Poll: Random is Random vs. Sacred Order (1 Viewer)

[Rieguy]

We've all been here in a home game.

The most frequent/normal scenario is the dealer misses pitching a single player one of their cards and simply gives them the last one off the top of the deck before the burn.

Or there's a double-board bomb-pot and the flop cards get jumbled, causing the order of top and bottom to get mixed up. The dealer randomly decides where to place them on the bottom and top, before flipping them over to expose the cards. Or the dealer pitches out too many cards to a couple people, but instead of taking the last one back, since they didn't see which card was last and the recipients didn't look, one is chosen at random. Or maybe your host/dealer places both Scarney boards face down to start (which is fine), but then trolls and randomly chooses which bottom and top cards to flip over instead of doing 1-3, then 4-5, then 6.

In all of the above scenarios the dealer shrugs and says, "Random is Random".

Do you...
1) agree with the dealer that Random is Random?
2) believe in the "Sacred Order" and now your hand has bad juju and that the dealer fcked you? (This vote doesn't mean you will protest the random selection, just that you believe in the Sacred Order mattering for the ultimate benefit/juju of your hand.)
3) have no opinion, because you're an indecisive prick?

Have at it!

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

I think I know what you mean but I can be a prick on other issues so I figured it was the safest vote.

But unless you’re a card mechanic then random is random.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Random is random. The "sacred order" philosophy makes dealing errors too difficult to resolve (or too easy to exploit).

 

[Kam]

The AI gods ChatGPT take:

Ohhh, elite question

I’m bilingually fluent in both camps, but if you force me to pick a jersey:

Team “Random Is Random” —

intellectually

• Cards don’t remember.
• Chips have no karma.
• The deck is a cold, indifferent god.
• Long-term math always wins, even when it hurts your feelings.

…but…

Team “Sacred Order” —


emotionally, spiritually, and at the table

• The deck must be squared.
• Wash → riffle → riffle → cut is not optional.
• One guy who “doesn’t believe in order” touches the deck and suddenly it’s 7-2o for an hour.
• The felt knows when it’s being disrespected.

So my true stance is:

Random is random — but don’t tempt fate like an asshole.

In real life? I’ll happily quote probability theory.

In a poker room? I will absolutely side-eye someone who:

• splash-pots,
• half-cuts,
• or shuffles like they’re mad at the cards.

If this were a poker table, I’d say:

Believe in randomness. Practice sacred order.

Now be honest:

are you the guy who re-cuts because “it didn’t feel right”… or the guy who says “same cards” after a bad beat?

 

[Kam]

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

@Kam people love their chatbots, man. We are going to see this manifest in some weird ways!

https://www.mentalhealthjournal.org...ai-revolution-is-impacting-mental-health.html

 

[Machine]

Wash → riffle → riffle → cut is not optional.

This is wrong. I dislike AI more and more.

 

[Machine]

@Kam people love their chatbots, man. We are going to see this manifest in some weird ways!

https://www.mentalhealthjournal.org...ai-revolution-is-impacting-mental-health.html

AI got a kid to kill himself

https://apnews.com/article/chatbot-...intelligence-9d48adc572100822fdbc3c90d1456bd0

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

AI got a kid to kill himself

https://apnews.com/article/chatbot-...intelligence-9d48adc572100822fdbc3c90d1456bd0

Yes, and its wholy unnaccountable. It is the technology of our lifetime and the fact that it is accessible to everyone is simultaneously wonderful and horrifying.

ANYWAYS, RANDOM IS RANDOM. We have apes showing up at all times of night. I'll do whatever possible to reconstitute the stub for the good of the game but if its a random card that's flipped I'm not going to feel bad, you're not owed Aces.

 

[Rieguy]

I'd also mention, this is less about the rules to go by and more to do with your personal belief/superstition. You don't have to oppose the random is random ruling to choose that you believe in the scared order.

Anyway, New Poll:

1) Am I waiting on @harrysallout and other superstitious people to argue Sacred Order?

or

2) Am I hoping there are more arguments about AI?

 

[detroitdad]

At my house it's random is random. I'll adjust to whatever the rules are if I'm playing at someone else's house. As long as they are consistent with the rules.

 

[BarrieJ3]

We've all been here in a home game.

