"Rod Pemberton" wrote:
>> I think the order of a set of five
> A set of five was just to simplify the issue...
> Did you want to see 52 cards? ;-)
I can image it, so not neccessarily required ;)
>> I think the order of a set of five isn't relevant at all in a cards
game,
>> so we may always see and sort it ascending (like most players do).
> The order of a set of cards is not relevant for cards in hand. But, the
> order is relevant for cards in the deck or discard pile.
>> sort it ascending (like most players do).
> The secret is out. I sort my hand descending.
...
> Since most people do sort their hand ascending (IMO),
> I don't think that most people use this trick or I
> would've noticed the stalemate effect much more often.
Best for Poker is not to sort at all, but you know 'dice are loaded'
so I decided already decades ago to have my beer without gambling.
__
wolfgang
|
