4 Card Split at Suncoast Casino, Vegas

I played “4 Card Split” at Suncoast. No one has written about this game on the forum yet. There is a rack cad for the game; I don’t know the house edge.

It’s really fun. Most players here were retirees and everyone seemed to have a great time.

The game seems to have Blackjack, 3 Card Poker and Pai Gow elements. There are 3 mandatory bets: one 4-Card Blind and two 3 card Antes:

* 4-Card-Blind: it’s a mandatory side bet, like Royal Match in Blackjack or Fortune in Fortune Pai Gow, paying a bonus on player’s 4 hole cards. I was told some one hit 4-card Royal the day right after it opened, paid 500 to 1

* 3-card Ante: player splits 4 cards into 2 hands and gets additional hit card(s), like blackjack, to play 2 hands of 3-card-poker. Player gets paid on Natural (3-card flush or higher) with odds. This behaves like getting a blackjack in 21. When the final 3-card poker wins with flush or better, player wins multiples on Ante.

I played the day after it opened. I hope to write up a page on the game early next week.

That sounds simple enough yet still fun. I'd play it. Good luck to you.

Quote: kobalj

That sounds simple enough yet still fun. I'd play it. Good luck to you.

Simple enough? 2 ante bets and a forced blind "side bet." It seems more and more new casino games involve 9 side bets all the dealers will push you to play since "that's where the money's at." A $10 table quickly becomes a $50/hand table when you have all of these antes/blinds/side bets.

The game the OP is referring to sounds "interesting" at least. It doesn't sound simple, but it sounds fun.

Quote: Romes

Simple enough? 2 ante bets and a forced blind "side bet." It seems more and more new casino games involve 9 side bets all the dealers will push you to play since "that's where the money's at." A $10 table quickly becomes a $50/hand table when you have all of these antes/blinds/side bets.

The game the OP is referring to sounds "interesting" at least. It doesn't sound simple, but it sounds fun.

I agree.

In Vegas, on the strip, Casino War, High Card Flush, 3 Card Poker are winners; But local players like games with some simple strategies. Two different market segments.

Quote: RoyalBJ

I played “4 Card Split” at Suncoast. No one has written about this game on the forum yet. There is a rack cad for the game; I don’t know the house edge.

It’s really fun. Most players here were retirees and everyone seemed to have a great time.

The game seems to have Blackjack, 3 Card Poker and Pai Gow elements. There are 3 mandatory bets: one 4-Card Blind and two 3 card Antes:

* 4-Card-Blind: it’s a mandatory side bet, like Royal Match in Blackjack or Fortune in Fortune Pai Gow, paying a bonus on player’s 4 hole cards. I was told some one hit 4-card Royal the day right after it opened, paid 500 to 1

* 3-card Ante: player splits 4 cards into 2 hands and gets additional hit card(s), like blackjack, to play 2 hands of 3-card-poker. Player gets paid on Natural (3-card flush or higher) with odds. This behaves like getting a blackjack in 21. When the final 3-card poker wins with flush or better, player wins multiples on Ante.

Neither Fortune Pai Gow or Royal Match are mandatory though.

I think I reviewed this one about a year or year and a half ago. I really like it.

Found it:

Quote: ZCore13

4 Card Split

I think this game might have made the top 3 had they been able to enter the game into the competition. The owner said that he got the math back and wanted to enter the competition after the date allowed for entrants.

4 Card Split is basically Three Card Poker with a bunch of twists. To start you place 2 antes and a blind bet. You are then dealt 4 cards and the dealer is dealt 4 cards, with one of the dealers 4 cards face up for all to see. You now decide how you want to play your 4 cards into 2 different Three Card Poker hands. You can put 3 in one hand and 1 in another or split them 2 and 2. If you make a 3 card hand of a flush or better you don't even have to play against the dealer with that hand, it's an automatic winner on the Blind Bet and your Ante is pushed back to you for that hand. No dealer qualifying or comparing to their hand. You can then play your second hand with the one remaining card or fold you ante. My guess is if your card is a face card and the dealers up card is lower it should be played.

