777
777
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 727
Joined: Oct 7, 2015
October 25th, 2015 at 3:09:24 PM permalink
In the event of a tie, the dealer then burn three cards before dealing each additional card to the player and the banker.

IMO, burning three cards is unnecessary and a waste of time. What is the reason behind the burning 3 cards rule? If it is for security reason, then would burning one card be sufficient? Or could it be that this rule is invoked as a workaround mechanism to avoid the IP infringement issue?
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
October 25th, 2015 at 3:34:59 PM permalink
Quote: 777

In the event of a tie, the dealer then burn three cards before dealing each additional card to the player and the banker.

IMO, burning three cards is unnecessary and a waste of time. What is the reason behind the burning 3 cards rule? If it is for security reason, then would burning one card be sufficient? Or could it be that this rule is invoked as a workaround mechanism to avoid the IP infringement issue?



I could be wrong, but my understanding of the burn 3 cards rule is to emulate the traditional childhood game of War. There, each player put 3 down cards on their War card, then flipped the 4th for their strike. The winner got all 10 cards as spoils of war (not just the two same-rank cards and the war result cards), since the idea is to get all the cards from your opponent. A lot of the time, this was the only way to capture the other player's kings or aces, since those would nearly always win head-to-head otherwise.

So, if you want your players to FEEL like they're playing the childhood game, you burn 3 cards, maybe even chant "one two three" as you do it (we always chanted as kids and laid them down in unison). It could also be a security measure against if you've managed to mark/edge sort the cards, but as you say, one would do as well as 3 if that was the only consideration. I suppose it also interferes with efforts to count down the deck/shoe, but I suspect the game is as useless to count down as my own (One For the Money/Ultimate Casino War), which does not burn cards, but is still count-protected through 90% penetration and beyond. Not uncountable; but not worth the effort either.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
October 26th, 2015 at 4:55:08 AM permalink
I concur with BBB, the only difference being the way we played was the three cards weren't burnt, the sum of the three cards determined who won the round.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 26th, 2015 at 5:04:35 AM permalink
I forget where, but I have seen a casino that only burns one card.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
  • Jump to: