I note on the side of the original version it says "best with 3 players" which seems to be consistent with the voting here on BGG. I've only just got the game but was wondering what specifically makes it best with 3?
The one main thing that I can think of why 3 is better than 2 is that the game is played over a number of rounds and finishes once at least one player gets $25,000. Therefore after a round or two if there is a clear leader then it would give the other players the opportunity to pick on the leader so that they then have more of a chance of winning. In a 2 player game this isn't possible so I can see why 3 is better than 2.
But then why is the game better with 4 than 3? Do you have more control with the game? Does a 4 player game take too long? Please let me know your thoughts.
just me 2 cents. I find Wyatt Earp and other rummy style games (I have several mystery rummy games) to be great with 2 or 3 players, but they you are right they do tend to drag a bit with 4 players. One reason why the 3 player could might edge up a little is that there is more opportunity for you to lay off cards on exisiting suits because there are often more suits on the table in a 3 player game than with 2. I've had some 2 player games where you go several rounds before someone can lay off a set of 3. This perhaps makes 3 players a little more appealing.
Just because it's best with 3, doesn't mean it's bad with 4.
With 4 I find that the hands may end more often by going through the deck twice instead of someone going out. You can get wide spreads of cards across 4 hands, making it harder to get sets of 3. With 4 a larger percentage of discards are unavailable to you.
It may be best with three, but it sure is excellent as a two player game.
I agree that it is good with 2 (and 4 players considering I enjoyed played it with 4 over the weekend) but was just questioning what made it best with 3. As I said in my initial post, the opportunity to pick on the leader is not there with 2 players.