The odds paid on the Blind bet are:

Flush - 2:1
Straight - 2:1 (which I would probably want to raise to 3-1 and lower one of the higher payments to compensate if I could)
3 of a Kind - 8:1
Straight Flush - 15:1
Royal Flush - 40:1

If there is not a 3 card winning hand right off the bat you then choose to play or fold your hands. To play you match your ante wager with a raise wager of equal amount. To fold you discard one to 3 cards and lose your ante. Any hand that you play will receive the amount of cards you need to make a Three Card Poker hand. One of the interesting things I found about this game was that if you are dealt a hand of let's say A, Q, J, 5 (rainbow), against an up card of a Q for the dealer, how do you play it? Keep the Ace Queen Jack and have a really good chance of winning one hand but folding the other, or keep just the Ace or Ace Five and have a strong second hand of Queen Jack. It seemed to me there is a lot of player choice, which players like.
After you decide on which, if any, hands you will play and receive the cards to create your final hand, the dealer then exposes the rest of their hand and makes a Three Card Poker hand. Queen high qualifies and the hand is compared to players hands just like Three Card Poker, with ante and raise bets being paid even money on wins.

If I had a bigger Pit I would seriously consider this game. I'm struggling right now thinking I could replace Three Card Poker with this game and save a lot of money on the monthly lease and still have a very good Three Card game. The question is does a Pit need Three Card Poker just for the name recognition alone to grab novice Table Games players and die hard Three Card Poker players? To me this is a better game (as are a few other versions that have come out after the original) than Three Card Poker. The dilemmas of being the boss.

ZCore13

Quote: Hittem

Neither Fortune Pai Gow or Royal Match are mandatory though.

I meant to say the "behavior" is like Fortune in Fortune Pai Gow, looking at all 4 cards to decide the payout, regardless of how one splits his cards into 2 hands.

May be I should have compared the 4-Card Blind to the mandatory BLIND bet in UTH or Crazy 4.

I think being "interesting" is critical to casinos. It matters to drops.

Wizard will write about it next week, so details are coming.

The rules are a bit different from what Zcore described. I think it's an updated version, same mechanics though.

Okay, please be among the first to visit my new page on 4 Card Split.

As always, I welcome questions, comments, and especially corrections.

Saw one item to be corrected:

Under Strategy:

First, you want to bet as little as possible on the 4 Card Split bet. <= it is called the "4 Card Blind" bet.

Wizard,

According to the rack card, it says that you would accept the, "Instant Winner," payout with a three-card hand, otherwise fold. The way I understand that, it would basically mean that there is no way to form a Three-Card non-instant winner hand that would be in accordance with Optimal Strategy. As a result, lacking an instant winner, the cards would always be split 2-2. Am I understanding that correctly?

Given that such is the case, any hand that is on the hierarchy of Two-Card Raise hands would have an expected value (after the Raise) greater than -1 unit, because if not, the correct decision would be to fold.

That being the case, it might be simply a matter of determining the Expected Value of each hand on the Two-Card Raise hierarchy against every possible dealer up card. At that point, one might look at the combined value of both hands for a Two-Card Raise as opposed to keeping one hand and folding the other.

For example, if you had the hand A-A-Q-10 (no Flush opportunity for the sake of argument) and you were up against a Dealer King, then you could theoretically go A-A + FOLD or you could go A-Q + A-10, so then that is where the combined value of the hand would come into play against knowing a Dealer has a King as well as three random cards (but not the ones you have).

In that situation, both A-Q and A-10 have an Expected Value greater than -1, or they would not be raise hands. However, the question is might they have a worse combined Expected Value than keeping the Aces and folding the Q-10? Shooting from the hip, I'd be inclined to keep the Aces and fold Q-10.

