3 card poker - another interesting table game!

[najisami]

What about 3 card poker?
Although not as exciting as blackjack or Craps, this game also has a lot of serious adepts.
I've only played it twice but somehow liked its more relaxed pace.

This is how it goes:

The player starts by placing 2 bets:
1) An ante (a must).
2) A pair-plus bet, optional, but it's the best way to make money.

The dealer then deals 3 cards face down to the players and to himself.
After looking at their cards, the players decide whether to stay or fold. Folding means losing both bets of course .
But if a player decides to stay, he then must match the ante bet with an additional wager and be ready to face the dealer's cards.

If the dealer's cards win, he takes everything, except if the player has (loses with) a straight flush, 3 of a kind or a straight, in which case the player wins an ante bonus: 5:1 for a SF, 4:1 for 3 of a kind and 1:1 for a straight (That's even if the dealer wins and takes the pair-plus bet).

There's a catch though (Obvious house advantage 😣). In order for the dealer to pay for a winning pair-plus bet, he has to be qualified, meaning he has to have a Q or higher in his hand, otherwise the bet is returned to the player with no profit.

I'm honestly not very sure about how the last part works. Maybe one of you guys can clarify it a bit more, thank you.

 

[Sunz of Beaches]

That sounds like an extremely interesting game. 3 cards is right in between pot limit Omaha and no limit Texas hold em. Will try it out anytime soon.

 

[maronza1]

The problem i find with 3 card poker is the dealer is the favoured one, and as a result you are guaranteed to lose in the long run. Why would the dealer not qualify if he has no Q or better, that means even if you had a strong hand against the dealer's weak hand (J or worse) it will go to waste

 

[najisami]

, that means even if you had a strong hand against the dealer's weak hand (J or worse) it will go to waste

You still get paid for the ante bet.

But it's a casino table game, don't expect to have an edge on the house. We spoke about the relatively more profitable games here:

The 2 most profitable casino games.

Hello "gamblers" ;), I have always heard that the most profitable casino games are Blackjack and Craps. The widely known reason is that the house does not have as much edge in those two games. Is that true? Are there any other reasons?

www.cardschat.com

 

[najisami]

The problem i find with 3 card poker is the dealer is the favoured one, and as a result you are guaranteed to lose in the long run. Why would the dealer not qualify if he has no Q or better, that means even if you had a strong hand against the dealer's weak hand (J or worse) it will go to waste

It looks like you're not the only one not liking this game .
I was hoping that someone comes forward with more details about the "qualification" of the dealer so we could all understand the game better, but so far no one.

 

[maronza1]

It looks like you're not the only one not liking this game .
I was hoping that someone comes forward with more details about the "qualification" of the dealer so we could all understand the game better, but so far no one.

Yes maybe a lot of members here have no interest in that game. These are the types of games in which the house has higher edge because of the bets that are available to the players which are also tempting, meaning the player will lose money faster. Its also has little room for skill because its just play/fold strategy. It would be interesting if the dealer qualification rule were dismissed so that it becomes fair to both the player and the house

 

[najisami]

Yes maybe a lot of members here have no interest in that game. These are the types of games in which the house has higher edge because of the bets that are available to the players which are also tempting, meaning the player will lose money faster. Its also has little room for skill because its just play/fold strategy. It would be interesting if the dealer qualification rule were dismissed so that it becomes fair to both the player and the house

You are right, but I still think, maybe wrongly, that the house edge in 3 card poker cannot be higher than their edge in video poker or roulette for example, let alone Slot machines.

 

[maronza1]

You are right, but I still think, maybe wrongly, that the house edge in 3 card poker cannot be higher than their edge in video poker or Roulette for example, let alone Slot machines.

I read that Video Poker has strategy, and if played well the house edge may be as low as 0.46%, and maybe I should come up with a post about it

 

[najisami]

I read that Video Poker has strategy, and if played well the house edge may be as low as 0.46%, and maybe I should come up with a post about it

That, I cannot agree on, but I could be wrong again.
I definitely put video poker on the same shelf as Slot machines.

 

[maronza1]

That, I cannot agree on, but I could be wrong again.
I definitely put video poker on the same shelf as Slot machines.

I get that 😄 Video Poker can feel a lot like slots. There’s a strategy, but in practice it often comes down to luck. Definitely a post-worthy topic!

 

[john_entony]

In other words, even a stronger combination does not guarantee you a cash prize. To be honest, this is the first time I've heard of such a game. But there are too many conditions for winning. I think I'll choose Blackjack if I'm offered to play one of these two games.

 

[najisami]

I think I'll choose Blackjack if I'm offered to play one of these two games

And so would I.
But don't forget that you do get paid on the ante bet even if the dealer does not qualify.
Moreover, we're still waiting for someone who knows the game better than us to clarify that dealer qualification thing. What I wrote above was only from what I remember .

 

[Debi]

And so would I.
But don't forget that you do get paid on the ante bet even if the dealer does not qualify.
Moreover, we're still waiting for someone who knows the game better than us to clarify that dealer qualification thing. What I wrote above was only from what I remember .

You are correct - in order for you to win you have to beat the dealer when they have a winning hand. (which is Q high or better). So most players will play if they have AK or better.

This is a fun game and what I would play 3rd after slots and blackjack. You need to stick to your budget and quit when done. It is fun because unlike blackjack you have the potential to win hundreds of dollars on a single hand. (betting around $10-25). There are also bets you can place that are not against the dealer so it doesn't matter what they have. The actual 3 card poker hand and a 6 card poker hand are examples.

