Two deck poker

Cafe Society
1

I was reading a book on various poker variations yesterday and it occurred to me that I’ve never seen any mention of one of the most obvious variations - playing poker with a 104 card deck (two regular decks shuffled together).

Has anybody else heard of such a game? Can anyone point me to a source discussing it? Is there some obvious reason that escapes me why this wouldn’t work? (I know some people are opposed to any variation from normal poker but what I mean is there any reason why this wouldn’t work as well as any other strange house game?) If nothing else, it would eliminate the problem of running out of cards during a round with six or seven players.

Obviously two decks would make new hands possible, like a two of a kind pair or a two pair flush. Is there an easy way to figure out the probabilities of possible hands and where they’d rank compared to traditional hands?

2

Anyone?

3

I see a number of objections. In no particular order…

The standard poker hands and rankings are well established. Why have a complete change?

If you use two packs, presumably you’ve got to have identical backs. Shuffling is more difficult for those using the riffle method.

Texas Hold’em has removed all problems associated with running out of cards.

Despite extensive TV coverage and books, poker is still popular at different levels. The game has not been analysed out.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

4

The point is that some people like to play strange variations of poker. (Personally, I feel poker should be played with five cards face-down and one draw - everything else is another game pretending to be poker.) Is there any reason this particular variation seems to be unknown?

5

Since you’d have the possibility that two players could have indentical hands, and no way to break a tie, that would seem to be a major objection to the game.

6

[QUOTE=Labdad]
Since you’d have the possibility that two players could have indentical hands, and no way to break a tie, that would seem to be a major objection to the game.
[/QUOTE]

Split pots are a relatively common occurance in Texas Hold’em, and people seem to deal with it

7

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Obviously two decks would make new hands possible, like a two of a kind pair or a two pair flush. Is there an easy way to figure out the probabilities of possible hands and where they’d rank compared to traditional hands?
[/QUOTE]
It wouldn’t be too hard to calculate the odds of these new hands appearing. You’d also have to consider how this affects the values of existing hands as well. For example, say you’ve been dealt 4 cards so far, three of which are aces. With one deck, the odds of getting the 4th ace with your last card are 1/48, but in two-deck, they would be 5/100, which is quite a bit better.

8

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
(Personally, I feel poker should be played with five cards face-down and one draw - everything else is another game pretending to be poker.)
[/QUOTE]

Why?

Poker gets a lot more interesting when you have partial information about your opponent’s hand.

When you have ZERO information, the game becomes much more mathematical, easier to play “optimally”.

Not to mention, additional rounds of betting create much more room for strategic play. Hold 'em compared to 5-card draw is like chess is to checkers.

As to two decks. . .poker’s a complex enough game already.

You know, everyone I’ve ever known that was into chess variations wasn’t a very good chess player. Instead of “deepening” their knowledge of chess (which is time consuming and subject to the law of diminishing returns), they would rather just learn a crazy variation, figure out a trick or two, and then talk people into playing those variations. Breadth, instead of depth.

Your “two deck” poker sort of smacks of that.

9

Actually, I figure it the opposite way. With the revealed information in a game like stud or Texas Hold’em, mathematics becomes a factor. In traditional poker, you have no knowledge of your oppoents’ hands except what you can deduce from psychology.

Again, I disagree. To me, the players who memorize the “book” are the ones who are getting by on “tricks”. They’re relying on their memory of what other players have done rather than any genuine originality of their own. It’s the kind of chess playing machines excel at.

On the other hand, tricks generally don’t work in chess variants. None of them have the extensive history of play that would allow a book to be developed on them. People playing these games are forced to think about what they’re doing rather than follow plans developed by past players.

A player who can swap the positions of the bishops and the knights and still play a good game of chess is demonstrating that he understands the underlying principles of the game rather than having aquired a memory full of precedents.

10

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Actually, I figure it the opposite way. With the revealed information in a game like stud or Texas Hold’em, mathematics becomes a factor. In traditional poker, you have no knowledge of your oppoents’ hands except what you can deduce from psychology.

