In Caribbean Stud, does the # of players have ANY, even an infinitesimal affect on the houses edge?
I'm wondering since there are less players playing, would the chance of getting higher hands, however small, exist because, the cards are not "diluted" as much.
The card you might need to make a Full House, Four of a Kind, or a Straight or Royal Flush would have to have a better chance of being in the deck with two people playing, as opposed to possibly already being dealt out because there are six people playing. And if the chance that that card is in the deck, as opposed to the chance that that card has already been dealt to one of the other five players, would that alter the houses edge in any amount, no matter how infinitesimal? Or would that improve, even minutely, the chance to get higher hands with less players?
Thanks
Quote: idrvballHi,I know the position of the cards in a deck is random. But in Caribbean Stud, I was wondering if the number of players at a table affected the houses edge toward a person GETTING HIGHER HANDS.
I'm wondering since there are less players playing, would the chance of getting higher hands, however small, exist because, the cards are not "diluted" as much.
The card you might need to make a Full House, Four of a Kind, or a Straight or Royal Flush would have to have a better chance of being in the deck with two people playing, as opposed to possibly already being dealt out because there are six people playing. And if the chance that that card is in the deck, as opposed to the chance that that card has already been dealt to one of the other five players, would that alter the houses edge in any amount, no matter how infinitesimal? Or would that improve, even minutely, the chance to get higher hands with less players?
Thanks
The simple answer is no; the cards you receive are random, and while it's possible the cards you need are in someone else's hand, it's also possible they took cards that you didn't need, increasing your chance and getting ones you do. That's just one way to look at it, but the number of players do not change your odds.
Quote: cclub79The simple answer is no; the cards you receive are random, and while it's possible the cards you need are in someone else's hand, it's also possible they took cards that you didn't need, increasing your chance and getting ones you do. That's just one way to look at it, but the number of players do not change your odds.
I agree.
Quote: idrvballHi,I know the position of the cards in a deck is random. But in Caribbean Stud, I was wondering if the number of players at a table affected the houses edge toward a person GETTING HIGHER HANDS.
I'm wondering since there are less players playing, would the chance of getting higher hands, however small, exist because, the cards are not "diluted" as much.
The card you might need to make a Full House, Four of a Kind, or a Straight or Royal Flush would have to have a better chance of being in the deck with two people playing, as opposed to possibly already being dealt out because there are six people playing. And if the chance that that card is in the deck, as opposed to the chance that that card has already been dealt to one of the other five players, would that alter the houses edge in any amount, no matter how infinitesimal? Or would that improve, even minutely, the chance to get higher hands with less players?
Thanks
This is the same fallacy that get people so pissed off at blackjack.
That guy didn't "take the dealer's bust card", he took a random card. Other players at the table in any game are just taking random cards as well.
Although -- actually there is a slight increase in house edge if you're making the progressive bonus bet unless you're sitting at 3rd base. If you hit a royal and a person who gets paid before you also hits a royal you get paid much less.
Quote: f2d
Although -- actually there is a slight increase in house edge if you're making the progressive bonus bet unless you're sitting at 3rd base. If you hit a royal and a person who gets paid before you also hits a royal you get paid much less.
If that ever actually happens, that two progressive jackpots are won in the same hand, I could picture the disadvantaged player disputing it to whatever gaming authority applies or filing a lawsuit. For the benefit of other readers, the player more to the dealer's right would likely get the full jackpot, because the dealer pays hands right to left. I'm not saying the player to the dealer's left would win, but he could make a point that:
1. He received his hand before the player on the dealer's right.
2. At the time he placed the wager, the meter said $x. That implies a promise to pay $x for a royal flush, and 10% of $x for a straight flush. Paying less would be false advertising.
I think the ethical thing for the casino to do would be to pay both players in full.
Quote: WizardIf that ever actually happens, that two progressive jackpots are won in the same hand, I could picture the disadvantaged player disputing it to whatever gaming authority applies or filing a lawsuit. For the benefit of other readers, the player more to the dealer's right would likely get the full jackpot, because the dealer pays hands right to left. I'm not saying the player to the dealer's left would win, but he could make a point that:
1. He received his hand before the player on the dealer's right.
2. At the time he placed the wager, the meter said $x. That implies a promise to pay $x for a royal flush, and 10% of $x for a straight flush. Paying less would be false advertising.
I think the ethical thing for the casino to do would be to pay both players in full.