The most frequent/normal scenario is the dealer misses pitching a single player one of their cards and simply gives them the last one off the top of the deck before the burn.

Or there's a double-board bomb-pot and the flop cards get jumbled, causing the order of top and bottom to get mixed up. The dealer randomly decides where to place them on the bottom and top, before flipping them over to expose the cards. Or the dealer pitches out too many cards to a couple people, but instead of taking the last one back, since they didn't see which card was last and the recipients didn't look, one is chosen at random. Or maybe your host/dealer places both Scarney boards face down to start (which is fine), but then trolls and randomly chooses which bottom and top cards to flip over instead of doing 1-3, then 4-5, then 6.

In all of the above scenarios the dealer shrugs and says, "Random is Random".

Do you...
1) agree with the dealer that Random is Random?
2) believe in the "Sacred Order" and now your hand has bad juju and that the dealer fcked you?
3) have no opinion, because you're an indecisive prick?

Have at it!

There isn't a "right" answer, but there is a "don't be a dick/annoyance" answer.

1. wtf is all the ai slop, can we stop just feeding every post into ai to see a response and then kill the thread with that convo.

2. random is random in 99% of cases. I can think of scarce examples where sure call a misdeal, i.e. maybe nose bleed stake hold 'em where staunch, unforgiving concrete rules are needed to 101% ensure strict fairness.

3. enough with the throwing cards out randomly, predealing and peeling at random, etc. in scarney. I don't actually mind and would never truly care, but personally I don't understand why some dealers in a rotation would suddenly change how an ubiquitous mechanism of all poker variants with a board operate. It's unnecessary, invites potential issues, with no benefit. Not all poker players are game/boardgame players, but to anyone who is this, just like the shuffle mechanism, is all bad no good. Again I have no problem with it, but don't see the point (I wouldn't mention anything, complain, yadda yadda in person when someone does it). See above regarding "don't be a dick/annoyance.

Somewhat on topic, my only houserule: if during the deal of any cards, a card is flipped, the receiving player has the option to keep that card. They must decide immediately in that moment.

edit - I'm not such a boisterous ass to think my answer is right and if you disagree you're a dick/annoyance btw y'all. would love to hear other views, specifically people who play circus but maintain a sacred order type of view cause that seems interesting (crazy) to me.

 

[UnicornFlash]

Where is the option for the only right answer: Gematria.

 

[detroitdad]

Somewhat on topic, my only houserule: if during the deal of any cards, a card is flipped, the receiving player has the option to keep that card. They must decide immediately in that moment.

I agree with your entire post minus this paragraph.

House rules are house rules!

 

[BarrieJ3]

I agree with your entire post minus this paragraph.

House rules are house rules!

You don't want the option to keep a great card if it's flipped? You can still turn it down if you don't like others knowing what you have.

Historically I host very rarely, but I've only kept this rule because 9.5/10 times when it's a good card, the person keeps it - very rarely does someone operate on I won't take a shown card no matter what.

 

[bigblind]

Random is random

 

[Josh Kifer]

Where is the option for the only right answer: Gematria.

 

[Josh Kifer]

You don't want the option to keep a great card if it's flipped? You can still turn it down if you don't like others knowing what you have.

Historically I host very rarely, but I've only kept this rule because 9.5/10 times when it's a good card, the person keeps it - very rarely does someone operate on I won't take a shown card no matter what.

We do the same thing. You wanna keep. You can, but that's on the player immediately.

 

[upNdown]

You don't want the option to keep a great card if it's flipped? You can still turn it down if you don't like others knowing what you have.

Hmm. I guess I'm fine with that rule, but I think I'd want to modify it, saying that you're only entitled to make that decision if you haven't seen your other hole card(s.)

 

[Jimulacrum]

3. enough with the throwing cards out randomly, predealing and peeling at random, etc. in scarney.

I am 100% on board with you here. I don't understand the appeal of dealing the whole board face-down and then flipping for each round.

It's only marginally less work than a normal dealing procedure, and as a result:

• A player can create a total disaster by pitching a folded hand into the board, accidentally or otherwise.
• Players may see the faces of upcoming cards via sloppy dealing procedure. (A lot of people peel when they deal, and in my experience, peeler-dealers are overrepresented specifically among the population that likes to deal the board out face-down.)
• If any cards have recognizable marks, they're now all laid out for players to carefully inspect for an extended period of time.

