Solved – probability of a pair in cards

probability

I have a simple problem involving probability of drawing at least 1 pair of cards in a four card hand. I am not getting the right answer but I dont understand the flaw in my logic. Can anyone explain to me why my approach is wrong?

The problem:

Bill has a small deck of 12 playing cards made up of only 2 suits of 6 cards each. Each of the 6 cards within a suit has a different value from 1 to 6; thus, for each value from 1 to 6, there are two cards in the deck with that value. Bill likes to play a game in which he shuffles the deck, turns over 4 cards, and looks for pairs of cards that have the same value. What is the chance that Bill finds at least one pair of cards that have the same value?

My solution:

Probability of 1 or more pair = ((6) * (10 choose 2))/(12 choose 4). i.e. the # of hands with at least 1 pair are 6 (the number of ways to create a pair) * (10 choose 2) (the # of ways to select 2 cards from the remaining 10 cards after the pair). This simplifies to 6/11, however, the correct answer is 17/33.

Any help understanding would be greatly appreciated.

Best Answer

This one might be easier to think of from the other direction.

What is the probability of choosing 4 cards without any pairs (this is the complimentary set to seeing at least 1 pair).

To see 0 pairs there are 12 possibilities for the 1st card, but only 10 for the second card (since the 1st chosen card is no longer possible and the card that matches the 1st would form a pair) and 8 cards for the 3rd and 6 for the 4th, this multiplies to 5760. The total number of possible hands (with order mattering) is $12 \times 11 \times 10 \times 9 = 11880$, so the complimentary number which is the number of (ordered) hands that contain at least 1 pair is $11880 - 5760 = 6120$, divide that by 11880 and it reduces to $17/33$. We could also do this with order not mattering, but that would be more complicated and the extra pieces would all end up cancelling each other.

I think the 10 choose 2 may be throwing you off, I don't see where that comes into any version.