Of course the more options you play the higher your bet - but you can typically only bet $5 for those extra options regardless of your bet on the basic game.

I have lost on this game plenty of times - but have also walked away $300-$500 up.

 

[TeUnit]

This would be a tough game to make consistent money - the house edge is around 3%.

 

[najisami]

in order for you to win you have to beat the dealer when they have a winning hand. (which is Q high or better).

So, it's correct that dealer must qualify, otherwise you lose even if you hit a nice hand !?

 

[Debi]

So, it's correct that dealer must qualify, otherwise you lose even if you hit a nice hand !?

Yep - and it is very very painful when that happens lol

 

[najisami]

Yep - and it is very very painful when that happens lol

Although I played it 2 times, I completely forgot about its details, like the other side bets you mentioned.
I think I'll give it a try on casino.us since I have the chance, I hope they have it.

 

[gravii2011]

Poker in any form, regardless of the number of cards, is an interesting board game)

 

[Antonio777]

I don't know if its been answered yet about why the Q to qualify for the dealer. The only thing I want to say is in Black Jack the dealer has a minimum hand he can take a hit ,Right? Most I play its dealer stand on 17. Most i play if its a push you do not win anything just get the bet back. Its about the same as that

for the dealer in Three card poker. If he doesn't have a Q or better and you re bet (call)you get your bets back plus he pays you whatever you have on the ante. I never bet on Pair Plus. If you hit a pair yes it pays pretty good, but don't think thats not factored into the odds also. That may clear up questions about the Q for dealer to qualify. Its just a set rule as I mentioned the set rule in BJ.

I play the game . I prefer it over BJ for the facts that @Debi pointed out. You can win more money , I agree with her to know your limit and don't try to break the bank. The Rabbit Hole awaits if you push it to far in three card poker, Which i always knew it by another name, 3 card Guts. 😂

Peace,
Tony

 

[Antonio777]

In other words, even a stronger combination does not guarantee you a cash prize. To be honest, this is the first time I've heard of such a game. But there are too many conditions for winning. I think I'll choose Blackjack if I'm offered to play one of these two games.

I don't know why everyone is saying you don't win or you lose if dealer does not qualify with a Q high. False not true. If you bet $20. on ante and Call/rebet thats another $40.. If you have the better hand and dealer does not qualify. Heres what happens. You get your Call/rebet back $40. you also get the ante

back $20. plus dealer pays 1:1 on the ante $20. . So in this hand and betting size you do win $20.00. If someone thinks this is not correct please speak up. I do not claim to be an expert on the game but I have played it many times. I think if you win $20. on the play I described thats a pretty good pot. Not as big as if the Dealer qualifies and you have the best hand but still its winning a pot of $20.

Peace,
Tony

 

[Debi]

I don't know why everyone is saying you don't win or you lose if dealer does not qualify with a Q high. False not true. If you bet $20. on ante and Call/rebet thats another $40.. If you have the better hand and dealer does not qualify. Heres what happens. You get your Call/rebet back $40. you also get the ante

back $20. plus dealer pays 1:1 on the ante $20. . So in this hand and betting size you do win $20.00. If someone thinks this is not correct please speak up. I do not claim to be an expert on the game but I have played it many times. I think if you win $20. on the play I described thats a pretty good pot. Not as big as if the Dealer qualifies and you have the best hand but still its winning a pot of $20.

Peace,
Tony

Now I am confused - but I think you are right lol. You push on the Play bet and get paid 1:1 on the Ante.

 

[Antonio777]

Now I am confused - but I think you are right lol. You push on the Play bet and get paid 1:1 on the Ante.

Exactly. If dealer doesn't qualify you get the re-call,raise, or Call back,(push)whatever you may call it, i've seen different folks call it all the things but they are all the same thing. You get your Ante back and dealer pays 1:1 on the ante. Thats if the dealer does not qualify. So like in the example, if you ante twenty,call the bet and dealer doesn't qualify you still win $20. for the 1:1 dealer has to pay the ante. I believe he pays the Straights and 3 of kind bonus also. I will pay closer attention to that next time around and let you know. Hope i didn't make it more confusing. Just trying to help.

 

[Debi]

Exactly. If dealer doesn't qualify you get the re-call,raise, or Call back,(push)whatever you may call it, i've seen different folks call it all the things but they are all the same thing. You get your Ante back and dealer pays 1:1 on the ante. Thats if the dealer does not qualify. So like in the example, if you ante twenty,call the bet and dealer doesn't qualify you still win $20. for the 1:1 dealer has to pay the ante. I believe he pays the Straights and 3 of kind bonus also. I will pay closer attention to that next time around and let you know. Hope i didn't make it more confusing. Just trying to help.

It is good you were persistent - want to make sure we get it right for those who might be considering playing it.

 

[Antonio777]

Yes I wanted to make sure everyone understood you don't LOSE with the dealer not Qualifying because i saw it mentioned "that you lose"in several post here.

Peace,
Tony

 

[najisami]

Yes I wanted to make sure everyone understood you don't LOSE with the dealer not Qualifying because i saw it mentioned "that you lose"in several post here.

Peace,
Tony

Thank you, Toni, you really added a lot of useful info about the game. I will definitely try it out again.