What are the most skillfull card games?
frankvf1
the best games for our group are those that involve a high degree of
skill. Many games such as hearts, rummy, canasta etc.. are fun for
the first several playings and then quickly lose their appeal once it
becomes apparent that luck plays a large part in who wins.
We are looking for the most skillfull games in the 3 player or 5
player category since Bridge seems to dominate our 4 player games.
This is not to say that we prefer trick taking games. We don't have
any preference as to the mechanic of the game, it's just that Bridge
rewards skillfull play more often than luck.
For those of you who have played a lot of different card games, what
games would you consider to be the most skillfull 3 and 5 player
games?
Thanks in advance.
Frank
Derek Carver
It seems arrogant of me to recommend one of my own games. But I have been a
card'game player all my life with several games published but I felt that the
real test of an inventor was to invent a game playable with normal cards.
Because we are serious gamers and don't have a game specifically for five
players this is the task I set myself. The rules have now been published in
various magazines under differnt titles (FUNF and CHINKWAY). It seems I can't
attach them to this e-mail but I will send them separately.
Derek
Laury Chizlett
>For those of you who have played a lot of different card games, what
>games would you consider to be the most skillfull 3 and 5 player
>games?
Some years back I had a German as house guest and he taught me and a
friend Skat, and for over a month we three played every night. Every
hand seemed to present a fresh problem, and could be evaluated in
several ways: there is luck in it, but the better player always seems to
win, and win sooner, rather than later.
Unfortunately, I have found that Skat is not much played outside German-
speaking countries/communities and parts of the US, other than in
isolated clubs. I have never managed to get a game since! I have tried
to teach it to other people but it has, at first encounter, an
appearance of complexity that puts people off learning it. So we
normally end up playing Black Maria.
I would be interested to know if anyone has managed to write a good
Skat-playing computer program. If no-one has, then that could possibly
be regarded as a measure of the skill needed to play it.
For 5+ players, I would say the most skilful must be one of the many
open variations of Poker, such as Hold-Em.
--
Laury Chizlett, London
Nick Wedd
<la...@trpdata.demon.co.uk> writes
>Unfortunately, I have found that Skat is not much played outside German-
>speaking countries/communities and parts of the US, other than in
>isolated clubs. I have never managed to get a game since! I have tried
>to teach it to other people but it has, at first encounter, an
>appearance of complexity that puts people off learning it. So we
>normally end up playing Black Maria.
Laury, are you aware that there is a fledgling Skat Association in
Britain? See http://www.weddslist.com/skat/index.html
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
GP
challenging game for 3 players.
For new players however, Schieberamsch could be an easier start, and then
players may turn to Skat.
I would also recommend the Illustrated Preference game, where the simpler
version (the Austrian one)
can also be used to start with.
Thanos
"Nick Wedd" <ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Zmxl0lO1...@maproom.demon.co.uk...
frankvf1
Thanks for your game. The game sounds like it would be fun. Reading
the rules initially, it looked like just another trick taking game,
but the quest pack should add some variety and add to the interest.
I'll try it out with my group.
frankvf1
If you do a search on google, using the terms Skat tutorial you will
come up with a site that has a lot of Skat shareware.
Thanks for your input. I'll look at Skat and Black Maria.
Frank
Bill Taylor
But there are two ways of reducing it substantially, and promoting the skill
factor. One way is to play duplicate style, as bridge is usually done,
(which is what makes it considered so skillful - rubber bridge has a vast
luck element!) But duplicate doesn't sound as though it would fit with
your 3 and 5 people parties.
The other way is to play a game whose rules take account of the strength
of the cards dealt. IMHO there is only ONE type of game that does this...
"OH HELL".
=======
It goes by many other names, and there are many variants. Essentially,
just a simple trick-taking game (with or without trumps as per variant),
where each player *nominates* how many tricks he will get. He must get
the exact number to score positively, and may score negative if wrong.
The party version of this game involves dealing out variable sized hands,
so that there are variable numbers of "missing" cards. That is fun but
hugely luck-dominated.