Otherwise, if there is only the potential to create one Two-Card hand that would be in accordance with the hierarchy, then it goes without saying that the player would make the best hand possible in accordance with the hierarchy of hands. On a hand like K-10-10-6 against a dealer King, keeping the pair of Tens is nothing short of obvious.

Assuming I am reading into that Three-Card fold statement correctly, then the only thing there would be to analyze (from a strategy perspective) is the situations in which a player could potentially make TWO Raise hands, and then to decide under what conditions it is better to make a higher hand on the hierarchy and fold the other hand as opposed to playing both the Raise hands.

All of that is obviously way above my pay grade, but I think that those would be suitable assumptions from which to start.

Quote: Mission146

...there is no way to form a Three-Card non-instant winner hand that would be in accordance with Optimal Strategy...

I would guess that if you had A 9 6 3 offsuit then against some upcards you're probably better off just keeping the Ace and ditching 963, whereas if you need A-10 to play then you're folding both in any case,

Quote: charliepatrick

I would guess that if you had A 9 6 3 offsuit then against some upcards you're probably better off just keeping the Ace and ditching 963, whereas if you need A-10 to play then you're folding both in any case,

Yes, I was just going to make such a comment. I agree that an expected value table of each hand would help in the splitting strategy. However, how many people are actually going to use it at the table?

The analysis of the 4 Card Blind bet uses the Ante paytable. And that 4 card blind paytable just doesn't look right. 4 Card Royal and you only get 30 to 1???

Quote: Wizard

Yes, I was just going to make such a comment. I agree that an expected value table of each hand would help in the splitting strategy. However, how many people are actually going to use it at the table?

I absolutely would, if you're going to give me a game that has a better HE than most Blackjack games if I play it right, then I definitely want to play it right!

With respect to the A963 comment from the previous post, can I take it that a player can (and would) split to 3-1 even without a made hand sometimes? On the Odds Page, it says that you would, 'Fold,' a Three-Card hand unless it was already a winner. It says, "Accept Instant Winner payout, otherwise fold." That leads me to believe that you would not play a three-card hand unless it is an instant winner...or is that just generally correct?

Quote: Mission146

With respect to the A963 comment from the previous post, can I take it that a player can (and would) split to 3-1 even without a made hand sometimes? On the Odds Page, it says that you would, 'Fold,' a Three-Card hand unless it was already a winner. It says, "Accept Instant Winner payout, otherwise fold." That leads me to believe that you would not play a three-card hand unless it is an instant winner...or is that just generally correct?

I didn't mean for it to be interpreted that way. Do others take my strategy to mean that? No, for a lousy hand like A-3-6-9 you probably would split it A/369 and then raise on the ace and fold on the 369.

Quote: Wizard

I didn't mean for it to be interpreted that way. Do others take my strategy to mean that? No, for a lousy hand like A-3-6-9 you probably would split it A/369 and then raise on the ace and fold on the 369.

If I may be so bold, I would suggest taking out the words, "Otherwise fold." That would eliminate any ambiguity while still stating that the Instant Winner Payout should be immediately accepted.

Just noticed, (1) the 3 Card Ante pay table and the 4 Card Blind pay table are reversed. (2) 3 Card Ante paytable has two columns, but same numbers. One column for Instant Winner and the other for Winning Ante.

DOA for sure.

Quote: Mission146

If I may be so bold, I would suggest taking out the words, "Otherwise fold." That would eliminate any ambiguity while still stating that the Instant Winner Payout should be immediately accepted.

Then how would the reader know what to do with a 369 in a three-card hand?

Quote: RoyalBJ

Just noticed, (1) the 3 Card Ante pay table and the 4 Card Blind pay table are reversed.

Thanks; good catch.

Quote:

(2) 3 Card Ante paytable has two columns, but same numbers. One column for Instant Winner and the other for Winning Ante.

Are you referring to the rack card? That does indeed have the same pay table for both the Ante and Instant Payout. I thought it was confusing and redundant so rephrased to rules to refer to just a single table.

It sounds an interesting game.

Quote: Wizard

...page on 4 Card Split...

