Three Card Poker
February 6th, 2012 at 4:12:03 AM
permalink
Hi I'm new to the site, and not sure where I should have placed this topic. I came from viewing WizardOfOdds, and had a question about 3CP.
I had some info from wizardofodds.com Three Card Poker and was wondering IF it is at all possible to shift the odds to the players advantage if always playing the bet (never folding).
On that webpage, the 3rd comment down is answered "The house edge lies in the rule that if the player folds he loses, even if the dealer doesn’t qualify."
So what if the player never folds, even with Q,6,4 or less?
If a player bets blind, are the odds of the players cards vs dealer cards a 50/50 split? Then throw in the rule that a dealer must qualify, does this not take the player from a 50/50 to a higher advantage as the dealer may not qualify?
What are the odds of a dealer qualifying? And from there, what are the odds of the dealer winning the hand.
It has always been said that Three Card Poker has a house advantage based on if the Player bets. So why not reverse the rules on the house. Player is always in, House now must decide (qualify) on playing on.
On a $5 table, you would really be playing $5 Ante $5 Bet. So $10. but if dealer does not qualify, you only make $5. Regardless of te amount you make, the question remains, what are odds of winning if you always go in?
(No pair plus. Don't even care for this bet so lets keep it out of the equation)
I had some info from wizardofodds.com Three Card Poker and was wondering IF it is at all possible to shift the odds to the players advantage if always playing the bet (never folding).
On that webpage, the 3rd comment down is answered "The house edge lies in the rule that if the player folds he loses, even if the dealer doesn’t qualify."
So what if the player never folds, even with Q,6,4 or less?
If a player bets blind, are the odds of the players cards vs dealer cards a 50/50 split? Then throw in the rule that a dealer must qualify, does this not take the player from a 50/50 to a higher advantage as the dealer may not qualify?
What are the odds of a dealer qualifying? And from there, what are the odds of the dealer winning the hand.
It has always been said that Three Card Poker has a house advantage based on if the Player bets. So why not reverse the rules on the house. Player is always in, House now must decide (qualify) on playing on.
On a $5 table, you would really be playing $5 Ante $5 Bet. So $10. but if dealer does not qualify, you only make $5. Regardless of te amount you make, the question remains, what are odds of winning if you always go in?
(No pair plus. Don't even care for this bet so lets keep it out of the equation)
February 6th, 2012 at 5:07:17 AM
permalink
Quote: QikGT
On a $5 table, you would really be playing $5 Ante $5 Bet. So $10. but if dealer does not qualify, you only make $5. Regardless of te amount you make, the question remains, what are odds of winning if you always go in?
(No pair plus. Don't even care for this bet so lets keep it out of the equation)
You answered your own question right there. You do have a 50/50 chance of having a better hand than the dealer. But you only win even money on that 50/50 chance when the dealer has a Q or better. All the times you have a better hand and the dealer DOESN'T have a Q, you only win 5 rather than 10. But if the dealer beats you, you lose 10. This disadvantage is bigger than the advantage you get of winning 5 by risking 10 when you have a WORSE hand but the dealer doesn't have a Q. From the Wizards page:
https://wizardofodds.com/games/three-card-poker/
Raising on everything, or playing blind, results in a house edge of7.65%.
February 6th, 2012 at 6:16:04 AM
permalink
If I win $1 or $100 in a hand, does not matter, what I would like to know is what is the players edge if playing blind, for Winning.
This doesn't matter about how much the bet is, or how much profit is made. So regardless of the bet amount, and regardless of the profit margin,
Take one hand, 3 cards for player, 3 cards for dealer, but dealer can't play if he doesn't qualify. What is the house/player edge? It must be in the favor of the player at this point as to who will win.
This doesn't matter about how much the bet is, or how much profit is made. So regardless of the bet amount, and regardless of the profit margin,
Take one hand, 3 cards for player, 3 cards for dealer, but dealer can't play if he doesn't qualify. What is the house/player edge? It must be in the favor of the player at this point as to who will win.
February 6th, 2012 at 6:58:21 AM
permalink
Quote: QikGT
What is the house/player edge? It must be in the favor of the player at this point as to who will win.
