Help me solve a major 3 card argument

First time poster! With a 6 deck table of 3 card poker where Q high qualifies dealer, is there a better chance of the dealer NOT qualifying if there are more players at the table than just one on one versus dealer and why? This is a major argument in our house right now. Help!

It could fluctuate as cards are removed from the shoe, but with respect to the first hand of the shoe, the probability of the dealer qualifying doesn’t change regardless of how many players there are.

If you don't know the cards at the time you make the decision, then it doesn't matter if the unseen cards are in the stub, in other players hands, on the floor, in the bathroom, or in the bowels of the Balrog.

So is it better odds versus dealer to play with more players or one on one?

It makes no difference, unless you’re colluding. Although, I’d be very surprised if there were any composition dependent decisions on the first hand of a six deck shoe.

But after the first hand is it better to be at a table with more players? I am just not getting this concept. My argument is that there are a certain number of Qs available.. if those chances (say 10 to keep it easy) are split by 5 people (20 percent chance to get one) versus two(50 percent chance to get one) isn’t there a better chance the dealer won’t have one with more people at the table??

Quote: Beelink

...With a 6 deck table of 3 card poker where Q high qualifies dealer...

I thought 3 card poker was always dealt from 1 deck.

Is this a hypothetical 3 card poker game with its being dealt from a shoe of 6 decks?

Or did you mean to type "6 spot" table?

There's only one deck of cards in 3 card poker and only one game per deck, so there's no such thing as entering after the first hand.

The probability of the dealer's hand is independent of the number of hands. Every game, you randomly choose 3 cards from a deck of 52 for the dealer hand. The distribution of hands never changes.

There are also cards in the deck that are bad for the dealer, by your same logic, the dealer would be less likely to have those.

The truth is the deck composition is whatever it is. Each participant gets three cards. The dealer could deal to himself first, last, in the middle, one card then two, two cards th n one...none of it matters.

Ultimately, the deck is of a certain composition and the dealer gets three cards. Nobody knows if the cards they are taking, “Helped,” or, “Hurt,” the dealer until after the fact. To wit, if six players all got jacks or lower with no straights or flushes, they have, “Helped,” the dealer tremendously.

Quote: CrystalMath

There's only one deck of cards in 3 card poker and only one game per deck, so there's no such thing as entering after the first hand.

I thought that, too. However, I could see where a casino might deal from a shoe to save time. Cut off two decks, or so, why not?

Quote: Mission146

I thought that, too. However, I could see where a casino might deal from a shoe to save time. Cut off two decks, or so, why not?

Why not? Well, the odds of getting trips or a three card straight flush are a lot greater with multiple decks than with a single deck. The whole math of the game would have to be rewritten

I don't no know what people are complaining about. The answer to this question is: It doesn't matter if there is one player or multiple players, the odds in every aspect are the same.

Essentially, it comes down to this -- do you think the odds change if the dealer is given cards #4, #5, and #6 versus the dealer being given cards #13, #14, and #15? If you think the odds are different, why? Do you think cards deeper in the deck are "better" than the ones earlier in the deck? And why are those cards better or more likely to show up in a deck? Every card is equally as likely to show up anywhere in the deck (assuming a proper and random shuffle).

Quote: FCBLComish

Why not? Well, the odds of getting trips or a three card straight flush are a lot greater with multiple decks than with a single deck. The whole math of the game would have to be rewritten

That’s true, but I’d imagine you could just change the paytable accordingly. The math on it would be fairly easy.

Quote: Beelink

So is it better odds versus dealer to play with more players or one on one?

The odds are no different... but might be better for one to play at a busy table so they lose slower.

