9. HIGHEST CARD. Where no hand has either of the above combinations, that
containing the highest card is the winner.
[As between pairs or sequences in opposing hands, the highest wins.
Where each holds two pairs, the two best are compared, and the highest
wins. In the event of equality of pairs, the hand containing the
highest indifferent card wins. In the event of absolute equality
between the two best hands, the pool is divided.]
A study of the foregoing table will make clear the objects aimed at by each
player, and the principles which regulate his discard. It may be taken for
granted that a player, having received a scoring combination, however
small, will certainly hold it. Thus with a pair and three indifferent
cards, the player would certainly retain the pair and exchange the rest, in
the hope of converting his pair into threes, or something better. With
threes, he would, as a rule, exchange the two indifferent cards, in the
hope of receiving a pair, and so transforming his "threes" into a "full."
With two pairs, he would exchange the odd card, in the hope of receiving
another of like denomination with one or other of his pairs, which again
would give him a "full."
It may occasionally happen that a player receives in the first instance a
hand so good that he is not likely to gain anything by drawing, and
prefers, {126} therefore, to stand on the cards given him. Such a hand is
known as a "pat" hand. The most obvious example of a hand which cannot gain
by drawing is that of fours. This, as we have seen, is the second highest
hand that can be held; indeed, a straight flush is of so rare occurrence,
and the holding of two fours by different players so unlikely a contingency
that a hand of "fours" is practically a safe winner. The odd card is in
such case worthless, but nothing for which it could be exchanged would add
to the value of the hand.
There is, however, another consideration to be taken into account in
determining whether to draw or not. This we shall deal with hereafter. For
the moment we will revert to our imaginary game. A has passed out; B, C, D
and E have respectively raised or made good the raise (to the extent,
including the ante, of nine counters each). We will now examine their
cards. B's hand consists of ace of hearts, queen and three of diamonds,
queen of clubs, and five of spades. He has thus a pair of queens, but the
remaining cards are at present worthless. C has ace of clubs, three and
four of spades, nine of hearts and two of diamonds, four out of the five
cards being in sequence. D has ten and eight of hearts, ten of spades,
knave of clubs, and eight of diamonds; a fairly good hand, for it contains
two pairs. E has five cards without any scoring combination, say eight and
three of clubs, king and four of hearts, and knave of spades.
B has the first claim to draw. He might very well discard all three of his
non-scoring cards, but such a proceeding would be tantamount to an
acknowledgement that he only had as yet a pair {127} and one of the main
points at Poker is to keep the adversaries in the dark as to the strength
of the player's hand. He has nearly as good a chance of making a three, or
two pairs, by exchanging two cards only, and accordingly does so, retaining
the pair and the ace of hearts. We will suppose that he draws the queen of
hearts and nine of diamonds. He has now threes of queens. C exchanges the
nine of hearts, in the hope of completing his sequence, but draws, say, the
knave of diamonds, which makes him no better. D, having already two pairs,
discards the odd card on the chance of drawing another eight or ten, either
of which would make him a "full," but actually draws, say, the five of
diamonds, which is useless. E's hand is absolutely worthless as it stands.
He might exchange all five cards, in the hope of drawing better, but to do
so would be to confess his weakness, and at Poker it is not always the best
hand that wins. He exchanges _one card only_, leaving it to be inferred
that he has either two pairs, threes, fours, or a flush or sequence lacking
one card. He discards the three of clubs, and receives, say, the ace of
spades, leaving his hand still worthless.
The betting is now resumed. In regular order it would be for B (the Age) to
start it, but he has the privilege, if he so pleases, of "holding the age,"
_i.e._ reserving his stake till the other players have had their say.[38]
C, therefore, is the first to declare. His cards are worthless, and he
decides to pass out. {128} D has but a moderate hand, for two pairs may
easily be beaten. On the other hand, they frequently win, and it would be
foolish to show the white feather until he knows a little more about the
hands of his adversaries. He goes five counters. E, as we have seen, has
nothing. He has two alternatives, either to go out and sacrifice what he
has already staked, or to endeavour to drive others out by a false pretence
of strength. Deciding for the latter alternative, he not only makes good
D's stake, but goes ten better, as though he held a capital hand. A has
already passed out; and it is, therefore, B's turn. He has "threes," a much
more than average hand, and far too good to be driven out of the field
without a struggle. Under such circumstances two alternatives are open to
him. He may simply make good the last raise, and say, "I'll see you" (in
which case all turn up their cards, and, having the better hand, B wins the
pool), or he may be inclined to speculate a little further. He makes good
the raise, and goes five better. C, it will be remembered, has already
passed out; and D, inferring from the persistence of E and B that they hold
pretty strong hands, thinks discretion the better part of valour, and goes
out also. The battle is now solely between B and E. B has a good hand, and
E has nothing; but if he is a bold player, he may still win. B's last
raise, which was to only half the limit, tends to indicate that he has not
a _very_ strong hand, and perhaps a little "bluffing" (as the betting upon
a worthless hand is called) may frighten him out of the field. Accordingly,
E not only makes good B's raise, but again goes the _maximum_ (ten) better.
Unless E has the reputation (a very undesirable one) {129} of a habitual
bluffer, B will probably begin to feel alarmed. E's repeated raises,
coupled with the fact that he only drew one card--a sign of a pretty strong
hand--suggest that he holds probably fours, if not a "full," "sequence," or
"flush," either of which would put B out of the running. He is again
confronted with the same alternatives--viz. to make good E's raise and see
him (in which case B would win); to go better, which seems hazardous; or to
pass out, thereby avoiding the necessity of making good the last raise. If
he is a timid player, he may possibly (either at this stage or later) adopt
the latter course, in which case E takes the pool _without showing his
cards_, thereby concealing the fact that they were worthless. This
privilege is very important, for "bluffing" is an essential part of the
game of Poker, and to bluff with success depends mainly on the adversaries'
ignorance of the habitual tendencies of the player in this particular. If a
player is known to be in the habit of bluffing, he does so at a great
disadvantage. The man who can bluff most successfully is the steady-going
player with whom high stakes are the usual indication of good cards. When
such a one begins to "plunge," the other players are apt to place
themselves in the position of the coon sighted by the crack marksman in the
American story, "Don't fire; I'll come down." Obviously, to expose the
cards on which a player has been steadily raising all competitors, and
reveal the fact that, instead of the expected "full," or "flush," there is
not even a solitary "pair" among them, would tend heavily to discount the
effectiveness of the same player's bluffing in a subsequent round. Hence
the {130} rule of not showing the cards in such a case, which is always
adhered to.
The probabilities of receiving by the deal one or other of the Poker
combinations are thus stated by "Cavendish:"
Odds against a straight flush 649,999 to 1
" fours 4,164 to 1
" a full 693 to 1
" a flush 507 to 1
" a straight 254 to 1
" triplets 45 to 1
" two pairs 20 to 1
" one pair 13 to 10
It is obvious that the privilege of filling the hands tends greatly to
diminish these odds against any given hand (say by one-half, as the player
may if he pleases have ten instead of five chances), but the relative
frequency of the hands will remain pretty much the same. Bearing in mind
the considerations above suggested, it is obvious that the ultimate chances
are in favour of holding a pair, and as each player has the same chance, a
pair, and particularly a _low_ pair, is but a poor hand. From this to two
pairs is a long step, and a player who invariably held triplets would, in
the long run, be a heavy winner. _A fortiori_, any hand above this limit
stands to win, and should be backed accordingly.
The smaller the number of players, the more freely may a fair hand be
backed, as there is the less probability of its being surpassed by other
players.
In drawing to a pair, if one of the indifferent cards should be an ace or
court card, this card should be retained, and only the other two exchanged.
Holding "threes," the player may please himself whether to draw two cards
or one only, but the {131} latter is preferable, as giving less information
to the enemy.
With "fours," the odd card should always be exchanged, for the same reason.
The hand cannot be improved by the exchange, but the adversaries are left
in uncertainty as to its value.
Holding four of the needful cards to make a flush or straight, the player
should go in, and exchange one card, in the hope of completing the desired
combination. With less than five cards, the attempt has but little chance
of success.