New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

The math behind a perfect poker deck

A traditional card deck happens to dodge a tricky poker paradox. Other poker variants aren’t so lucky

An array of poker hands

Amanda Montañez

What’s the perfect number of cards for playing poker? According to a new mathematical discovery, the answer is the traditional 52. Almost.

In Texas Hold’em poker, players wager on the best five-card hand they can make among the two cards in their hand and the communal ones on the table. Hands are ranked based on their probability of occurring. A full house, for example, with three cards of the same value (fives or kings, for instance) and two cards of another, is less likely than a flush with any five cards of the same suit. A full house therefore beats a flush. In short-deck poker, a variant that removes cards numbered 2 through 5 (called “ranks 2–5”), there are fewer cards of each suit and a flush becomes less likely than a full house. In a recent paper posted to the preprint server arXiv.org, computer scientist Christopher Williamson examines how the game of poker changes as the number of cards per suit increases or decreases. Depending on that number, an interesting paradox can occur, Williamson found—one that’s nearly always avoided in games with a 52-card deck with 13 in each suit.

After a bidding process, poker players will declare their best hands in what’s called the “showdown.” Consider two hands: a one pair, which has one pair of cards with the same value, and a two pair, with two pairs of such cards. In short-deck poker, although a two pair is less likely to appear than a one pair, its showdown probability—the likelihood that it will be the best hand someone has—is actually higher than that of a one pair. If the hand rankings were adjusted to account for this, no one would ever play a two pair over a one pair, which would change its showdown probability once again.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Graphic shows ten poker hands in order from strongest to weakest.

Amanda Montañez

“Thirteen is kind of the sweet spot,” Williamson says regarding how many cards a deck should have in each suit. It’s the smallest number for which the showdown ranking actually matches the standard ranking for all hands other than a single high card (the lowest-ranking hand). Although the usual number of cards in a deck is purely historical—it’s said to symbolize 52 weeks in the year and the four seasons—Williamson was delighted to find a more mathematical justification. There is only one superior setup, which would keep all rankings aligned to their showdown probabilities, including the high card: you’d need 23 cards in each suit, nearly twice as many as in the traditional deck.

Nikita Luther, a top professional poker player, finds the result fascinating. “It’s so complex, the way the variables interact with each other,” she says. Luther says she hasn’t deeply explored variants beyond Texas Hold’em; even there, “I could spend the rest of my life just trying to understand this game.”

Try a related math puzzle here.

Emma R. Hasson is Scientific American’s Games ace and a Ph.D. candidate in mathematics at the City University of New York Graduate Center with expertise in math education and communication. Hasson was also a 2025 AAAS Mass Media Fellow at Scientific American.

More by Emma R. Hasson
Scientific American Magazine Vol 334 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Poker Paradox” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 334 No. 2 (), p. 16
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican022026-6G9VsfhV4u1d562yaVwFWa

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe