Ask the Slot Expert: My take on Three Card Poker

Question: What is your take on Three Card Poker?

It seems like a game that seems to be one a lot of people play. The tables seem to be full.

Answer: I usually stay in my lane and stick to writing about slots and video poker, but I'll give you my thoughts on Three Card Poker.

Three Card Poker was created by Derek Webb, an international poker player, in 1994. He wanted to develop a game that took the best parts of Caribbean Stud and Let It Ride and was faster to play. He also wanted to structure the game so that players would make the three bets available to them more frequently than on those two games. Three Card Poker could then have a lower house edge. The operator would also make win more money despite the lower edge because players would bet more.

Those two combined features [faster play, more bets] meant that it could go with a lower house advantage than either of those games, and at the same time, create a higher win for the operator. So, in effect, you're serving both sides of the table better than what was already out there.

[Interview in Global Gaming Business]

Playing Three Card Poker: First, players place their Ante and/or PairPlus bets. Then the dealer deals three cards to each player and himself face down.

After looking at their cards, players who made the Ante bet must either fold or raise. If they fold, they lose their Ante bet. If they raise, they place an additional bet equal to their Ante in the Play box.

Now the dealer turns over his cards. The dealer needs queen high to qualify. If the dealer does not qualify, then Ante bets win even money and Play bets push.

If the dealer qualifies, then each player's hand is compared against the dealer's. The higher hand wins. The hand order is: straight flush, three of a kind, straight, flush, pair, high card.

The Ante and Play bets are paid off just the way you'd expect. If the player has the higher hand, Ante and Play pay even money. If the dealer has the higher hand, both bets lose. If the player and dealer tie, both bets push.

The Pairplus wager is paid according to the paytable printed on the felt. This bet is decided separately from the competition with the dealer's hand.

Some casinos offer a bonus on the Ante bet based on some combination of the player's hand; whether the player won, lost or tied; and whether the dealer qualified.

There are many other variations described on the Wizard's site.

Webb said that Three Card Poker incorporates aspects of Caribbean Stud and Let It Ride. It also combines aspects of blackjack and video poker. Like blackjack, players play against the dealer. And like video poker, players play against a paytable.

I have yet to see any new table game offer a house edge similar to those of blackjack or craps. The new table games don't require much, if any, skill to play. In many cases they're like a slot machine -- your only decision is how much to bet.

Three Card Poker is no exception. Looking over the various paytables on the Wizard's site, the house edge ranges from about 3% to 7% on the various bets and paytables.

According to the Wizard, the optimal strategy for Ante and Play is to raise only if you have queen/6/4 or better. (That is, what's your high card? If it's king or ace, raise. If it's jack or lower, fold. If it's a queen, what's your second highest card? If it's 7 or higher, raise. If it's 5 or lower, fold. If it's a 6, look at your last card. If it's 4 or greater, raise, otherwise fold.

My take is that if you're looking to minimize house edge, the casino probably has video poker machines that have much lower house edges. But if you're looking for a game that doesn't require much brain power and gives you a chance to socialize with the dealer and the other players, Three Card Poker is a good choice.

Derek Webb, Global Gaming Business
Three Card Poker, wizardofodds.com
Three Card Poker, Wikipedia

I want to clear some more items that have collected in my rant folder.

On Bill Maher's 02/04/22 show:

Bill Maher: Biden said, "You're not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations." [Town hall on 7/21/21]

I already knew that was wrong then and now we all do.

On Maher's 04/08/22 show:

David Leonhardt: The vaccines work incredibly well.

Bill Maher: Well, not in the what they said they would work for. Half. They stop you from dying. Let's be happy about that. Let's not get it wrong. They were telling us they would stop infection and they would stop transmission. They didn't do that.

DL: Delta changed that.

So, if Leonhardt is right and the delta variant "changed that", then pre-delta the vaccines did prevent some infections and transmissions.

The Commonwealth Fund recently published an estimate of the effects of the vaccines: "Through March 2022, we estimate that COVID-19 vaccination efforts in the U.S. prevented over 2 million deaths and 17 million hospitalizations (Table 1). There would have been an estimated 66 million additional infections and nearly $900 billion in associated health care costs in the absence of vaccination." (Impact of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccination Efforts: An Update on Averted Deaths, Hospitalizations, and Health Care Costs Through March 2022)

"Before the emergence of the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), vaccination reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from vaccinated persons who became infected, potentially by reducing viral loads. Although vaccination still lowers the risk of infection, similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons who are infected with the delta variant call into question the degree to which vaccination prevents transmission." Effect of Covid-19 Vaccination on Transmission of Alpha and Delta Variants

The bottom line is that the vaccine may not prevent you from being infected, but it does prevent some people from being infected and, unfortunately, the vaccines are less effective at preventing infection with the new variants.

On Maher's 04/08/22 show:

David Leonhardt: What does it mean to take it [Covid] seriously enough? Does it mean to keep kids out of school for months at a time -- which we did -- even though they were at very low risk? I don't think it does.

Before we had vaccines and treatments, the only thing we could do was to try to prevent the spread. Kids may be at low risk, but their teachers, other school employees, and parents are not.

Furthermore, if kids tend to have mild or asymptomatic cases, parents would send them to school, where they could spread the infection like pint-size Typhoid Mary's. The fact that kids had mild cases might be one of the best reasons to close schools to lessen the spread.

DL: Does it mean to wear masks even though if you're not wearing a KN95 or N95 mask, they have vanishingly little effect.

I don't know what number qualifies as "vanishing little". A study (Effectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use in Indoor Public Settings for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Infection — California, February–December 2021) by the California Department of Public Health agrees that xN95 respirators are best, but says that other types of masks have more than "vanishingly little effect."

The findings of this report reinforce that in addition to being up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, consistently wearing face masks or respirators while in indoor public settings protects against the acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection (9,10). This highlights the importance of improving access to high-quality masks to ensure access is not a barrier to use. Using a respirator offers the highest level of protection from acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection, although it is most important to wear a well-fitting mask or respirator that is comfortable and can be used consistently.

Back to another statement from David Leonhardt:

If we kept every kid in America home for the next month from school, would we reduce Covid cases? Yes, we would.

Didn't he just justify closing schools before we had vaccines and treatments when the only thing we could do was to reduce the spread?

David Leonhardt: I'm sure you remember when they told us don't wear masks because we need to keep them for the people who are in the hospitals, right?

Then on Maher's 04/22/22 show:

Caitlin Flanagan: CDC said better not wear a mask because you'll trap the Covid close to your face and you'll die instantly that way.

I remember hearing something like this, but it didn't come from people who knew what they were talking about. I wasn't able to find anything online from the CDC saying that a mask will trap Covid close to your face and you would die instantly. I rate this statement a lie.

CF: They were just lying. They were just trying to save the masks.

And then they're like, why have you lost faith in America's institutions?

Well, because you lied to us at a really scary time and we could have handled the truth.

It is true that Dr. Redfield, former CDC director, said that you didn't need to wear a mask unless you were sick or caring for someone who is sick. After we found out how prevalent asymptomatic infection was, the guidance changed. (CDC: An about face on face masks?)

It is also true that Jerome Adams, the former surgeon general, tweeted on 02/29/20: "Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"

The primary goal of his tweet was to ensure that masks were available to healthcare providers. Around that time, I tried to buy antiseptic wipes but couldn't find any locally. I ordered some from Amazon, but the order ended up being canceled because I wasn't a healthcare institution.

To quote Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, "You can't handle the truth."

Let's play out a few scenarios, Caitlin. The CDC recommends medical-grade masks for everyone, but asks that we hold off on buying them until the supply is increased to ensure that healthcare providers have them.

How many people will wait? Won't thousands and thousands of people just think that the dozen or so masks they're taking won't really affect the supply for healthcare workers?

Or this scenario: The CDC recommends masks but sales are restricted to healthcare institutions until there is more supply. What's the sense of recommending something people can't do?

I still come to the conclusion that I made the best recommendation I could to the American people based on the information that I had in the circumstances that were taking place at the time.

The WHO and the CDC were saying the same thing that I was saying, so the science supported me. We knew that supplies weren't there for health care workers, so there was a further crisis being created because of hoarding of masks. And we didn't have the information that we needed from China about asymptomatic spread.

The fact is, once that information trickled out of China and we then knew that it might be helpful for people to wear masks, we changed those recommendations. That's how science is supposed to work.

Former U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams calls for masking 'compassion'

Many people are using knowledge gained only recently to criticize yesterday's decisions.

Click here for the latest Covid data.