No, it isn't. Really, if that were the case, why would people have taken the time to determine that it only makes sense to stay in with Q-6-4 or higher?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
February 6th, 2012 at 7:00:46 AM
permalink
When the player folds he only loses the ante, not the bet. "If you want to know why queen/6/4 is the borderline hand it is because if you raise on queen/6/3 you can expect to lose 1.00255 units, more than the 1 unit by folding. However if you raise on queen/6/4 the expected loss is .993378, less than the 1 unit by folding." (WoV 3 Card Strategy page.) So if you play blind, you play every hand at the house edge of 3.37%; but if you fold bad hands, and only play the ones with a positive expectation, you have an element of risk of only 2.01% (on the 5-4-1 pay table).
Regarding the Pair Plus, pay attention to the pay table. if it is 6-4-3-1, it isn't a bad bet, with an edge/eor of 2.38%.
Regarding the Pair Plus, pay attention to the pay table. if it is 6-4-3-1, it isn't a bad bet, with an edge/eor of 2.38%.
A falling knife has no handle.
February 6th, 2012 at 7:04:20 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
February 6th, 2012 at 7:18:59 AM
permalink
His question was specifically stating whether he would win the bet or not, not whether he would win money, or was it positive EV. Since you win less when the dealer doesn't qualify, you WILL win more than 50% of the time when you go in blind, but as others have stated, you will lose money at a pretty high house edge of 7.65%. I could not find the exact amount of time the dealer doesnt qualify, but once that is known, the answer is easy. My guess is youd win about 56% of your hands, but one of the math guys can give you the exact numbers.
February 6th, 2012 at 7:23:39 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
February 6th, 2012 at 8:22:54 AM
permalink
Thank you to Soopoo who seems to not be great at math, BUT can read. lol.
My question is, regardless of payouts or bet amounts, if a player was given 3 cards, and the dealer was given 3 cards, what are the chances of the player winning?
Then you can throw into the equation the fact that the dealer can ONLY winif they qualify with a Q or higher.
So in a single deck game, where 52 cards are used, and 3 are given to the player, 3 to the dealer, dealer has to qualify, WHAT ARE THE PLAYERS ODDS?
My question is, regardless of payouts or bet amounts, if a player was given 3 cards, and the dealer was given 3 cards, what are the chances of the player winning?
Then you can throw into the equation the fact that the dealer can ONLY winif they qualify with a Q or higher.
So in a single deck game, where 52 cards are used, and 3 are given to the player, 3 to the dealer, dealer has to qualify, WHAT ARE THE PLAYERS ODDS?
February 6th, 2012 at 8:29:43 AM
permalink
If the cards are shuffled after every hand it shoiuld be 50-50.
edit: the house advantage aslo stems from the Customer plays first... an important concept. Especially playing blind or in your example of deal 3 cards per opponent. Since you don;t know the contents of the opponent's hand, it becomes difficult to wager the outcome... your Straight-Flush might be beaten by Triples... your 10-6-5 might beat your opponent's 8-3-2. Going first, or wagering first is a disadvantage, because of the lack of information.
edit: the house advantage aslo stems from the Customer plays first... an important concept. Especially playing blind or in your example of deal 3 cards per opponent. Since you don;t know the contents of the opponent's hand, it becomes difficult to wager the outcome... your Straight-Flush might be beaten by Triples... your 10-6-5 might beat your opponent's 8-3-2. Going first, or wagering first is a disadvantage, because of the lack of information.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
February 6th, 2012 at 8:33:10 AM
permalink
But the dealer may not qualify, in which case player wins, regardless of his cards, this should give him an extra advantage.
To confirm, one hand, player 3 cards, dealer 3 cards, dealer must qualify. What are players odds of winning?
(Part of this question needs the answer of odds dealer will even qualify. I'd like to know that too)
To confirm, one hand, player 3 cards, dealer 3 cards, dealer must qualify. What are players odds of winning?
