Both ends against the middle

[Tom_Scud]

So, to “play both ends against the middle” was apparently originally a reference to a means of cheating at cards, and specifically faro (which itself is a now-obscure game that used to be fantastically popular, especially in the American West). More specifically, it refers to trimming cards so that the dealer will know what card is coming up next and can double-deal (slip two cards out at once) and thus avoid playing a losing card.

What I haven’t been able to come up with is why the technique is known as “both ends against the middle” - anyone have any idea? I did find a note in an early-20th-century dictionary that defined “both ends against the middle” as “a system of dealing at faro with prepared cards so that if the end of the layout wins, the middle shall lose and vice versa.”

[leahcim]

I’ve seen several references saying that “both ends against the middle” refers to the way the ends of the cards were modified (i.e. to make them slightly convex or concave), rather than any specific strategy with those modified cards to win the game.

[DataX]

I think you are confusing two different things. I am not sure, but I think the trimmed cards are the way the deck is stacked (I am not a faro expert). But I would think playing both ends against the middle would be two players (or the bank and a player against another player.

Something like this happens in limit poker tournaments - and other types of tournament play. It happens organically - and isn’t cheating, but it can be in ring games.

If player 1, 2, and 3 are in the pot - and player 2 is the fish (sucker) - player 1 and 3 can team up and raise each other to force the 2nd guy out. In cases in limit play tournaments - there is sort of an unspoken rule - if someone goes all in (cause they don’t have any chips left) - anyone that is able to call WILL call the first bet - they do this to force the weaker guy out. Yes there is a chance he will win, but it works out well (unless you at that guy).

Anyway - I had to look up faro, but my guess is it is referring to the players and not the cards.

[DataX]

I just read up on faro - it is more like craps and roulette than poker - don’t think it means what I thought it did (in faro - I still think it should mean that ).

Was curious about this paper - it is behind a paywall, but this was the snippet:

"“How are you betting?” the faro player was asked. “Both ends against
the middle,” was the reply.’

Journal of Gambling Studies
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rk610213434ht543/

If the context there is correct - it doesn’t seem like it would be cheating all to me - something completely different than all the dictionary sites seem to be suggesting (but it looks like they didn’t come up with these independently).

I looked at the faro board - it is thirteen cards - don’t really see what the middle would be.

[Becky2844]

Edna St. Vincent Millay—“My candle burns at both ends” (toward the middle.) That’s what I think of.

[aldiboronti]

It was apparently a rigged game in Faro, as suggested above. From the Daily Kos:

It comes from Faro, which was a popular card game in France and America in the 19th century. The phrase has a sinister context as it relates to the game.

The game was known as a suckers game, as the rules heavily favored the house to begin with. To make it even more unfair, dealers would shave cards in a concave or convex manner from the edges in. The effect would be very slight, but obvious to someone, who knew what to look for.

So quite literally the cards had both ends rounded against the middle. So a dealer “playing both ends against the middle” was running a rigged game.

Veteran gamblers were aware of this, and would exploit the same marked cards. Of course they couldn’t use this to cheat the Faro dealer, but any sucker sitting at the table was fair game. Dealers would tolerate splitting the take from some unsuspecting player with a lot of cash to burn, as long as they weren’t losing money.

[Tom_Scud]

The Daily Kos article is wrong in one particular, anyway - apparently, one of the reasons cheating was so rampant in Faro is that it is actually a much fairer game than other casino games. (House edge of about 2 percent).

[Tom_Scud]

Hm. Found a New York Times article from 1883 entitled Confessions of a Gambler that seems to indicate that “both ends against the middle” was a betting strategy rather than a cheating strategy:

(referring to suckers, or “producers”): If he plays big and has a system the dealer soon gets on to it. If he is struck on a card or plays “three on a side” or “odd and even” or “both ends against the middle,” it will take the dealer no time to find it out, and as it his duty to protect the bank, he will shuffle the cards so as to lay the player out cold.

[leahcim]

@Tom_Scud

Hm. Found a New York Times article from 1883 entitled Confessions of a Gambler that seems to indicate that “both ends against the middle” was a betting strategy rather than a cheating strategy:

I was wondering about that. If you look at the faro layout, it kind of wraps around in a U shape so the low and high cards are together. The article mentions that you would bet on multiple cards simultaneously by placing your chips between cards. So I wonder if “both ends against the middle” meant that you placed a bet between the king and ace (both ends).

That would certainly make its modern usage make more sense.

[Tom_Scud]

@leahcim

I was wondering about that. If you look at the faro layout, it kind of wraps around in a U shape so the low and high cards are together. The article mentions that you would bet on multiple cards simultaneously by placing your chips between cards. So I wonder if “both ends against the middle” meant that you placed a bet between the king and ace (both ends).

That would certainly make its modern usage make more sense.

Good observation (or maybe on the corners between K-Q and A-2).