Poker vs Bridge Size (3 Viewers)

[allforcharity]

It offends my 56 year old sensibilities.

This 55-year old loves 4 colour.

I was going to make some sort of prostate joke but then people in glass houses should not throw pickup trucks.

 

[Coyote]

This 55-year old loves 4 colour.

I was going to make some sort of prostate joke but then people in glass houses should not throw pickup trucks.

FYI, prostate is the Greek word for "protector".

 

[Poker Zombie]

This 55-year old loves 4 colour.

I was going to make some sort of prostate joke but then people in glass houses should not throw pickup trucks.

This 57 year old also likes them - a lot.

There must be a 1 year gap of insensibility.

 

[extreme517]

Bridge : Poker
Paulson : dice chips

 

[BigGrizz]

4 color decks are also great for teaching people how to play. Plus I just love the look. Copag, jumbo index, 4 color, bridge size are my go to cards.

 

[Poker Zombie]

4 color decks are also great for teaching people how to play. Plus I just love the look. Copag, jumbo index, 4 color, bridge size are my go to cards.

My players have difficulty still with differentiating blue diamonds from green clubs. It's still an improvement (2 suits are 100% identifiable, vs zero). Have you found the same issue with your crew?

 

[allforcharity]

My players have difficulty still with differentiating blue diamonds from green clubs. It's still an improvement (2 suits are 100% identifiable, vs zero). Have you found the same issue with your crew?

Technically, the colours have done their job, since your players can reliably tell the difference between a spade and club, and between a heart and diamond. It is a green vs. blue issue right now only because they expect red vs. black. When they learn to differentiate by shape, they will be golden (a diamond looks nothing like a club, in any iteration).

 

[BigGrizz]

My players have difficulty still with differentiating blue diamonds from green clubs. It's still an improvement (2 suits are 100% identifiable, vs zero). Have you found the same issue with your crew?

I have never encountered that issue. That seems wild to me. The shapes and colors are both very different to me.

 

[DrStrange]

My players have no trouble with 4-color decks now. It is the preferred choice for most. When they first saw four color decks, there was a learning curve leading to eventual acceptance.

Want to see wide eyes at a card table? Give bridge players a four-color deck. "What is this?!" Didn't take long to learn though. One session was enough.

As for bridge vs poker sizing: There are structural reasons why bridge players in a duplicate game must have bridge sized cards. The cards reside in a traveling holder as they are passed from table to table. In duplicate bridge, everybody plays the same 24-30 hands in a session and are scored on their relative performance. Those "boards" are sized specifically for bridge sized cards. And the cases for the whole set up are sized for the bridge card sized boards.

Card security is far less important in a typical duplicate game. No need to peek at your hand in a glance - you'll hold your hand in your mitts as close as needed to see the cards.

Older poker players often need help seeing their cards - so large index, poker sized cards make sense.

I find bridge sized cards are easier to shuffle. Not that big a difference, but it is noticeable.

Sad to say, bridge is almost universally played with better quality paper cards. I have never seen plastic cards at a bridge event. No doubt there are rubber (home) games that do use nice cards. Few players make complaints about marked cards. Sometime even egregiously marked cards somehow never get replaced.

 

[JazzyJosh]

Like standard index, but I have friends with worse eyesight so likely will use jumbo more often.
Don't really have an opinion on size, but went with poker size because that was the size of cut card I had on hand.

Four color specifically for Badugi style games.

 

[Jers28]

I don’t have strong inclinations toward bridge vs poker. I suppose I’d lean slightly toward poker size. We use shufflers, so hand fatigue has never entered my brain. I do prefer a jumbo index now that I’m over 50. But, even if I was 25, the guys at the ends of the table standing up and leaning to see flops isn’t a thing with jumbo index.

Been a copag man for over 20 years, but my time here has me trying new setups. This weekend I’m busting out the Faded Spade 4 color Jumbo Index for the first time. Will see how the guys like em. I love the look.

 

[Taghkanic]

The conventional, received wisdom that “bridge size are easier to shuffle” is, from an objective industrial design / usability standpoint, simply wrong IMHO.

It’s one of those ideas which people hear, then repeat, without actually examining the premise.

Unless you have absolutely tiny hands, having wider edges to grip and more width to flex the card for shuffling is in fact easier for amateurs.

