+ Register

[alrelax]

I do see more three card seven bankers (3c7) winning when there are players two or three card totals of 6 and bankers first two cards totalling 1 with a 6 card being the 3rd card for the winning 3c7.

But I do see a lot of players side having a 3rd card of a 6 or a 7, and then the banker side completing a winning 3c7.  Also that happens abundantly on the player side without the banker side producing a 3c7, but a Bankers win nonetheless. Example, player having a two card 5 and the Banker having a two card 5, then the players pull a 7 and the bankers pull a third card of a 3-4, etc. 

I do not believe a greater amount of winning bankers 3c7's are made with any combination of zero for the first two cards of the banker and the banker needing a 7 for the completion of a winning 3c7. Why?  Because there are a greater number of combinations available to be formed with a A-2-3-4-5-6's and other first 2 banker side cards to start with other than a 0. 

A phenomenon in my book is, somehow when the players have their first two cards of 5 or less and start pulling 6 and 7s for their 3rd cards on several hands, or say 3 out of 6, 4 out of 7, etc., and the bankers either needed those six or seven's to win a 3c7 but nonetheless won the bankers hand or not, the 3c7 is forthcoming real quick. My experience is that happens to me around roughly 75% of the time I play.

Of course, there are just as many A-2-3-4-5-6 and 7's in the shoe as all other cards, except 10/Face cards (I am throwing 10s in there because I classify them the same as Face cards).  So not having a 7 available or abundantly remaining in the shoe, IMO does not disadvantage the bankers from completing a winning 3c7 at all.