[/quote]

I think this would be quite a good game, just not poker.
Start with two cards, say Ace of Spades and two of clubs. Ace always wins, two always loses.
One player takes a card secretly, looks at it - then the players start betting. The player with the card has to ‘trick’ his opponent, the player without the card has to ‘read’ his opponent.

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]

Again, I disagree. To me, the players who memorize the “book” are the ones who are getting by on “tricks”. They’re relying on their memory of what other players have done rather than any genuine originality of their own. It’s the kind of chess playing machines excel at.

On the other hand, tricks generally don’t work in chess variants. None of them have the extensive history of play that would allow a book to be developed on them. People playing these games are forced to think about what they’re doing rather than follow plans developed by past players.

A player who can swap the positions of the bishops and the knights and still play a good game of chess is demonstrating that he understands the underlying principles of the game rather than having aquired a memory full of precedents.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Trunk]

You know, everyone I’ve ever known that was into chess variations wasn’t a very good chess player. Instead of “deepening” their knowledge of chess (which is time consuming and subject to the law of diminishing returns), they would rather just learn a crazy variation, figure out a trick or two, and then talk people into playing those variations. Breadth, instead of depth.

[/QUOTE]

Aha, my area of expertise! :smiley:

Opening variations (such as the Ruy Lopez or the Monkey’s Bum) are studied by good players, not memorised. You need to be able to cope with a new idea that your opponent has discovered and can only do this with understanding.

The Ruy Lopez (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5) is considered a top quality opening, with deep strategic ideas.
The Monkey’s Bum (1. e4 g6 2. Bc4 Bg7 3. Qf3 e6 4. d4) looks crazy (hence the name, because when shown the opening, a player said “if that’s playable, I’m a Monkey’s Bum!”). Actually it’s not as bad as it looks…

It would be hard to be original in the first few moves, with all the computer records of games. Perhaps the only ‘modern’ innovation in the first 4 moves is the Benko Gambit (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5), which is an astonishing positional gambit.
Note that I don’t play either side of this gambit, but I have seen / analysed say 100 games using it. I understand the compensation. No doubt I could do well, with either colour, against a player who had never seen it before.

Chess computers do have extensive opening books. But they don’t beat humans because of it. Humans get tired and emotional, machines don’t. I remember Kramnik sacrificing a piece against a top computer and losing because of one unlikely sub-variation.
Machines are wonderful at calculating tactical lines. they are not so good at positional chess.

Fischer random chess (where the back rank pieces are shuffled) has been played a bit. I expect Kasparov could thrash me at that. But he can also thrash me at standard chess.
In turn, I would be very confident of beating a club player at either form of chess (or any other, such as speed chess or blindfold chess…)

11

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Actually, I figure it the opposite way. With the revealed information in a game like stud or Texas Hold’em, mathematics becomes a factor. In traditional poker, you have no knowledge of your oppoents’ hands except what you can deduce from psychology.
[/QUOTE]

Which is why you have to rely more on the math. If you have no knowledge then you’re looking at your own hand and deciding what percentage of other hands you can beat.

12

For what it’s worth, in my experience, it takes a very short time to learn 5 card draw well enough to beat average players, whereas more complex forms of poker take much longer. There’s simply little strategic depth.

The game does interest me, though, because betting with no cards to come is often the most subtle, interesting part of a poker hand - and in 5 card draw, that’s the main emphasis.

13

Usually, when more than four aces are found in a poker deck, gunfire ensues.

Two deck poker - could be fun to try.

Actually, I have always wondered why a winning hand couldn’t be:

2,4,6,8 and 10 in the same suit.

Seems like a good addition to regular poker to me. Not sure where this would fit - higher than four of a kind but below a straight flush? Or would it be more difficult to get than a straight flush?

14

It would be “harder” to get than a straight flush because there are far fewer ways of making it. But there’s no reason to add a hand like that - it just complicates things with no real benefit.