I never deal this way, and I discourage everyone else from dealing this way, no matter the game.

Honestly, I may start pitching my folded cards into the board on purpose just to make the point. It's all fun and games until you're in a huge pot, waiting for the action to get to you, and suddenly the upcoming board cards are mixed up and it's an unmitigated shitshow no one knows how to properly resolve. Dealing procedures evolved the way they did for a reason. There's no shame in just doing it the normal way.

cc: @MatB

Historically I host very rarely, but I've only kept this rule because 9.5/10 times when it's a good card, the person keeps it - very rarely does someone operate on I won't take a shown card no matter what.

I am one of those players. I always want the replacement card. You can kinda get away with an exposed card in some games with large hands, but even in some of those games it's a bad idea. Like imagine you get an exposed ace in Scarney, now fast-forward to the river with two cards left, and everyone still in the hand knows one of your two cards is the . Or even in a more ordinary game like Omaha, someone specifically knowing you have the can really screw you on certain board textures.

(Also, I recommend tightening up the rule to address whether people get to keep the card even if they've looked at some of their other cards. Some people peel them one by one, and if they've already looked but other people haven't, it creates a disparity when those other people are told they have to decide without looking at the rest.)

 

[BarrieJ3]

Hmm. I guess I'm fine with that rule, but I think I'd want to modify it, saying that you're only entitled to make that decision if you haven't seen your other hole card.

1.what is this came with only 2 hole cards you speak of?
2. I mean sure. But it’s hold em. Everyone else knowing 1 of your 2 cards is insanely powerful and should offset.

 

[upNdown]

1.what is this came with only 2 hole cards you speak of?
2. I mean sure. But it’s hold em. Everyone else knowing 1 of your 2 cards is insanely powerful and should offset.

I edited it. Obviously, we should discuss all poker games (even though 90% of them are holdem.)

 

[BarrieJ3]

(Also, I recommend tightening up the rule to address whether people get to keep the card even if they've looked at some of their other cards. Some people peel them one by one, and if they've already looked but other people haven't, it creates a disparity when those other people are told they have to decide without looking at the rest.)

It’s always you pick right then. Doesn’t matter if you’ve seen or not, you can’t peek or relook, have to make the call.

I’m never worried on it helping one person more than the other. Perhaps because I usually don’t look at cards as they come so it specifically doesn’t benefit me as the host. If someone is truly focused enough to change their style in order to make sure they see max benefit from that house rule, they’re going to struggle massively with the variance and blind playing and unlimited straddles.

I am one of those players. I always want the replacement card. You can kinda get away with an exposed card in some games with large hands, but even in some of those games it's a bad idea. Like imagine you get an exposed ace in Scarney, now fast-forward to the river with two cards left, and everyone still in the hand knows one of your two cards is the . Or even in a more ordinary game like Omaha, someone specifically knowing you have the can really screw you on certain board textures.

100%. But I’d bet by the river at least half the table forgets whatever card you kept

 

[BarrieJ3]

I edited it. Obviously, we should discuss all poker games (even though 90% of them are holdem.)

 

[Jimulacrum]

It’s always you pick right then. Doesn’t matter if you’ve seen or not, you can’t peek or relook, have to make the call.

I’m never worried on it helping one person more than the other. Perhaps because I usually don’t look at cards as they come so it specifically doesn’t benefit me as the host. If someone is truly focused enough to change their style in order to make sure they see max benefit from that house rule, they’re going to struggle massively with the variance and blind playing and unlimited straddles.

Now that you've spelled out the rule this clearly, I may make it a point to look at my cards as I receive them so as not to be disadvantaged by this disparity.

I may or may not always opt for a replacement card with this being the case. It's a potentially huge advantage.

OR

You could amend the rule so that only players who haven't seen any cards yet have the option to keep the card, but if you've looked, you have to take a replacement.

 

[upNdown]

You could amend the rule so that only players who haven't seen any cards yet have the option to keep the card, but if you've looked, you have to take a replacement.

That's a great idea!

 

[BarrieJ3]

Now that you've spelled out the rule this clearly, I may make it a point to look at my cards as I receive them so as not to be disadvantaged by this disparity.

I may or may not always opt for a replacement card with this being the case. It's a potentially huge advantage.