(1) If the game was a single deck 3-card poker game
(a) if you only knew your three cards the percentages would be a per the par values
(b) If you additionally knew how others had acted (folded or played) then some might be raising with a pair or better, while others might be playing Axx, Kxx or Qxx. There might be a minor implication but I doubt it matters very much.
(c) If you additionally knew all the cards all the players had, then best of luck constructing a strategy, but there could be some borderline cases where you fold or play where you wouldn't without the info. There might be some small advantages but I don't know.
I did analyze a different 3-card game once, however the game was something like Aces and suits being important, so knowledge of other hands were very significant (it took about ten player's information to have an advantage). In 3-card poker A,K and Qs are important but also if there are less of these it makes small pairs more likely. In 5-card poker, where AKxxx qualifies, then knowledge of these or cards matching the dealer's upcard do change some borderline AKxxx decisions.
(2) If the game was multi deck 3-card poker, the payouts would need to be different for the side bets, but it is unlikely you'd have enough information to turn a profit. except in rare cases.

This board is great at making the simplest question complicated.

If all cards are face down and no one is cheating, it never matters how many people are playing at a table for the main bet of any casino game.

The odds never change. The dealer gets three cards. Whether these cards are cards 4, 5 and 6 out of the deck or 19, 20, 21 doesn't matter.

Quote: Beelink

But after the first hand is it better to be at a table with more players? I am just not getting this concept.

at 1st read, what you mean by 'better'?
is this it?
"isn’t there a better chance the dealer won’t have one with more people at the table?"
and one = a Queen

Quote: Beelink

My argument is that there are a certain number of Qs available..

but why just a Q?
IS this game some funky rule game?

at 3CP to qualify, Dealer needs a Queen or higher, is that not correct?

the number of players getting cards has nothing to do with what the Dealer gets, even when 6 deck without replacement is used.
this is easily simulated (yeah, I did)
and made no difference

unless I did not understand what you are after.
as pointed out, the probability does change with card removal
but more players means more chances that out of X players and a dealer at least 1 Q is drawn.

less players means less chances that out of X players and a dealer at least 1 Q is drawn.

but this is so confusing
NFL is on
Sally

Quote: FinsRule

This board is great at making the simplest question complicated.

If all cards are face down and no one is cheating, it never matters how many people are playing at a table for the main bet of any casino game.

Technically that's not completely true.

5-card poker.
In 5-card poker some borderline situations could occur where you had AKxxx depending on your xxx's and whether one of them matches the dealer. If you are playing with others and the information you have is that they all wait a while and then call you have the information that they have a calling hand. Thus there is a chance one of them has an AK so in a borderline case you call. Conversely if they all fold you should fold close decisions. No-one cheated or looked at each other cards, you just used chances based on other people's decisions.

Face down Blackjack (e.g. single deck)
A similar logic applies to Blackjack (say single deck), you are better off at third base even if you don't see any cards, as you know everyone has stood so (against an high card) they must have had 17 or more which probably includes a picture.

This post pretty much proves the first part of my post. Never ask a question on here.

If you are depending on the intelligence of other Caribbean Stud players to make your decision, I think you're screwed.

For face down blackjack, you're also depending on their intelligence. So give me an example of a situation when you would make a different decision based on other people's face down hands, and let me know how much that takes off the house edge.

I'm assuming you're not going to do that. But let's say for the sake of the argument that it does shave one ten thousandth of a percent off the house edge. Is that really worth a whole thread?

This board needs a de minimis rule.

Quote: FinsRule

This post pretty much proves the first part of my post. Never ask a question on here.

If you are depending on the intelligence of other Caribbean Stud players to make your decision, I think you're screwed.

For face down blackjack, you're also depending on their intelligence. So give me an example of a situation when you would make a different decision based on other people's face down hands, and let me know how much that takes off the house edge.

I'm assuming you're not going to do that. But let's say for the sake of the argument that it does shave one ten thousandth of a percent off the house edge. Is that really worth a whole thread?

This board needs a de minimis rule.

To be clear, without knowledge of other player cards or dealer cards, your odds do not change based on the number of players playing.

And if you are you to play advantage play and you are not gaining knowledge via holecarding or some other dealer tell where you can get a clear edge, then none of the carnival games make any sense to play. Knowledge of other people's hands would hardly make a dent on HE as there are too many possibilities in the dealer's hand for the HE to change appreciably. The only exception to this might be PGP as on some hands, knowledge that the dealer cannot have an Ace and or Ace / King can be helpful in situations in setting your hand.