The plan worked admirably. X—— and myself met at a pre-arranged “trysting-place,” and sat down to play poker. Y—— dropped in and took a seat where he could over-look my hand. A “cold deck” had been prepared—need I say by whom?—and after I had lost a few trifling stakes X—— proceeded to “ring it in” on me, in accordance with his previous understanding. Regarding the operation from a “professional” standpoint, I may say that I never saw a trick more clumsily performed. Had I been, as Y—— supposed, a mere tyro, I could hardly have failed to detect it, so bunglingly was it done. However, I preserved a stolid demeanor, and proceeded to examine my hand. I found a pair of queens with three nines. Mr. X—— had a “full”—three jacks and a pair of tens. Of course this latter was a strong hand. He bet; I promptly “raised” him one thousand dollars, putting the money on the table. Naturally, he professed to regard my “raise” as a mere “bluff,” and asked his friend, Y——, to lend him enough money to “see” me. Y—— rose from his chair, and, walking around the table, looked at X——’s hand. Seeing a “full house,” with jacks at the head, as against a smaller one, “nine full,” he willingly loaned the money. With a tolerable simulation of tremulous excitement, Mr. X—— contrived to display his cards. I promptly called for two cards, discarding a like number, and received, as I knew I should, two queens, thus securing “four of a kind,” which always wins against a “full.” The reader who has perused the explanation of the fair game, as given above, will, of course, perceive that in his intense anxiety to win a dishonest $500, Mr. Y—— had overlooked my right to “draw,” although he was satisfied that on the hand which he had seen me hold, I was morally certain to be content with the cards which I had. Yet, cupidity often over-reaches itself in a similar way.
Of course I won and pocketed the stakes, although, in justice to myself, I may add that I divided my winnings fairly with Mr. X——, who received exactly one-half of the money out of which his friend had been cheated.
If the inexperienced, unsophisticated reader will carefully peruse the foregoing paragraphs, he will have but little difficulty in reaching the conclusion that playing poker is about as hazardous as “encountering the tiger in his lair.”
STUD POKER.
Another variety of poker in great favor among the gambling fraternity is called “stud poker,” a stud poker table being now considered a necessary adjunct to every first-class gambling house. The necessary outfit for the game consists of checks, cards and a table large enough to seat 10 or 12 persons. Regular dealers are employed and usually four or five “pluggers” (by which term are designated men who play for the house and with money belonging to the proprietors). The game is very simple, and any one acquainted with the value of draw poker can play, and lose his money as easily and rapidly as he could possibly desire. The game may be illustrated as follows: Suppose four persons, whom we will designate as A, B, C and D, sit down to play. In some games, in fact usually, each player puts up one check as an ante. This having been done, the dealer deals the first card, face downward, to each player, beginning with the one who sits immediately on his (the dealer’s) left; another card is then dealt around with the face exposed, as must also be the other three cards in case a hand of five is dealt. Let us suppose that A’s exposed card is an ace, B’s a queen, C’s a nine spot, and D’s a ten. It is then A’s first bet because he has the highest card in sight. He can wager any amount he chooses, and the others can throw away their cards or “stay in,” by putting up an equal stake to that of A’s. If B, C and D should throw down their cards, the checks in the “pot” belong to A, and the dealer shuffling, begins another deal. Should either B, C or D “see” A’s bet or “raise” him, the dealer, deals off another card, face upward, when the player who has the highest cards in sight, has another opportunity to “pass” or bet, while the others have the choice of throwing away their cards or “seeing” the bet, and so on until five cards are dealt, when the players must guess at each other’s buried card, or “hole card” as it is technically called.
Sometimes at stud poker an instrument known as “The Buck” is used. This is employed where all the players do not “ante.” Any article may be used for this purpose. Sometimes an ivory chip with a string running through it; sometimes a circular piece of leather, its material and form are unimportant. It passes in rotation, one to another, the player in front of whom it is placed being required to “ante” a chip and receiving the first card dealt. The game then proceeds as already described. The chances for “crooked work” at this game are legion. In a word nearly every fraudulent device employed in “draw” poker may be utilized in “stud” poker. “Stocking,” “palming,” “holding out,” “false cuts,” “paper,” “partnerships,” etc., etc., are just as useful in one case as in the other.
INCIDENTS AND REMINISCENCES.
The vicissitudes of the life of a professional gambler are numerous and shifting, and perhaps the ups and downs of a poker player’s career are as varying as those which attend the checkered experience of any other description of gambler.
I remember some rather startling experiences of my own in this direction. I was once traveling in partnership with a man named Enyert. At a town in Missouri we fell in with a mule-buyer named Brown. Enyert was cursed with one of the most violent tempers that falls to the lot of man. So also was Brown. Both of them were known as “dangerous” men, i. e., ready with the pistol. I was dealing marked cards and my knowledge of Brown’s character made me extremely nervous. I knew that if he detected any cheating my life would be exacted as a forfeit. An expert marked card player always needs his wits, and my nervousness prevented me from using mine. On the other hand, I knew that if my partner (Enyert) did not win he would accuse me of “throwing him off” to Brown, i. e., of playing in collusion with the latter, in which case I was quite as likely to be shot by him. To use a slang expression, I was too badly “rattled” to be of any use as a dealer and brought the game to a close as soon as possible.
This man Enyert shot the son of the Mayor of Ottumwa, familiarly known as “Billy” Orr, and would, on one occasion, have carved up my anatomy with a bowie knife, had I not dissuaded him by showing him the muzzle of a six-chambered navy revolver. Brown’s son inherited his father’s disposition. Having some trouble with his wife’s parents, he emptied both barrels of a shotgun into them, killing Dr. Parish, his father-in-law, and seriously wounding the Doctor’s wife. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged. His wife visited him in his cell and contrived to convey to him, secretly, a dose of poison. They mutually agreed to end their lives at an appointed time. The hour fixed fell in the night preceding his execution. When it arrived the woman blew out her brains with a pistol, but Brown lacked the physical courage to carry out his part of the contract, and was publicly hanged on the following day after making an impassioned appeal to the crowd in behalf of his son. He and his devoted wife were buried in the same grave.