It seems that a 55-45% split in an interwebz poll now counts as some sort of massive mandate. That isn’t exactly a Nixon vs. McGovern landslide.
I’ve cited many times the main technical reason I prefer poker over bridge size, and it arises from my work and experience in design (both as a graphic artist, and as a writer and lead juror for a national award winning design magazine, if you really need my resumé. Which you shouldn’t, but now that you question my basis, there you go).
My number one reason for my preference is that the extra “real estate” on the face makes it easier to design a more readable face. Spacing can be wider, and/or fonts can be larger. Many card designers don’t seem to take such things into account, but that’s not my fault. There are some excellent poker-size deck designs out there.
Furthermore, on the width question, I have also noted that from a usability standpoint if anything the wider size should be *easier* for non-professional dealers to shuffle, because there is more area to grip. A smaller size requires more precision, not something one finds a lot of in home games.
I’ve additionally cited my book research on the history of cards, noting that the 2.5 x 3.5" standard evolved organically over centuries of experimentation with different shapes and dimensions of cards, well before poker was even invented. It may be the longest-running size standard for a mass-produced product in the past millennium.
And that was at a time when people were a lot smaller than today. So if anything (and as already noted, since apparently many here only skim for what they want to hear) you’d expect cards to need to be *wider* today than in 18th Century France, because the average person is bigger by a substantial amount, evolutionarily-speaking.
I’ve only waded into debating some of the bridge side’s other dubious claims (such as the science of pitching cards without flipping them) to push back against some hysterically vehement and unsupported assertions about the urgent need to narrow cards by 1/4", because poker apparently has been facing some kind of card-width existential crisis.
Side note: Weird how no one ever thinks the poker decks need to be shortened. I mean, it’s bad enough how the narrow-handed people suffer with poker cards. Just think of how bad these 3.5"-long decks are for those with short palms! O the humanity
Didn’t realize it’s “vicious” to joke about hand size now.
Do you keep a copy of Miss Manners’ Guide To Excruciatingly Correct Behavior next to your poker table, next to Roberts Rules? Might want to invest in a fainting couch, too.
Gosh forbid if certain snowflakes in the Bridge Size Lynch Mob ever faced an actual insult in person... because hand size is pretty tame stuff.. One typically hears far worse bantered about in most friendly poker games.
You see people here smearing my character, as a “sleaze,” “dishonest,” and a “jackass” all over... the width of playing cards. But for you, small hands is a bridge too far. OK, now we know where you draw the line.
.................
Bottom line for me: I stand by my original assertion that the needless shift away from the established 2.5x3.5" standard was largely casino-driven, seemingly arbitrary, and in any case never specifically justified by the industry. It’s only when preferences are questioned that we get a flurry of random post hoc claims from people here.
When that changeover began, to my knowledge, it was not in response to any player or even dealer outcry or grassroots movement. It was a top-down management decision.
And I’ll say it again: What is good for casino management is not necessarily good for home games. Apparently that is a hanging offense.