Just to say that the "4 card blind pay table", assuming the values in the bet analysis are correct, has left out Trips and hence the payouts are one place wrong.

Quote: Wizard

Thanks; good catch.



Are you referring to the rack card? That does indeed have the same pay table for both the Ante and Instant Payout. I thought it was confusing and redundant so rephrased to rules to refer to just a single table.

Yes, for 3-card hands, there are Instant Winners and Winning Antes, 2 columns represent two payout tables. The only difference is that Instant Winner only pays down to flush, Winning Ante has even money payout (for any 3-card poker winner). The developer uses the same payout odds for these 2, easier for the dealers.

Since you have re-labeled the paytables, these two sentences should be reversed.

The following pay table is for the 4 Card Blind bet. All hands are based on four cards. All wins are on a "to one" basis.

The following pay table is for winning Ante bets. All hands are based on three cards. All wins are on a "to one" basis.

Quote: Wizard

Then how would the reader know what to do with a 369 in a three-card hand?

I suppose the reader wouldn't, but when it says, "Then fold," it sounds like you should never play a three-card hand unless it is an, "Instant Winner." You could have two two-card hands that still do not comprise a Three-Card hand that you would play.

I might be the only one that reads, "Otherwise fold," that way. I might have said, "Otherwise, determine whether a Three-Card hand and a One-Card hand is still superior, or if two Two-Card hands are superior."

Quote: Mission146

I might be the only one that reads, "Otherwise fold," that way. I might have said, "Otherwise, determine whether a Three-Card hand and a One-Card hand is still superior, or if two Two-Card hands are superior."

I do not endeavor to offer advice on hand splitting. Just the fold/raise decision after the split.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

DOA for sure.

I just voted "will play", again.

Quote: Wizard

Okay, please be among the first to visit my new page on 4 Card Split.

As always, I welcome questions, comments, and especially corrections.

Wizard, I recall the game was played with all cards face-up, all the time, except for the folded hands that are face-down. Collusion is allowed. However, when I was playing, every player was mostly worried about his / her own hand. I was told by the dealer, the developer claimed to have thought through these.

Quote: RoyalBJ

Wizard, I recall the game was played with all cards face-up, all the time, except for the folded hands that are face-down. Collusion is allowed. However, when I was playing, every player was mostly worried about his / her own hand. I was told by the dealer, the developer claimed to have thought through these.

When I played at the Suncoast I was by myself so don't know the policy there. However, I would expect that players would be allowed to turn their cards face up as it is a challenging game to learn and new players will have no idea what to do. How much collusion would help, I don't know. Given the thin house edge, I would be a little worried about it if I were on the dealer's side of the game.

I played the game last night. It's a lot of fun. I did not find it hard to comprehend. There were 3 older ladies on the same table; no one seemed to have any difficulties. Agree with what Wizard said, ".... once you get the hang of it, I think the player will find it interesting, challenging, and entertaining." Loving it.

I think all you have to know are

(a) almost all the time put pairs together
(b) flush is easier to hit than straight (well, straight pays more, so make your choice)
(c) playing one card hand may not be as bad as you think (you'll get two more cards). One lady hit 3-of-a-kind with one card hand.

Then wish you luck.

Good report, UCivan. What was the Min-Max spread, do you happen to recall?

Not sure what U meant by Min-Max. Let me attempt some answers. (1) The table limits were $5-$25. (2) If the dealer's upcard is Ace or King, then I would probably fold non-connected, unsuited, Queen or lower, one, two, three or even four cards. (3) Most the time, I played one card if it's a face. Sometimes, I just played any one card for fun. (4) For A369, I folded 369, played A. For A-A-2-K, I played A-A-2 and K, two separate hands.

I am sure I have not answered your question.

This is better than many new games. I like it.

