In 3 card poker if one person were playing heads up against the dealer would they have better odds of getting a flush then if there were 5 other players.

My rationale is in a 52 card deck there are 13 cards of each of the four suits ( ie ♥️ ♠️ ♦️ And clubs).

If you and the dealer are only ones wouldn’t your odds of getting a flush be better?

Quote:larrye5012Question:

In 3 card poker if one person were playing heads up against the dealer would they have better odds of getting a flush then if there were 5 other players.

My rationale is in a 52 card deck there are 13 cards of each of the four suits ( ie ♥️ ♠️ ♦️ And clubs).

If you and the dealer are only ones wouldn’t your odds of getting a flush be better?

Compare you playing alone vs with 4 other people.

What’s the difference as to whether those 12 cards are in other players hands or in the tray ?

With four players and a dealer, dealer gets 20% of the blackjacks.

Actually, when playing with 3 other players, 80% of blackjacks go to ‘someone else’.Quote:billryanI have a friend who refuses to play BJ at non crowded tables. His "logic" is that one on one, dealer gets about half the of the blackjack.

With four players and a dealer, dealer gets 20% of the blackjacks.

On the other hand, you burn thru more cards, which means you should still get a BJ at around the same rate, no matter how many players there are.

Quote:billryanI have a friend who refuses to play BJ at non crowded tables. His "logic" is that one on one, dealer gets about half the of the blackjack.

With four players and a dealer, dealer gets 20% of the blackjacks.

The dealer will always expect to get the same number of blackjacks as any one player. It shouldn't make any difference what happens to the other players.

Another way of looking at is the players will get 80% of blackjacks at a four-player table, but you'll get only 25% of those, for 0.8*0.25 = 20% of the blackjacks, the same percentage the dealer gets.

Quote:WizardThe dealer will always expect to get the same number of blackjacks as any one player. It shouldn't make any difference what happens to the other players.

Another way of looking at is the players will get 80% of blackjacks at a four-player table, but you'll get only 25% of those, for 0.8*0.25 = 20% of the blackjacks, the same percentage the dealer gets.

And all these years I thought he had a point.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Quote:gamerfreakI *believe* the only situations where the number of players can effect a player’s edge (beyond HPH or penetration) is when banking in Baccarat, PGP, or Tiles.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

That is certainly true about games where the player can bank. This is so negligible I probably shouldn't bring it up, but in single-deck blackjack it is beneficial to have a high number of players, enough so that the number of hands dealt per deck is fixed, probably at two hands per player per deck. This is because the cut card effect is negated. The house edge is slightly less if the number of hands dealt per round is constant, as with a continuous shuffler. Since almost every single deck game is 6-5, this really isn't worth discussing.