(Part of this question needs the answer of odds dealer will even qualify. I'd like to know that too)
February 6th, 2012 at 8:34:00 AM
permalink
Im ok at math. Captain of my high school math team. ( I got to wear the coveted number pi). Perfect 800 on math achievement test. 4th place in NYC math competition. Sooooo.... if the 70% figure is correct.... the dealer wont qualify 30% of the time. So 30% of the time a hand will be j high or worse. So 9% of the time you will both have j high or worse (an approximation because if you know 3 cards are out and are j high or worse then the remaining 49 cards a re 'rich' in higher cards). And half of the time you both don't 'qualify' you would have had a worse hand than the dealer, but will now win because the dealer is forfeiting. So if 70% is correct, then you will win approximately 54.5% of the time.
February 6th, 2012 at 8:38:19 AM
permalink
Give the man a medal, he CAN do math AND read. Thanks.
So, first off, can anyone else confirm this? (Just like to double and triple check things)
And if it is 54.5%, does that mean the player has a 4.5% edge over the dealer, to WIN?
So, first off, can anyone else confirm this? (Just like to double and triple check things)
And if it is 54.5%, does that mean the player has a 4.5% edge over the dealer, to WIN?
February 6th, 2012 at 8:45:17 AM
permalink
Quote: QikGTGive the man a medal, he CAN do math AND read. Thanks.
So, first off, can anyone else confirm this? (Just like to double and triple check things)
And if it is 54.5%, does that mean the player has a 4.5% edge over the dealer, to WIN?
Qik- as I pointed out earlier, the members of this site are happy to answer questions that are clear, and also, as sometimes it might require a bit of work on their part, might want to know WHY you are asking. The phrase 'edge over the dealer' is ambiguous. Let me give you an example. If I went to a roulette table and put $10 on numbers 1 - 33, I would be risking $330, and more often than not I'd win. But I never would have had an 'edge over the dealer' in my mind. I knew I'd be more likely to win a small amount than lose the big amount, but I never had an 'edge'. Another example would be video poker. You will never come close to winning half of your bets, but because some wins are greater than even money, even winning 25% of the time you 'might' have an edge over the dealer, depending on paytable and game.
February 6th, 2012 at 8:59:34 AM
permalink
Quote: QikGTGive the man a medal, he CAN do math AND read. Thanks.
So, first off, can anyone else confirm this? (Just like to double and triple check things)
And if it is 54.5%, does that mean the player has a 4.5% edge over the dealer, to WIN?
I'm still really confused by what you want to know. Yes, you'll win 54.5% of the time. But some of the wins will be 2 units (when the dealer qualifies), and some of the wins will be 1 unit (when the dealer does not qualify). All of the losses will be 2 units. This is NOT a winning strategy for the player.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
February 6th, 2012 at 9:16:55 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
February 6th, 2012 at 9:43:26 AM
permalink
Pop quiz for the APs or lateral thinkers:
When would it be realistic to play this game blind and still have a strong edge over the house (without any knowledge of the dealer's cards)?
Hint: the answer is contained within this thread.
When would it be realistic to play this game blind and still have a strong edge over the house (without any knowledge of the dealer's cards)?
Hint: the answer is contained within this thread.
February 6th, 2012 at 9:43:30 AM
permalink
Let me help clarify. He's asking a question that the answer has no practical application whatsoever.
That's why I didn't bother trying to figure it out.
That's why I didn't bother trying to figure it out.
February 6th, 2012 at 9:58:53 AM
permalink
Au contraire. Let me assure you that I have little interest in problems like this without practical application.Quote: FinsRuleLet me help clarify. He's asking a question that the answer has no practical application whatsoever.
February 6th, 2012 at 10:29:45 AM
permalink
If the cards are not shuffled correctly after each hand. Got it.
February 6th, 2012 at 11:18:03 AM
permalink
Assume adequate shuffling (e.g. a Shuffle Master iDeal).Quote: FinsRuleIf the cards are not shuffled correctly after each hand. Got it.
February 6th, 2012 at 6:41:25 PM
permalink
I can think of a few situations,some of which have happened to me.
I won`t post the details but lets just say the dealer didn`t know the rules of the game.
I won`t post the details but lets just say the dealer didn`t know the rules of the game.
Happy days are here again
February 6th, 2012 at 7:38:38 PM
permalink
There are a variety of games where you have a choice of (R = Raise which in three card is 1)
(a) looking and playing odds against (i.e. folding bad hands, losing 1; only playing good hands and hopefully winning R+1)
(b) blind and playing odds on (i.e. good/bad hands win 1 if dealer not qualify, bad hands lose R+1).
