Why do we insist on playing Four-Three? It seems to hurt the people who get unlucky way more than it helps the ones that get lucky. (Did I just answer my own question?)
Tonight the pot grew to fifty dollars. Not the biggest one we’ve had, but still big. It got to fifty after Mike Stefanidis, Paul and Mary were in a hand, and Mike scooped with two pair for high… and king-high for low! And once the pot got to fifty, it stayed there for a while (minus jackpot each time) when hand after hand more unlikely scoops occurred when it was heads-up.
Jeff (who posted his worst Card Night ever) made a good suggestion: “We should keep the stats for Four-Three separate from the rest of the games we play.”
| Mark D | +$98.00 |
| Mary | ‑$36.00 |
| Paul | ‑$93.00 |
| Phil | +$26.00 |
| Bill | +$99.00 |
| Jeff | ‑$138.00 |
| Mike S | +$24.00 |
Jackpot is now $23.00.
Card Night Blog 
Yes, some years ago I suggested a crazy totals-by-game stat. A real nightmare to carry out. But here’s an idea: run four-three at the end of the night, after tallying the normal totals. Kills the spontaneity.
Or, use unique chips to play this one game at any time during the session. You’d have to buy in separately at the beginning of CardNight. Speaking of chips, I still have a roll (100) of brand-new 11.5g purple “wheat” chips. If you are interested in them, I can offer them at the price I bought them for. Nice addition to the home game.