:38 PM
Reply...

3 Replies



by ITryDeuces k

Is it one big coincidence ? I don't know

This sounds like something Doc would say!



The rules of both games are 100% correct, but I guess a much better explanation for the GAME 2 would be:

The amount of help you can potentially get from your poker hand in each try precisely reflects / resembles hand rankings math probability plus it sees card values. The better the hand you made with your markers, the less freedom and options you had when placing them. Weak hands are more loose and don't force you to use markers at certain points. This all has to do with concentration, your own rhythm, sense of time and confidence.

I scored a flush in both games already, it feels really good. These games are real fun !!

I think it's all fully explained now as the thread's title says.


Aaaah, sorry for the delay, here comes the full explanation for both games and how they connect poker and time (!!!!!!!!!).

But before you read, don't forget to complete the main procedure:

1. YOUTUBE
2. >> Ace Hood
3. >>> Bugatti


And here's the complete graphic number 3:


Reply...