Wizard-
Do you think that these policies are written specifically into the rules? I would think they'd have to be. The only devil's advocate argument I could come up with is that the Lotto Jackpot is stated as $x Million on big signs all over the place, but we know that winners at the same time would split it, and no one disputes that. I suppose the casino could do the same thing, with a note on the meter that says "*assuming single winner in a hand".
Quote: konceptumSimilar question, but for a different game, three-card poker. Has anybody ever done any kind of serious inquiry onto whether or not other players at the game can have any effect? I ran a very rudimentary simulation at one point, where I (sort of) discovered that if you have a full table, and all the other players are playing perfect strategy (Q64 or better), then something could be discovered based on how many of the players stay in and how many fold. If all the other players stay in (implying they all have Q64 or better), my rudimentary simulation showed that you could actually lower your holding hand to below the Q64. Conversely, if all the other players folded (implying they all have worse than Q64), then your holding hand should be increased above Q64. Anyway, just wondering if it's ever been studied more accurately than what I can do. (And yes, I know that assuming all other players are playing perfect strategy is a huge stretch.)
I think it's ever so slightly helpful to play at a full table using the method above. But, more than that, almost any casino will allow you to talk about your hand as long as you don't flash the cards to other players. So you could potentially have much more info to work with in 3 card or even moreso in caribbean stud.
If you notice that the other five players at the table are not holding aces either, the odds of the dealer having that pair of aces climbs to about 12 in 21. Is it enough to change your basic strategy and toss a low pair? I think it is. This becomes much more significant when holding a borderline hand like an A-K, and you want to figure out whether the dealer will match their up card with a pair. Knowing that the dealer does not have a matching up card available (since the table holds the other three) would significant affect your decision to play an A-K.
In Let It Ride, it would be normal to hold 4 to a flush, knowing that the odds of pulling that 5th card is 8:48 but pays 8:1 (Player Advantange 33%). But what if you saw three other player's hands and they had 4 of the same suit that you were looking for out of 9 cards. The odds of the dealer now getting the flush drops to 4:39, and it is no longer worth playing for the flush.
It doesn't change the HA at all, but knowing what cards the other players have (and therefore the dealer) definitely should affect the way you play. The same would be true in 3-card, and I think that koncuptum's theory would have value.
I got distracted first getting a drink, then admiring the waitress as she walked away, so I didn't get to make a bet for that round. The cards I would have gotten went to the dealer instead. That hand was three sevens. The other players lost. Fortunately they weren't pissed off about it. One of them told me "we all miss placing bets from time to time."
Ok. Obviously if I'd had the trips, it's a lot less likely the others would have lost. but there's no way to know what would have happened. Maybe the dealer would have drawn three aces and we'd all have lost (I wasn't playing pair+, so that's not a concern). I wanted to ask the dealer to see what cards he would have gotten if I'd played, but I figured it would make things worse if he'd have drawn a nine high.
Later on I missed placing another bet because my cell phone started beeping (low-battery alert). By then there were more players, but again the dealer got "my" hand. I jokingly said "Dealer's got three of a kind. Watch it!" then wasted a minute explaining. I don't recall how everyone played that round, but the dealer got a low high card.
The point is there was no way to predict which cards I let slip by each time. Once I hurt the other players, the other time I helped them.
I made a point of not tipping ANY DEALER at that casino for a month thereafter.
Quote: boymimboI made a point of not tipping ANY DEALER at that casino for a month thereafter.
Ins't that unfair? All the other dealers didn't hurt you in any way.
What part of that makes any sense to you?
Quote: cclub79Wizard-
Do you think that these policies are written specifically into the rules? I would think they'd have to be. The only devil's advocate argument I could come up with is that the Lotto Jackpot is stated as $x Million on big signs all over the place, but we know that winners at the same time would split it, and no one disputes that. I suppose the casino could do the same thing, with a note on the meter that says "*assuming single winner in a hand".
No, I don't think that scenario is specifically in the rules. Usually floor supervisors don't even know what would happen. If you ask one about it they will tell you something like that decision is above his/her pay grade, and he would defer to the shift manager. I've asked shift managers, and they say that the first hand the dealer goes to pay would get the full jackpot, then the meter is reset, the second player would get the smaller jackpot, and then they would reset the jackpot again.
The case would definitely be viable in court. The argument that the paytable at the time the wager was made said a royal flush paid XXXXXX$ can be made not to mention there's a high chance they'll pay up to avoid the bad publicity
And everyone talking about the "cards shifting" due to people leaving or what not, that's just the gambler's fallacy of the predetermined outcome. The card are RANDOM. It's JUST as likely that someone "shifts" a good hand to it and they are to "shift" a good hand away from you.