The difference is quite easy as with good hands you'd always play, so the only case to worry about is bad hands.
Ignoring when your Q43 beats Q32 (you actually gain +2 if you play)....
(a) FOLD - You make the correct decision if the dealer qualifies 70% and the wrong if he doesn't 30%. Thus you gain the "raise" you didn't make 70% of the time, and 30% of the time it cost you two (you lost 1 rather than winning 1). 70% +1 vs 30% -2
(b) PLAY - The reverse applies, if the dealer qualifies you lose an extra one, if the dealer doesn't you win rather than lose. 70% -1 vs 30% +2.
Thus you are better to FOLD bad hands and take the -1 rather than have a 30% chance of winning 1 and 70% chance of losing 2.
fwiw In 5-card poker the percentages as much closer (except A K) and with AK you are risking +1 vs -3 at about 49% 51% rather than -1.
Actual values are about 30.4% 69.6%; and for 5-card close when have AK yourself, otherwise is nearly 45.7% and even worse if the dealer has A or K.
(a) looking and playing odds against (i.e. folding bad hands, losing 1; only playing good hands and hopefully winning R+1)
(b) blind and playing odds on (i.e. good/bad hands win 1 if dealer not qualify, bad hands lose R+1).
The difference is quite easy as with good hands you'd always play, so the only case to worry about is bad hands.
Ignoring when your Q43 beats Q32 (you actually gain +2 if you play)....
(a) FOLD - You make the correct decision if the dealer qualifies 70% and the wrong if he doesn't 30%. Thus you gain the "raise" you didn't make 70% of the time, and 30% of the time it cost you two (you lost 1 rather than winning 1). 70% +1 vs 30% -2
(b) PLAY - The reverse applies, if the dealer qualifies you lose an extra one, if the dealer doesn't you win rather than lose. 70% -1 vs 30% +2.
Thus you are better to FOLD bad hands and take the -1 rather than have a 30% chance of winning 1 and 70% chance of losing 2.
fwiw In 5-card poker the percentages as much closer (except A K) and with AK you are risking +1 vs -3 at about 49% 51% rather than -1.
Actual values are about 30.4% 69.6%; and for 5-card close when have AK yourself, otherwise is nearly 45.7% and even worse if the dealer has A or K.
February 6th, 2012 at 7:40:33 PM
permalink
the only way to put the odds in yr favour in 3cp is to sit really low in seat one and find a weak dealer who exposes his/her bottom card......you adjust the proper strategy to the card you see and sit back and let your edge make you money.....some casinos now hide the bottom card because of this.
February 6th, 2012 at 9:38:11 PM
permalink
Wow.
Can't believe NO ONE can read.
Instead, they all complicate this situation with thinking of their own, so I wil start it again....let's see if ANYONE can follow along.
FOR THE SAKE OF ME KNOWING, AND NO OTHER REASON, Not for a strategy, not for profit, simply as 'what are the percentage odds', all I ask is.......
....and lets get ready for it....
.....only take these factors please. If a 52 card deck is played, and 3 cards are given to player A, and 3 cards are given to player B, what are the odds of player A winning (all I want to know, is the winning factor) if player B can not play if he holds a J high or lower?
Don't bother responding if you are NOT going to respond with the edge % of player A & player B. And don't bother explaining the payout , because that is not what this question is about.
Thanks, happy gamblin'.
Can't believe NO ONE can read.
Instead, they all complicate this situation with thinking of their own, so I wil start it again....let's see if ANYONE can follow along.
FOR THE SAKE OF ME KNOWING, AND NO OTHER REASON, Not for a strategy, not for profit, simply as 'what are the percentage odds', all I ask is.......
....and lets get ready for it....
.....only take these factors please. If a 52 card deck is played, and 3 cards are given to player A, and 3 cards are given to player B, what are the odds of player A winning (all I want to know, is the winning factor) if player B can not play if he holds a J high or lower?
Don't bother responding if you are NOT going to respond with the edge % of player A & player B. And don't bother explaining the payout , because that is not what this question is about.
Thanks, happy gamblin'.