The high-skill version is to deal out ALL cards, and always play at no-trump.
(One may also construct variants wherein players bid for the right to name
trumps. These can be fun too.)
At the all-cards, no-trump, high-skill variant; the scoring system is also
important. There are a huge number of these as well. A scoring system should
encourage bidding high, (as it is much easier to play for a small number
of tricks, specially 0 or 1); and it should also DIScourage going down
by too many - to prevent a player already doomed from playing stupidly
thereafter to try to "bring down as many with me as I can!"
My suggestion is:- For making your bid, square it and add 2;
---------------- (i.e. 2 3 6 11 18... for making 0 1 2 3 4...);
For going down, minus the square of the number you missed by (higher or lower).
It's a game of tremendous skill! Have fun!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Taylor W.Ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All those in favour of making pirate noises say "Aye",
all those in favour of making horsey noises say "Nay".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
frankvf1
Thanks for the suggestion. The game "Oh Hell" that you are describing
sounds similar to David Parlett's game called "Ninety Nine". We tried
that a while back, but it didn't seem to catch on. I'm not sure why,
but I think it might have been because it is quite difficult to
determine how many tricks you will make and also take into account the
cards you will need to lay down in order to indicate your bid.
Generally, I find that the most enjoyable games are those that demand
a high degree of skill to do well at, but do not require extensive
analysis. As an example, I used to find chess very interesting until
I relaized that in order to play well I would need to either analyze
each and every move with its ramifications, or memorize many game
patterns. Neither option is fun for me. A game should require
thought, but still present the player with some fairly obvious options
from time to time. If the decision tree becomes too large, I suspect
most people will quit playing.
David Parlett
> Thanks for the suggestion. The game "Oh Hell" that you are describing
> sounds similar to David Parlett's game called "Ninety Nine". We tried
> that a while back, but it didn't seem to catch on. I'm not sure why,
> but I think it might have been because it is quite difficult to
> determine how many tricks you will make and also take into account the
> cards you will need to lay down in order to indicate your bid.
When I first published Ninety-Nine some 25 years ago I noted that the average success rate was
about 50 per cent, and quoted statistics showing that all three players succeeded 7 per cent
of the time, two players did so 39 per cent, one player 37 per cent, and none 17 per cent.
Over the past year we've been playing Ninety-Nine again pretty well every week and keeping
statistics - with almost exactly the same result. I thought this might be of some relevance to
the question of skill and difficulty.
In case anyone's interested, I've just posted on my web site what I think is an improved
version of Ninety-Nine for two players. It's called Point-99 and can be found at
http://www.davidparlett.co.uk/oricards/ninety9.html#p99
Comments welcome.
David Parlett
Charles Magri
> w.ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) wrote in message news:<716e06f5.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > It is of course impossible to remove all luck from any dealt-card games.
> >
> > But there are two ways of reducing it substantially, and promoting the skill
> > factor. One way is to play duplicate style, as bridge is usually done,
> > (which is what makes it considered so skillful - rubber bridge has a vast
> > luck element!) But duplicate doesn't sound as though it would fit with
> > your 3 and 5 people parties.
> >
> > The other way is to play a game whose rules take account of the strength
> > of the cards dealt. IMHO there is only ONE type of game that does this...
> >
> > "OH HELL".
> > =======
> >
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. The game "Oh Hell" that you are describing
> sounds similar to David Parlett's game called "Ninety Nine". We tried
> that a while back, but it didn't seem to catch on. I'm not sure why,
> but I think it might have been because it is quite difficult to
> determine how many tricks you will make and also take into account the
> cards you will need to lay down in order to indicate your bid.
>
> Generally, I find that the most enjoyable games are those that demand
> a high degree of skill to do well at, but do not require extensive
> analysis. As an example, I used to find chess very interesting until
> I relaized that in order to play well I would need to either analyze
> each and every move with its ramifications, or memorize many game
> patterns. Neither option is fun for me. A game should require
> thought, but still present the player with some fairly obvious options
> from time to time. If the decision tree becomes too large, I suspect
> most people will quit playing.
The discussion presented above and my love of bridge, the fun of oh
Hell and the originality of Ninety Nine, led me to combine all three
games and I came up with a game called Clumond. I believe it to be
very beautiful, but my opinion is of course biased. A description is
found at www.pagat.com.au in the invented games section and I maintain
a site www.geocities.com/cmagri2001/index.html where there is also
discussions about the motivations behind the game (FAQ sec.) as well
as a few sample hands. I have tried it out with bridge players who
like it, with non-bridge players who like it also. I think this may be
what your group is looking for. Try it out for yourself and see! I
would love to hear any comments you care to make.
Charles
Charles Magri
frankvf1
> about 50 per cent, and quoted statistics showing that all three players succeeded 7 per cent
> of the time, two players did so 39 per cent, one player 37 per cent, and none 17 per cent.
> Over the past year we've been playing Ninety-Nine again pretty well every week and keeping
> statistics - with almost exactly the same result. I thought this might be of some relevance to
> the question of skill and difficulty.
>
> In case anyone's interested, I've just posted on my web site what I think is an improved
> version of Ninety-Nine for two players. It's called Point-99 and can be found at
> http://www.davidparlett.co.uk/oricards/ninety9.html#p99
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> David Parlett
Actually this version sounds better to me than the 3 player version
because of the lack of trump. Therefore, a bid should be easier to
determine and non Bridge players should enjoy the game more because of
this.
The decision tree is cut down to a manageable size, and leaves more
room for good play while requiring less analysis.
frankvf1
> about 50 per cent, and quoted statistics showing that all three players succeeded 7 per cent
> of the time, two players did so 39 per cent, one player 37 per cent, and none 17 per cent.
> Over the past year we've been playing Ninety-Nine again pretty well every week and keeping
> statistics - with almost exactly the same result. I thought this might be of some relevance to
> the question of skill and difficulty.
>
> In case anyone's interested, I've just posted on my web site what I think is an improved
> version of Ninety-Nine for two players. It's called Point-99 and can be found at
> http://www.davidparlett.co.uk/oricards/ninety9.html#p99
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> David Parlett
(I tried posting a reply before this one, but received an error.
Please excuse this message if the original was already posted).
Actually, I think the 2 player version is better for non Bridge
players than the 3 player version. The lack of trump makes it easier
to determine what your bid should be. The fact that the high card
wins regardless of suit leaves more room to win or lose the tricks you
need in order to make your bid. The only problem to solve now, is
what cards to toss in order to make your bid.
I'm looking forward to trying this one.
jhurn
you that aren't familiar w/ the game of pinochle, this is a variation
that can be learned quickly, but takes a long time to master. The
game can also be varied to play 2 teams of 2 or 2 teams of 3 partners.
Although the site doesn't list the opening scores. 5 generally opens
w/ 2 people and in increases slightly for each person that is added
into the game. 5 for 2. 5 for 3. 6 for 4. 7 for 5. 8 for 6. As
adding in other people make tricks more difficult to come by. You can
adjust the openings to whatever you see fit for your game.
This is also a great way to teach a young person how to play w/out
overwhelming them w/ the number of cards.
Al Mirpuri
The most skillful card games are:
In descending order:
Poker (Hi-Lo Declare being the most skillful of the family)
Contract Bridge (Duplicate Bridge)
Skat
Gops
Only poker is suitable for 3-5 players.
David Pubart
Fiasco: www.fiascogames.com. It's good for 2-6 people, and plays well with
3 or 5. In fact, the dynamics of the game changes dramatically depending on
how many players there are. The rules are simple but the possibilities and
outcomes are very complex. The rules are posted on the website above. It's
the only game I play now because of it's flexibility for # of players. It's
usually too difficult finding 4 people who are at the same skill level to
play Bridge. Enjoy!
"frankvf1" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0aa5a06.0306...@posting.google.com...