Poker vs Bridge Size (3 Viewers)

Bridge or Poker Size


  • Total voters
    106
My group is getting older (this happens when the game has run for 17 years) so we are all about jumbo. I don't personally care either way about bridge vs poker. The size difference isn't really all that much IMHO. I have to get in the 4 color deck camp, though. The number of times guys have gone on a rant regarding misreading the board pushed me that direction so I have some 4 color sets. Unfortunately, none of the groups I play with want to use them so they just sit on my shelf unopened.
 
My group is getting older (this happens when the game has run for 17 years) so we are all about jumbo. I don't personally care either way about bridge vs poker. The size difference isn't really all that much IMHO. I have to get in the 4 color deck camp, though. The number of times guys have gone on a rant regarding misreading the board pushed me that direction so I have some 4 color sets. Unfortunately, none of the groups I play with want to use them so they just sit on my shelf unopened.
Funny thing, I lost a good sized pot not long ago because I confused a spade and a club. But my solution was to either use decks with clearer suits or keep my reading glasses handy or both. But I swear I never even considered a 4-color setup and I happen to own a nice one. I just think they’re ugly and I suspect my players would revolt. They’re not even a consideration.

IMG_9340.jpeg
 
So mistakes don't happen. We put denoms on chips, and make them different colours, to separate them visually. We should do the same for card suites, and one efficient way to do so is to use a different colour for every suit.
I get the logic, and if someone really needed the 4-color to make out the suits, then fine. I just don’t like the look of them. Feels weird and cheap. Wonderful to have online if multitabling, but live I don’t think it’s enough of an issue.
 
I don't really care as a player, the hole cards are peeked at then left on the table so why does it matter?

Vegas poker rooms and WSOP all use bridge size (at least where I play). That's what I'm accustomed to and I like the smaller storage space of bridge size so that's where my vote went.

From a dealer's perspective I've been told that bridge size is generally easier to handle. But a minority of dealers prefer poker size for indexing.

Anyone voting for bridge size should be taking advantage of the deal on Broken Arrow cards
@justincarothers
 
It’s absolutely fine when comes down to the preferences or lack of choices; for ages only cards available commonly in UK were bridge Waddingtons or sometimes bridge Piatnik’s. Poker Bicycle were hard to come by and used mostly by magicians.

But when I hear whinging how hard and painful is to handle poker size makes me laugh.

As a man who handle poker cards for 2/3h a day i have never encounter any discomfort, I know poker size seems to be big and unwieldy at the beginning but you can adjust to that.

If anyone thinks that shuffling cards causes pain maybe you can’t doing it properly or having wrong technique?
 
I am absolutely team bridge size just for ease of shuffling.

I am apparently in the minority because I prefer standard index because it's easier to protect your hand, but I have lost that war, even in my home game.
 
I am absolutely team bridge size just for ease of shuffling.

I am apparently in the minority because I prefer standard index because it's easier to protect your hand, but I have lost that war, even in my home game.
You aren't alone. I prefer standard index for games other than hold em, since I don't want to look like a moron peeling half my cards up to see if it's a spade.
 
Was there ever a bigger fail than poker peek? I have a setup that’s best to start fires with.
 
I am absolutely team bridge size just for ease of shuffling.

I am apparently in the minority because I prefer standard index because it's easier to protect your hand, but I have lost that war, even in my home game.
I was solidly in this camp until nearly all of our player's eyes (including mine) grew old.

So now it's bridge size jumbo index -- a minor concession to hand safety vs being able to better distinguish cards at a distance. Still prefer bridge size standard index for heads-up play. Bridge size is easier to shuffle and deal, and easier to manage for multiple card/board circus and stud games.

And no gimmick decks, period. That includes four-color, four-pip, poker-peek, magnum Index, non-white backgrounds (black or clear), circular shape cards, or decks with funky-design fonts, court pictures, and layouts. No need to reinvent the wheel, imo.

I also dislike full-bleed backs, but they aren't deal-breakers for play -- I just don't buy 'em.
 
As far as the poll goes....

They call it a flip, but mathematically, bridge-size is the favorite.
 
I was solidly in this camp until nearly all of our player's eyes (including mine) grew old.

So now it's bridge size jumbo index -- a minor concession to hand safety vs being able to better distinguish cards at a distance.
Understood, and when I said "I lost that war, even in my home game" it was pretty much for this exact reason.

If I wear my glasses, I have no problem with standard index at a distance, but part of hosting is sometimes giving the players what they want.
 
Last edited:
Understood, and when I said "I lost that war, even in my home game" it was pretty much for this exact reason.

If I wear my glasses, I have no problem with standard index at a distance, but part of hosting is giving the players what they want.
Jumbo sizes matter. Desjgn has it done perfect, even if I prefer the blackjack index. KEM's jumbo index can go straight into the bin.
 
