This will be long, but it's a process I recently went through and wrote this up to record results. Going through it altered my view of how long cards will last and how to deal with it.
The 2016 season ended the third year of card use for the North Texas Poker Group. It was the time when anticipated use would equal out if all games were of uniform size. It didn’t work out that way. Before the 2017 season started, I examined all 36 remaining decks because it seemed like some cards in play in 2016 showed signs of wear. That was partially true and the examination would eventually reveal the reasons for that perception.
Original plan: Copag cards; multiple deck backs to reduce the chances of cards getting mixed up. Setups planned so that each month there were 3 setups with different backs and 3 backup setups with different backs. Some setups were identical -- 2 or sometimes 3 -- but those were scheduled for different months. Cards planned for use 2x/year 6 months apart. Setups grouped by 2 months so that January cards were backed up by February cards, and in February, January cards were backups. None of those 6 setups had the same back style. Generally styles were mixed in a setup so that each table played with 2 decks of different backs and different color. After February, those cards went to storage for the March/April cards, then the same thing for May/June cards. Anticipated use per deck – 9 hours a year for each setup; last 3-5 years with an average of 4 years. That proved totally unrealistic! Use came to about 5-6 hours a year average with many decks; some might last 5 years, but on average are unlikely to average 4 years.
Summary: We started a card replacement fund because our cards are wearing out – 25% of the originals damaged; 30% warped, still playable but should be retired; the remaining 45% in good or great shape.
We started the 2014 season with 40 decks of Copag cards; 4 separate decks were damaged during the first use and removed. An examination of all 36 decks revealed 3 problems:
1. Back fading, which leads to marked cards. Some fading on 6 decks, some much worse than others. One is not yet noticeable. Worst fading offenders have been dark blue backs and bright red backs. I guess that makes sense when you think about it as with darker backs, fading will be noticed quicker than with lighter backs.
2. Imperfect printing on one deck, an imperfection we’ve been playing with for a while.
3. Warping, though none of it bad enough yet to stop using them.
It’s important to have quality cards that won’t give more observant players an advantage. Things like fading and slightly off printing are unacceptable. Warping from shuffling is more acceptable if there are no other issues, but experience says those cards are in the twilight of their use.
Has anything been done to maintain the decks? Yes. Whether what was done is reasonable might be subject to debate. Since decks would be used no more than 2x/year, at least once annually the deck was quickly examined for obvious problems. Any small debris or sticky matter was removed.
The decks have been rotated. I counted the number of times each deck was used, including our two Main Events (where I had a formula to determine which decks to use based on lower usage from the prior year). Missing would be data from the rare secondary games.
Originally setups were labeled with a number and letter. Number indicated months of primary use and letter indicated primary (main table), secondary, and tertiary (first table broken down with 3), with a different rotation every year.
If we had 3 tables every time, our cards would all have been used the same amount, but of the last 37 tournaments, 9 have been 3 table affairs -- 5 in 2014, 3 in 2015, 1 in 2016; 25 have been 2 tables; and 3 have been 1 table affairs, all in 2016.
Classification Method: I looked at the face and back of each card in all 36 decks to determine fading, back printing (though I did it quickly enough I might have missed less obvious printing errors), and handled each one to determine flexibility or stiffness to rate warping. I came up with 4 classifications first. A = seems pretty new; B = not new but good shape; C = warping but still playable; F = not acceptable. Any fading resulted in no higher than a C, but only one was not yet visible on the backs to me.
Chart shows the estimated hours of use of each setup over 3 years (15 is average). The average was based on primary 4 hours, secondary 3 hours, and tertiary 2 hours, with more for the Main Event use. I realize that is somewhat crude, but I think it’s workable.
Month, Setup, Estimated Hours
1/7 A 16; B 14; C 19
2/8 A 14; B 14; C 17
3/9 A 13; B 14; C 16
4/10 A 14; B 14; C 16
5/11 A 14; B 14; C 18
6/12 A 11; B 14; C 17
A – 82 hours total
B – 84 hours total
C – 103 hours total
Condition of each of the individual decks, 1 and 2 of a setup: A -- 8; B – 10; C – 11; F – 7
Note that these estimates don’t account for games that went more or less than 4 hours; it assumes all games went 4 hours. If 2 tables, it assumed the final table was the last hour. If 3 tables, it assumed 2 hours for the first table up, another hour for the second table up. For Main Events, the estimates were 6, 4, and 3.
As you can see, the most used decks were 1/7C at 19 hours; least used decks were 6/12A at 11 hours; C decks averaged about 3 hours more use than A or B. In 2014 (first year), we went ABC (primary, secondary, tertiary), in 2015 BCA, and in 2016 CAB. You can see from Chart 1 that we just finished a rotation where the most used cards were the primary cards.
Overall Results: A’s (22.2%) averaged 14.25 hours of use; B’s (27.8%) 14.2 hours of use; C’s (30.6%) 15.0 hours of use, and F’s (19.4%) 16.3 hours of use. Put on a bell curve, these results seem reasonable – 50% in the top half and 50% in the bottom half. I made no attempt to equalize during the survey. I just labeled each deck as I saw it without regard to the results. I later looked at attendance records to determine approximate use of each deck.
Of 36 decks, 7 were retired, though the best of those is now a backup and will likely need to be retired after one more use, and 5 others are the worst of the remaining decks and those 6 decks are now backups. We have 8 decks great shape, and 10 in good shape, 8 OK for future use but really should be retired, 6 backups that really should not be used but could be.
· 2 were used 6 times; 1 in good shape, 1 retired
· 12 have been used 5 times; 4 in great shape, 2 in good shape, 4 OK; 2 retired
· 22 have been used 4 times; 4 in great shape, 5 are in good shape, 7 OK, and 4 retired
After removing those needing to be retired, I added the one with the least faded back (not yet noticeable to me) in as a backup.
If you are like me, you are wondering why the inconsistency in Copags. Originally I bought 8 decks of the more expensive cards. I liked the backs. It turns out that 6 of those 8 decks are in great shape and 2 are in good shape. Of the other 28 decks, 2 are in great shape. See the trend? Better cards last longer.
This analysis doesn’t account for the 10% of original cards that were damaged during their first use, all within the first 2 hours of play. Replacements for those decks were counted as being played with that entire night.
I anticipated 10% of the decks would be replacements, but I expected to replace them over time, not after one use. The 4 damaged cards happened to be 2 red and 2 blue decks. At least that part was convenient.
If you add the damaged cards back in to this survey, the results make the cards look much worse, but I think that’s misleading because the damage happened so quickly and hasn’t occurred since. Thus, I just threw that out.
Conclusions: Worst of the undamaged cards lasted about 14 hours with 2 decks in use. Some are still in good shape after 19 hours of use. Better (more expensive) cards are in the best shape after 14 hours or so of use, still being new-like. Half the cards are new-like or in very good shape after 14 hours.
If current trends continue using all surviving decks, we can expect 11 of our remaining decks to last no more than 2 more times.
Original plan: With 3 tables per night, the cards would all last 3 years, or about 18 hours of use with our card rotation. Then I thought over about 2 years, most of those cards would need to be replaced. Overall, I’m keenly disappointed that Copags, which I’ve used for years, have not held up well. I’ve heard Copags should last on average 20-30 hours. That may be a reasonable estimate, though based on these results, 30 seems high for an average. Four decks lasted only 14 hours, and might have been replaced sooner with a thorough examination earlier.
Are there steps that could be taken to extend the life of cards? Yes, but they are hard to enforce.
· Players could thoroughly wash their hands with soap prior to play, prior to starting after the break, and after eating.
· Those with sweaty hands could wipe their hands. Oils and grease especially cause fading and smudging.
· Players and dealers can be easier on the cards, especially with shuffling, dealing, and peaking, by not over-bending cards or rubbing cards more than necessary.
· Higher quality cards and all the above!
How does all of this affect my future plans for cards? Several ways:
· Card use is hard to equalize.
· After research and experimentation, I’m switching to Fourniers. They are thicker, last 2-3 times longer, and don’t fade as quickly, but cost about 67% more than Copags.
· In the future, I’ll always have a card fund of some kind. If we average $1 per player per time, replacing cards as needed should be easy to do. At some point, it might be less than that.
In June, I started a voluntary card fund. I find when I explain it briefly before each game I get more donations. I think if players pay an average of $1 per time cards can be replaced timely without undue hardship to anyone. That is based on my rotation of card use 12-13 times per year. If you play more often, you will need more cards. I do not think our group is hard on cards compared to other groups I've played in.