February 7th, 2012 at 1:18:21 AM
permalink
I'm sure you'll get lots of great responses with that approach.
February 7th, 2012 at 3:28:54 AM
permalink
You say we can't read. Let me remind you of your first post, sir.
You say we can't read, yet you asked several questions OTHER than "what is the percentage of wins if you play blind" That led most of us to believe you wanted some help about why playing blind was a bad idea. But clearly you just want justification that your system will work. OK, here it is: You will win about 60% of the time. However, like the roulette bet of playing 2 out of 3 columns, you will win less on those 60% than you will lose on the 40%, making it better to fold the worst of your losers (Q64 and under). If you'd rather not fold, no problem. You'll win about 3 of every 5 hands, and you'll be giving the casino about 5 cents more of every dollar you bet than you would if you played smartly. But yes, you will win more hands.
Quote: QikGT\was wondering IF it is at all possible to shift the odds to the players advantage if always playing the bet (never folding).
So what if the player never folds, even with Q,6,4 or less?
Then throw in the rule that a dealer must qualify, does this not take the player from a 50/50 to a higher advantage as the dealer may not qualify?
What are the odds of a dealer qualifying? And from there, what are the odds of the dealer winning the hand.
So why not reverse the rules on the house. Player is always in, House now must decide (qualify) on playing on.
Regardless of te amount you make, the question remains, what are odds of winning if you always go in?
You say we can't read, yet you asked several questions OTHER than "what is the percentage of wins if you play blind" That led most of us to believe you wanted some help about why playing blind was a bad idea. But clearly you just want justification that your system will work. OK, here it is: You will win about 60% of the time. However, like the roulette bet of playing 2 out of 3 columns, you will win less on those 60% than you will lose on the 40%, making it better to fold the worst of your losers (Q64 and under). If you'd rather not fold, no problem. You'll win about 3 of every 5 hands, and you'll be giving the casino about 5 cents more of every dollar you bet than you would if you played smartly. But yes, you will win more hands.
February 7th, 2012 at 4:27:53 AM
permalink
Quote: QikGT
Don't bother responding if you are NOT going to respond with the edge % of player A & player B. And don't bother explaining the payout , because that is not what this question is about.
Uhoh, here I am responding without telling you the edge % of player A. Geez, lighten up.
February 7th, 2012 at 4:53:53 AM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOIm ok at math. Captain of my high school math team. ( I got to wear the coveted number pi). Perfect 800 on math achievement test. 4th place in NYC math competition. Sooooo.... if the 70% figure is correct.... the dealer wont qualify 30% of the time. So 30% of the time a hand will be j high or worse. So 9% of the time you will both have j high or worse (an approximation because if you know 3 cards are out and are j high or worse then the remaining 49 cards a re 'rich' in higher cards). And half of the time you both don't 'qualify' you would have had a worse hand than the dealer, but will now win because the dealer is forfeiting. So if 70% is correct, then you will win approximately 54.5% of the time.
Can't YOU read? This is the answer to your question. approximately 54.5%
But seriously, no one here works for you. You are asking people a FAVOR to help you out. I can assure you berating the forum members who do not answer exactly as you like will not engender future positive responses to your questions. I already told you, if you give us a clue as to WHY you are asking a question it is more likely we can help you out.
February 7th, 2012 at 7:49:20 AM
permalink
SOOPOO is right.
The dealer qualifies on 69.5% of hands. You will win about 54.49% of the time. That doesn't matter though because you are risking 2 units to win 1. That's where the house advantage comes in. On average you will lose 0.06639 units (HA 6.639%). Note that I am assuming two independent decks.
The fact is that when you raise blindly with a non qualified hand (J high or less), you will on average, lose 1.08778 units. That's because you win 1 unit 6,720 / 22,100 of the time but lose 2 units 15,380 22,100 of the time. When you throw in an unqualified hand, you lose 1 unit.
On average then, you will lose an extra unit about every twelve unqualified hands. On a 4 hour 3 card session, you will see about 120 hands. On average, you will have 36 unqualified hands which will cost you, on average 3 units by using this betting strategy. On a single session then, you are probably within the variance to believe that betting blind is helpful. There will be a few times when the dealer flops more than the average non-qualifiers leading you to believe that betting blind is the right way to go. And perhaps, for that session, it would have been. But hindsight is 20/20.
The dealer qualifies on 69.5% of hands. You will win about 54.49% of the time. That doesn't matter though because you are risking 2 units to win 1. That's where the house advantage comes in. On average you will lose 0.06639 units (HA 6.639%). Note that I am assuming two independent decks.
The fact is that when you raise blindly with a non qualified hand (J high or less), you will on average, lose 1.08778 units. That's because you win 1 unit 6,720 / 22,100 of the time but lose 2 units 15,380 22,100 of the time. When you throw in an unqualified hand, you lose 1 unit.
On average then, you will lose an extra unit about every twelve unqualified hands. On a 4 hour 3 card session, you will see about 120 hands. On average, you will have 36 unqualified hands which will cost you, on average 3 units by using this betting strategy. On a single session then, you are probably within the variance to believe that betting blind is helpful. There will be a few times when the dealer flops more than the average non-qualifiers leading you to believe that betting blind is the right way to go. And perhaps, for that session, it would have been. But hindsight is 20/20.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 17th, 2012 at 8:33:32 PM
permalink
You can only shift the odds to AP by removing your bet knowing the dealer qualifies, and you don't.
There is a way... and its NOT legal.
There is a way... and its NOT legal.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:03:29 PM
permalink
Eliminating this phrase from my vocabulary has had a profound effect on my wallet.Quote: 98ClubsYou can only...
March 5th, 2012 at 11:51:59 AM
permalink
Figured I would post this here as it is a 3-card question. I'm going to the Horseshoe in Hammond Wednesday and (unfortunately) most of my group prefer to play 3-card rather than Craps or Blackjack. I read over the Wizard's strategy page, and just wanted to confirm that I had the optimal strategy correct.
1) Never play PairPlus (even at the most favorable pay table)
2) Play for a raise if you have a Q-6-4 or better, otherwise fold.
Is this correct?
1) Never play PairPlus (even at the most favorable pay table)
2) Play for a raise if you have a Q-6-4 or better, otherwise fold.
Is this correct?
March 5th, 2012 at 12:22:42 PM
permalink
1) Depending on the paytable the PairPlus can have a smaller element of risk than the main bet. If you're betting the best paytable at $5/hand your expected loss is only around $5 an hour. It really adds something to the game unlike most sidebets. If you're going to minimum bet the whole time then I guess you should avoid the PairPlus. Personally, I'd much rather bet $5 on the PairPlus and Ante than $10 on the Ante alone.
2) Yup, that's it.
2) Yup, that's it.
March 5th, 2012 at 12:39:26 PM
permalink
the wizard's advice seems to assume that you will not see the favorable paytable on the PairPlus.
if you do get it, I agree with PopCan. My last chance to play, I debated about this quite a bit. I decided under no circumstances sit there and play for more than a few hands. I would play the PairPlus only and not the other! but when it came down to my chances the paytable was not the favorable one, and I wound up not playing 3 card poker at all.
if you do get it, I agree with PopCan. My last chance to play, I debated about this quite a bit. I decided under no circumstances sit there and play for more than a few hands. I would play the PairPlus only and not the other! but when it came down to my chances the paytable was not the favorable one, and I wound up not playing 3 card poker at all.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 5th, 2012 at 4:34:43 PM
permalink
Yep, I was planning on betting the minimum the entire time. Only looking to survive until I can convince someone to play blackjack with me. Thanks.
March 8th, 2012 at 10:05:54 AM
permalink
Update: The 3 card table at Hammond had PairPlus Pay Table 8 (7.1% house advantage) as well as the 6 card bonus bet (15.28% house advantage). 80% (at least) of the hands I saw, people played both of these bets. This obviously helped me stick to my guns and play only the ante and raise. Didn't have a good time, as I was ostracized by most of the table when I "would've won" on the PairPlus but wasn't betting it (particularly when I was dealt 3 kings). Very slow paced in my opinion, which I liked. I'll definitely play this next time I go to Vegas. What are the standard minimums in Vegas?