OR

You could amend the rule so that only players who haven't seen any cards yet have the option to keep the card, but if you've looked, you have to take a replacement.

At a standard game, sure.

But if you want to peek at cards as they come for 8 hours straight in anticipation of a potential flipped card dealt to you, take the edge! Honestly I would too at like a wsop event if they had the same rule.

At a game where 1 player can talk half the table into not looking at cards until the bet reaches over $100 or $250 or straddles reach $128, 1) I don’t think it’s gonna help that much and 2) if it does no one cares which is all the better for whoever takes advantage.

Edit: to say I do see the variable advantage and argument against 100%. I think that’s part of what makes it a surprisingly apt rule - the people that care about sliver advantages dig it because they can take advantage, and the gambling buffoons don’t care and like it cause they don’t miss out on a potential good card or juju.

 

[Jimulacrum]

At a standard game, sure.

But if you want to peek at cards as they come for 8 hours straight in anticipation of a potential flipped card dealt to you, take the edge! Honestly I would too at like a wsop event if they had the same rule.

At a game where 1 player can talk half the table into not looking at cards until the bet reaches over $100 or $250 or straddles reach $128, 1) I don’t think it’s gonna help that much and 2) if it does no one cares which is all the better for whoever takes advantage.

Edit: to say I do see the variable advantage and argument against 100%. I think that’s part of what makes it a surprisingly apt rule - the people that care about sliver advantages dig it because they can take advantage, and the gambling buffoons don’t care and like it cause they don’t miss out on a potential good card or juju.

I agree with a lot of this, but I'll still always advocate for the rule that makes the advantage-squeezing impossible.

My first line of defense against getting angled is to look at every new betting situation like a total scumbag.

"How could I subtly violate the generally understood spirit of fairness for my own benefit?"

I like your card-keeping rule in spirit. Some standard procedures for dealing irregularities rub people the wrong way, and this softens some of that friction. Potentially saves everyone some redealing time too. But it does open up a way to subtly violate the spirit of the game for your own benefit. It's a pretty small leak, and it's not likely to cause any real problems in a well-curated player list, but it makes my dashboard light go off.

 

[BarrieJ3]

I agree with a lot of this, but I'll still always advocate for the rule that makes the advantage-squeezing impossible.

My first line of defense against getting angled is to look at every new betting situation like a total scumbag.

"How could I subtly violate the generally understood spirit of fairness for my own benefit?"

I like your card-keeping rule in spirit. Some standard procedures for dealing irregularities rub people the wrong way, and this softens some of that friction. Potentially saves everyone some redealing time too. But it does open up a way to subtly violate the spirit of the game for your own benefit. It's a pretty small leak, and it's not likely to cause any real problems in a well-curated player list, but it makes my dashboard light go off.

I was thinking I might change it based on the feedback. Because I’m team why invite potential issues.

The funny thing is, every single time this happens with a new group here’s what happens:

1 - card misdealt
2 - I get really excited "oooo ooo ooo wait do you want to keep it?!"
3 - a couple folks are like wait does he know his other cards while the person asks if they can look at their other ones
4 - I just talk over everyone "doesn't matter doesn't matter - you have to answer right now if you want it!"

And then after they decide I'm like oh yeah house rule is blah blah blah.

Really I just like the ooos and ahhhs of having the decision. Every place I've ever played when I'm misdealt I automatically ask can I keep it? They say no, I'm like ahhhh bummer. That's where it originates from, just wanting to add to the circus (no pun intended) environment.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I was thinking I might change it based on the feedback. Because I’m team why invite potential issues.

The funny thing is, every single time this happens with a new group here’s what happens:

1 - card misdealt
2 - I get really excited "oooo ooo ooo wait do you want to keep it?!"
3 - a couple folks are like wait does he know his other cards while the person asks if they can look at their other ones
4 - I just talk over everyone "doesn't matter doesn't matter - you have to answer right now if you want it!"

And then after they decide I'm like oh yeah house rule is blah blah blah.

Really I just like the ooos and ahhhs of having the decision. Every place I've ever played when I'm misdealt I automatically ask can I keep it? They say no, I'm like ahhhh bummer. That's where it originates from, just wanting to add to the circus (no pun intended) environment.

I did notice that moment can be kinda fun.

You could allow people to check all their cards before deciding. Then it never has to be a question.