Quote: UCivan

Not sure what U meant by Min-Max. Let me attempt some answers. (1) The table limits were $5-$25. (2) If the dealer's upcard is Ace or King, then I would probably fold non-connected, unsuited, Queen or lower, one, two, three or even four cards. (3) Most the time, I played one card if it's a face. Sometimes, I just played any one card for fun. (4) For A369, I folded 369, played A. For A-A-2-K, I played A-A-2 and K, two separate hands.

I am sure I have not answered your question.

You did, I wanted to know the Table Limits. I just usually call it a, "Spread," because I think the common term, 'Limit,' is a misnomer as it only really applies to the Max side. I like that A-A-2, K play, that's pretty slick. The kicker is hardly ever going to matter and you give the King two chances to pair up.

At Suncoast, the rack card shows “Winning Ante”. It lists the payouts on Ante when a player’s hand draws one or 2 cards and then wins. Lack of other interesting subjects to talks about, the dealer, players and I discussed the term, "Winning Ante". What could be another choice to describe it? It came down to these two:

(1) Draw Ante Winner
(2) Drawn Ante Winner

This could be combined with "Instant Winner" to form "Instant and Draw(n) Ante Winner". Then, there would be only one payout table.

Which one is the correct English or better? I will take a vote. Perhaps there are other better terms?

Quote: Mission146

Good report, UCivan. What was the Min-Max spread, do you happen to recall?

The minimum Ante is $5 (so total bet of $15). I think the max was a $50 Ante.

I am very certain, at least for the last week, the limits were $5-$25.

I've started looking at the game but at the moment have only done a very approximate look. For each up-card I've looked at all the hands the dealer can make (ignoring our cards) and then using that worked out whether it is worth playing various 1 and 2-card hands (again ignoring that the dealer's upcard and your discard are missing). I've actually got that you play more often.

While I accept that it's very rough, the suggestion is against a Q or lower (where there's a fair chance the dealer doesn't qualify) it's better to play one card than fold. Yes you're odds against but better to gamble than give up your ante.

(i)	any pair
(ii)	any 2-suited cards
(iii)	any open-ended connectors
(iv)	vs (Q-2), any straight draw
UpCard	2-card hands	1-card hands
A	AJ+ A3 A2	A
K	KT+	A-4
Q	K2+	any
J	K4+	any
T	K9+	any
9	K2+	any
8	K2+	any
7	K2+	any
6	Q9+	any
5	Q9+	any
4	K2+	any
3	Q4+,J6+	any
2	74+ except 92 82	any

CharlieP, I think your math is right. I often played one card when the up-card was not Ace or King. Most the time, I could beat the dealer (making pairs or getting high card). I thought I was lucky, but U have proved it was in the math.

Played 4 Card Split on Saturday night at Suncoast's... nice moderate pace to the game, decisions on splits and plays seemed comfortable. Whether I was playing optimally, I don't know, but more importantly I think players will feel like they are making the right decision and that is even more important than actually playing optimally.

I was at the table for a little over an hour, 3 other players when I arrived and they all outlasted me as I retired at midnight down 25% of my buy in. Spent some time talking with eTableGames who was onsite.

So far it looks like the game is being well received by Suncoast's mainly locals crowd.

4 Card Split continues to do very well at Suncoast. There was a wait list last Saturday.

Paradigm, are you in the photo - one player showed me the photo.

Let me guess. Paradigm is the older black lady toward the left in the photo? The one in pink, with spectacles?

<edit > admittedly, I am not a good guesser. This I know. I rarely play the lottery...

Good one 2F :-)....actually I played next to her later that night. I was not there when the crowd had formed, still playing Poker with some of the WoV Spring Fling attendees. If I recall, etablegames told me that particular player logged 3 hours before I got there that night and was still at the table when I cashed out at midnight. The game is getting fans for sure...I stepped up with 3 of the other 5 player spots filled, played for 75 minutes and the other three players were still playing when I left. Bought in for $100 cashed out for $75 so I helped with the Hold :-)....just doing my part for a fellow developer!

This game continues to be popular at Suncoast. I think your bankroll of $100 lasts a long time.