March 8th, 2012 at 10:33:18 AM
permalink
You can find $10 3 card poker everywhere but the highest end places where you can most definitely find $15. (Busy nights might creep this up $5) The problem is that your house edge is way too high for what is pretty much an even money bet.
The pairplus may be a sucker bet, but at least you can win 40x your bet. If I'm playing an even money game to get a good bet, I'm playing craps, bj, bac. If I'm playing an even money game to let my money last I'm playing Pai Gow Tiles/Poker. TCP doesn't really have any positives.
The pairplus may be a sucker bet, but at least you can win 40x your bet. If I'm playing an even money game to get a good bet, I'm playing craps, bj, bac. If I'm playing an even money game to let my money last I'm playing Pai Gow Tiles/Poker. TCP doesn't really have any positives.
March 8th, 2012 at 10:52:25 AM
permalink
I will sort of echo Fins. if I am playing a game to bet hard its BJ or Spanish 21. If I want to socialize and gamble it's Pai Gow Poker. If I am looking for a nice longshot hit its 3CP, 4CP or even UTH. I will not play the carnival games unless I am ready to play all the high house edge bonuses because that is the only way to make real money at those games, in the short run. Since I am a recreational gambler all of my sessions are short run. I would rather play the extra 5 bucks on a high house bonus and play a half or an hour less than to not play it and have a million dollar hand staring at me that I can not collect on. I think I would throw up if that happened.
March 8th, 2012 at 11:36:16 AM
permalink
Though i generally avoid carnival games,
I will on occasion play 3CP if i see a sloppy dealer.
I love it when people get pissy with me for not playing the pair plus.
I keep count of all my won/lost hand counts and can instantly tell them how far DOWN
I would still be even if I had been playing the pair plus.
It usually shuts them up.
Sometimes when someone busts out of the table I like to ask
"how did that pair plus bet work out for you?"
I will on occasion play 3CP if i see a sloppy dealer.
I love it when people get pissy with me for not playing the pair plus.
I keep count of all my won/lost hand counts and can instantly tell them how far DOWN
I would still be even if I had been playing the pair plus.
It usually shuts them up.
Sometimes when someone busts out of the table I like to ask
"how did that pair plus bet work out for you?"
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
March 8th, 2012 at 12:27:54 PM
permalink
For the recreational gambler, playing the PP is probably a "good" bet. High-variance wagers are more exciting, have a higher chance of producing a large win, etc. If you're going to give money away anyway, the extra couple of percent on your $10 wager at 45 rounds/hour (if your game is fast, consider switching to a slower table) won't amount to much in the grand scheme of things, but you'll feel like more of a hot shot when you hit a straight flush. Playing optimal BS at 3CP (no PP, 1/4/5 paytable on the ante, Q64+) is still -0.0337 (less if there's a 10:1 mini royal), so there's nothing to get too excited about when playing the game "correctly" anyway.
March 8th, 2012 at 11:09:48 PM
permalink
I would note the following vigorish payments = $10 * 1.675 ave. bet * House Edge%
Apply to Ante/Raise (as above)
Apply to Pairs Plus (using 1.000 as ave. bet)
If Ante = Pair Plus the lesser "donation" to the house can be the Pair Plus alone, but not if using the stingy 7% rate.
Which is precisely why the Pair Plus bet stinks.
Apply to Ante/Raise (as above)
Apply to Pairs Plus (using 1.000 as ave. bet)
If Ante = Pair Plus the lesser "donation" to the house can be the Pair Plus alone, but not if using the stingy 7% rate.
Which is precisely why the Pair Plus bet stinks.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
May 8th, 2015 at 5:32:27 AM
permalink
Finally a new vision has arose for Table games.
Using the popular three card poker game as a platform a new table game crazy joker three card poker has been developed.
Using the popular three card poker game as a platform a new table game crazy joker three card poker has been developed.
May 8th, 2015 at 6:38:25 AM
permalink
Does anyone know what all this stuff says? I can't read.
May 8th, 2015 at 6:51:03 AM
permalink
Quote: crazyJokerFinally a new vision has arose for Table games.
Using the popular three card poker game as a platform a new table game crazy joker three card poker has been developed.
http://crazyjokergaming.com/
http://crazyjokergaming.com/videos/
You should take out the sound on opening the site. Very bad decision.
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