Home game players are generally bad shufflers. A slightly larger size helps them compensate for this skill problem. (I can see where a casino dealer might for various reasons prefer bridge, depending on how big their hands are.) A smaller size requires a finer and more precise grip. Those with larger hands are going to have to squeeze inward to grip both sides.

Meanwhile the difference in weight in the cards is negligible compared other most human hand strength. The cards are partially sitting on the felt when you shuffle, so most of their weight is supported; you’re only manipulating a tiny portion of the card to shuffle. So unless you are shuffling for 72 hours straight, or have some sort of degenerative muscle problem, the cumulative difference should not be large enough to notice.

 

[Taghkanic]

My players have difficulty still with differentiating blue diamonds from green clubs.

How are they at differentiating black spades from black clubs?

 

[RocAFella1]

Home game players are generally bad shufflers. A slightly larger size helps them compensate for this skill problem. (I can see where a casino dealer might for various reasons prefer bridge, depending on how big their hands are.) A smaller size requires a finer and more precise grip. Those with larger hands are going to have to squeeze inward to grip both sides.

This couldn’t be further from the truth in my experience. Experienced and inexperienced shufflers alike struggle exponentially more with collecting, boxing, and ultimately shuffling the larger magnum size cards.

Every hand at @sethwanab with @triton was a struggle for people to peek at their cards without exposing them during a recent game of PLO. And yes I know how to peel cards without exposing them but a large majority of the table struggled.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

The conventional, received wisdom that “bridge size are easier to shuffle” is, from an objective industrial design / usability standpoint, simply wrong IMHO.

It’s one of those ideas which people hear, then repeat, without actually examining the premise.

Unless you have absolutely tiny hands, having wider edges to grip and more width to flex the card for shuffling is in fact easier for amateurs.

Home game players are generally bad shufflers. A slightly larger size helps them compensate for this skill problem. (I can see where a casino dealer might for various reasons prefer bridge, depending on how big their hands are.) A smaller size requires a finer and more precise grip. Those with larger hands are going to have to squeeze inward to grip both sides.

Meanwhile the difference in weight in the cards is negligible compared other most human hand strength. The cards are partially sitting on the felt when you shuffle, so most of their weight is supported; you’re only manipulating a tiny portion of the card to shuffle. So unless you are shuffling for 72 hours straight, or have some sort of degenerative muscle problem, the cumulative difference should not be large enough to notice.

I'm just thankful we have you to examine premises. Way too many on here just believe things based on their lived experiences as dealers instead of really thinking about why they prefer something.

 

[RocAFella1]

I'm just thankful we have you to examine premises. Way too many on here just believe things based on their lived experiences as dealers instead of really thinking about why they prefer something.

 

[Coyote]

To cut a long story short, 4-color decks are the distant future.

Jumbo size indexes are also the future, 'cause people tend to play more poker at a later age, suffering from presbyopia, having gotten rid of their children (their children having graduatead to adults).

Narrow (Bridge) decks are opitimal for hand-shuffling and dealing, especially by womens' hands, and are also suitable for multi-card hole hands, as in PLO and worse games.

Wide (Poker) decks are suitable for male dealers, or shuffling machines, and for games with 2 or 3 maximum hole cards.

 

[Machine]

suitable for multi-card hole hands, as in PLO and more challenging skill games.

FYP, yw

 

[Coyote]

FYP, yw

and much worse than that PLO gambling crap

 

[Taghkanic]

I'm just thankful we have you to examine premises. Way too many on here just believe things based on their lived experiences as dealers instead of really thinking about why they prefer something.

Everyone is free to refuse to acknowledge how their hands and basic mechanics work.

Also to believe in the tooth fairy and that they will win the Powerball.

 

[Taghkanic]

Narrow (Bridge) decks are opitimal for hand-shuffling and dealing, especially by womens' hands […] Wide (Poker) decks are suitable for male dealers

Clearly, conscientious hosts should choose the size which is worse for 95-97% of players

 

[davesilver88]

I changed my vote to bridge, but I’m essentially indifferent so long as you have a appropriately sized cut card lol.

 

[extreme517]

There's one size that is the clear standard in every card room and then there's another size that some people mistake as being correct because it has "poker" in the name, but should really only be used for blackjack.

 

[RocAFella1]

I’m starting to think this is a bit. Arguing the physics of cards is better for 95-97% of people is comical. I’m guessing you’re a flat earther too.