If I wear my glasses, I have no problem with standard index at a distance, but part of hosting is sometimes giving the players what they want.
Me too. But I wear my reading glasses for most of the day. I’d rather not wear them for another 6 hours at the card table. Especially when there are perfectly good cards that I (and the other oldies) can read without them.
 
Said it before and I’ll say it again:

Two-color decks only exist today because of the economics of producing decks ***hundreds of years ago.***

Even when it became possible to mass-produce cards, it was still very laborious and expensive to use multiple inks.

Being attached to a standard that old is silly, especially when the standard was arbitrary or forced by the limits of totally outmoded technology.

It makes about as much sense as getting offended that the other players at the table aren’t wearing giant powdered wigs.

Or that there isn’t a wax seal, a tax stamp and string protecting each fresh deck.

The only reason to prefer two-color is habit. And it’s an easy habit to break, worth doing because four-colors have a clear usability advantage.

We have digital print technology now that allows for as many colors or design innovations as one likes. We should use it.
 
Said it before and I’ll say it again:

Two-color decks only exist today because of the economics of producing decks ***hundreds of years ago.***

Even when it became possible to mass-produce cards, it was still very laborious and expensive to use multiple inks.

Being attached to a standard that old is silly, especially when the standard was arbitrary or forced by the limits of totally outmoded technology.

It makes about as much sense as getting offended that the other players at the table aren’t wearing giant powdered wigs.

Or that there isn’t a wax seal, a tax stamp and string protecting each fresh deck.

The only reason to prefer two-color is habit. And it’s an easy habit to break, worth doing because four-colors have a clear usability advantage.

We have digital print technology now that allows for as many colors or design innovations as one likes. We should use it.

IMG_0059.jpeg
 
So those that like JDesign cards do not mind the messy ink blot on aces but won’t go four color? What am I missing here.
 
So those that like JDesign cards do not mind the messy ink blot on aces but won’t go four color? What am I missing here.
A four color deck assaults my eyes at every glance. An odd symbol on the aces? Not so much.

Two-color decks only exist today because of the economics of producing decks
That doesn’t make it any less displeasing to the eye. If you want to introduce 4-color decks to the next generation from birth, I’m sure they’d be great with them. But those of us who have been staring at normal decks for all of our long lives who find 4-color decks borderline offensive - it’s not logical, but it is what it is.
 
Said it before and I’ll say it again:

Two-color decks only exist today because of the economics of producing decks ***hundreds of years ago.***

Even when it became possible to mass-produce cards, it was still very laborious and expensive to use multiple inks.

Being attached to a standard that old is silly, especially when the standard was arbitrary or forced by the limits of totally outmoded technology.

It makes about as much sense as getting offended that the other players at the table aren’t wearing giant powdered wigs.

Or that there isn’t a wax seal, a tax stamp and string protecting each fresh deck.

The only reason to prefer two-color is habit. And it’s an easy habit to break, worth doing because four-colors have a clear usability advantage.

We have digital print technology now that allows for as many colors or design innovations as one likes. We should use it.
Yes if we’re talking about French suited cards, then red/black variant applies. Have a look at this Bavarian/German suits; as far as I’m concerned they’re quite older than French suits. I’m not saying you could play Poker with them :ROFL: :ROFLMAO: but you know.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4440.jpeg
    IMG_4440.jpeg
    165 KB · Views: 39
Yes if we’re talking about French suited cards, then red/black variant applies. Have a look at this Bavarian/German suits; as far as I’m concerned they’re quite older than French suits. I’m not saying you could play Poker with them :ROFL: :ROFLMAO: but you know.
That left one is nsfw
 
Two-color decks only exist today because of the economics of producing decks ***hundreds of years ago.***

Even when it became possible to mass-produce cards, it was still very laborious and expensive to use multiple inks.

Being attached to a standard that old is silly, especially when the standard was arbitrary or forced by the limits of totally outmoded technology.
I agree and I think I would personally have no issue playing with a live four-color deck.

The only reason to prefer two-color is habit. And it’s an easy habit to break, worth doing because four-colors have a clear usability advantage.
The thing is gamblers are creatures of habit and there is no such thing as "an easy habit to break." There are more than a few stories of live rooms that have tried this only to bring back the old decks after a few hours. I'm not saying the switch will never happen, but it's anything but easy. It's probably something the next generation that is accustom to 4-color decks on screen moreso than my generation will have to demand.

This is in the category of playing at a table with electronic banking instead of chips. That's not going to be accepted in the near future either.
 
This is like one of this personality tests. Oh I’m a PS2

(Poker Size, Standard Index, 2 color)

I can’t imagine anything worse than 4 color jumbo. Yuck. Stay away BJ4!
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom