Poker-type card game

Abstract

A poker-type game capable of providing a dealer with an initial advantage and a player with a subsequent advantage. From a predetermined number of cards, a dealer is assigned an initial hand having a greater poker value than an initial hand assigned to a player. Subsequently, a dealer receives a number of cards to complete the dealer's hand, and the player receives a number of cards to complete the player's hand, wherein a predetermined poker advantage is conveyed to the predetermined number of cards to complete the player's hand.

Description

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS [0001] This is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10 / 712,501 filed Nov. 13, 2003 in the name of the Applicant, to which priority is claimed.BACKGROUND [0002] 1. Field of Invention [0003] This invention relates generally to card games and methods therefor and, more particularly, to a poker-type card game with mutually exclusive advantages for a dealer and at least one player. [0004] 2. Description of Prior Art [0005] Casino poker games have been popular since the late 1980's when the games “Carribean Stud” (disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,836,553 to Suttle, et al in 1989), “Double Down Stud” (disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,167,413 to Fulton in 1992), and “Let It Ride” (disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,288,081 to Breeding in 1994) were introduced. Later, “Three Card Poker” (disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,685,774 to Webb in 1997), was also introduced. These are the four most popular casino poker games today. [0006] While these four g...

AI Technical Summary

Benefits of technology

"The patent describes a new method for playing poker that gives the dealer a better start in the game and the player a better chance to win later on. This method is unique and has not been seen before in any other game. It provides a basis for a new and interesting poker game with suspense and surprise for the player."

Problems solved by technology

This problem is that these games do not supply high-quality hands frequently enough to hold most player's interest.

This frequency is not great enough to hold the interest of many recreational gamblers.

As will be shown, however, the rarity of high-quality hands is not the only deficiency in these four well established games.

In the game “Let It Ride” (U.S. Pat. No. 5,288,081 to Breeding), lack of high-quality hands causes players to encounter losing streaks which, while mathematically predictable, can be very discouraging, and lead to a player quitting the game.

This loss rate is due to: (1) the rarity of high-quality hands; and (2) the inventor's selection of which hands would receive awards.

Therefore, the main drawbacks of the game “Let It Ride” are: (1) the rarity of high-quality hands; and (2) a low 24% win rate due, in part, to Breeding's paytable selection.

However, over 40% of the “Caribbean Stud” player's awards are greatly reduced because the dealer's hand is said to not ‘qualify’.

The dealer not ‘qualifying’ is a historic source of player dissatisfaction with this game, since a player with a high-quality hand is unhappy to find it is awarded only a fraction of its value because the dealer's hand did not ‘qualify’.

To summarize, drawbacks of “Caribbean Stud” are: (1) the requirement for the dealer's hand to ‘qualify’; (2) expert strategy suggests the player fold over 47% of all hands and simply surrender the Ante wager to the house; and (3) the rarity of high-quality poker hands.

While this popular option adds more suspense to these games, “Let It Ride ” and “Caribbean Stud” still suffer the drawbacks noted above.

To summarize, drawbacks of “Double Down Stud” are: (1) the rarity of high-quality hands; and (2) the lack of a side wager with very high payoffs for rare poker hands.

This is virtually the same disadvantage suffered by “Let It Ride”.

Additionally, the no-skill aspect of this proposition discourages players who like games requiring player decisions.

This, again, is a source of continual player dissatisfaction because player awards are reduced for, on average, 46% of a player's winning hands.

Nonetheless, the dealer ‘qualify’ requirement is a drawback of the “Ante / Play” wager.

Consequently, the “Ante / Play” wager can be somewhat discouraging due to the necessity to fold 33% of all hands, which will result in losing one's Ante wager to the house and getting no wagering ‘action’ in return.

To summarize, drawbacks of the game “Three Card Poker” are: (1) the high rate of player losses in the “Pair Plus” wager; (2) the requirement for the dealer to ‘qualify’ in the “Ante / Play” wager; (3) the expert strategy which compels players following the strategy to fold 33% of all “Ante / Play” wagers; and (4) the lack of any side wager paying very high awards for rare poker hands.

Consequently, it is not possible to assess how well these games remedy the noted shortcomings of the four established games.

For this group of players, introducing another unrelated game is undesirable and unnecessary.

For other players the mixing of games would be confusing.

Second, the game in U.S. Pat. No. 5,975,529 (to de Keller) would be very hard, or impossible, to administer in a casino poker setting because more than one player is required for the game, and this is not always possible, especially when a game is just getting started or is breaking up.

Additionally, since competition between players is involved, the potential for emotional outbreaks between players exists.

Both of these factors would make the game very difficult to administrate.

Invariably, traditional poker players avoid wild card games, viewing them as family-entertainment poker and not worthy of serious attention.

In summary, any wild card game would likely have only limited appeal to traditional poker players and be disliked by casino managers.

One difficulty with this invention is that it requires the casino dealer to continually use two pay tables that are very similar.

As a result, this game would be difficult to administrate.

There is also a problem for the casino in that part of each optional wager must fund the progressive jackpot and part of it must fund the basic “Let It Ride” pay table.

Since the inventor does not explain how this ratio is derived, game administration would be hampered until a suitable ratio was developed.

In a table poker game setting, this task would be far too great for a dealer on a consistent basis.

Also, handling the great number of cards would quickly tire a dealer.

This game would definitely not appeal to traditional poker players who expect and enjoy strategy and decision-making.

It is not likely that traditional poker players would accommodate this mixing of game types.

As such, to this group, mixing two game types appears unnecessary and undesirable.