 

[Taghkanic]

There's one size that is the clear standard in every card room and then there's another size that some people mistake as being correct because it has "poker" in the name, but should really only be used for blackjack.

*the clear standard among cost-cutting casinos with no regard for actual utility, FYP

 

[Taghkanic]

A few historical and other facts:

* Poker-sized cards became the standard well before poker was invented. That name only came into play later to distinguish them from other sizes.

* Bridge-sized cards (also meant for trick-taking games like whist) were not mass produced until much later, with the late 19th century being a commonly-assigned date.

* The smaller size of bridge cards was not conceived as a way to make shuffling or dealing easier; it was meant to help with games requiring many cards in your hand.

* Bridge cards were not the dominant option used in U.S. poker rooms until roughly the 1970s.

* Many if not most European casinos still prefer poker-sized decks.

 

[extreme517]

* The smaller size of bridge cards was not conceived as a way to make shuffling or dealing easier; it was meant to help with games requiring many cards in your hand.

Most of us here prefer games with 4 hole cards minimum. If you're a NLH player then God help you.

Even so, bridge sized is standard everywhere. That said, you can use whatever you want for your home game, but don't pretend like poker sized cards are the norm.

*the clear standard among cost-cutting casinos with no regard for actual utility, FYP

Bridge vs. poker sized has nothing to do with cost...I've never seen comparable same brand bridge and poker setups priced differently.

Casinos care very much about utility and efficiency.

 

[upNdown]

Most of us here prefer games with 4 hole cards minimum.

That’s crap. NLHE haters never shut up about it - that doesn’t make them a majority.

The conventional, received wisdom that “bridge size are easier to shuffle” is, from an objective industrial design / usability standpoint, simply wrong IMHO.

It’s one of those ideas which people hear, then repeat, without actually examining the premise.

Unless you have absolutely tiny hands, having wider edges to grip and more width to flex the card for shuffling is in fact easier for amateurs.

Home game players are generally bad shufflers. A slightly larger size helps them compensate for this skill problem. (I can see where a casino dealer might for various reasons prefer bridge, depending on how big their hands are.) A smaller size requires a finer and more precise grip. Those with larger hands are going to have to squeeze inward to grip both sides.

Meanwhile the difference in weight in the cards is negligible compared other most human hand strength. The cards are partially sitting on the felt when you shuffle, so most of their weight is supported; you’re only manipulating a tiny portion of the card to shuffle. So unless you are shuffling for 72 hours straight, or have some sort of degenerative muscle problem, the cumulative difference should not be large enough to notice.

I think there’s some truth here - the reasons that professional dealers prefer bridge don’t necessarily translate to a pass the deal home game.

My bottom line is that I prefer bridge over poker like I prefer THC over RHC - it’s a strong opinion, but once the cards are flying, I couldn’t care less.

 

[Old State]

Cost has 0.00000000000% to do with why every major casino uses bridge cards for poker. I only play in AC (mostly), Boston , Vegas, and PA…but I’ve never seen poker cards in a casino …being used for poker that is. Even watching countless poker vlogs I don’t think I’ve ever seen poker sized cards being used. The only time I’ve seen them is on televised games with jumbo index… and I’ve assumed that so they are easy to see on TV.

I’ve been using bridge sized for 22 years and moved to them when I got my first custom ASMs and nice table. Originally it was just to add to the casino like authenticity of the game along with the chips and table. But I then grew to heavily prefer them.

I remember the first time I noticed that cards at a casino game were smaller. It was at a table in AC. I had just ordered my custom ASM chips and was paying attention to these types of things. I asked the dealer if they were smaller or if I was crazy and if so why. They said something like “I don’t know but it’s always been like that in (casino) card rooms…probably because they are easier to shuffle and handle.” It was also the day I noticed the casinos played with Kem Cards (from being dealt the Ace of spades) I ordered a set of Kem bridge arrows when I got home from the only place I could find them at the time…”the Gambler’s General Store” in Vegas.

Not sure if anyone remembers but casinos also used really thick cut cards for Poker. They were yellow on one side black on the other. I ordered a few of those as well and still have them. I also still have my original bridge Kems dated 5/03

 

[WJP]

Bridge size is easier to deal. If you are not a dealer then its hardly a difference. PLO/bomb pots is much easier to peek at your cards with bridge size. Unless you are the type of player to pick up your cards from the table.