I like Big Blind Shuffle (1 Viewer)

[ArielVer18]

I've had at least two chippers come to my home game who were surprised I don't do the "shuffle behind" method.

Before PCF was founded, I would occasionally join the home poker discussions on 2p2. It's a ghost town now, but you can still find evidence of a mass grave of broken keyboards that resulted from the heated debate regarding the "correct" self-dealt home game procedure.

Two decks is a must; the debate is who does the shuffling. Two shuffle methods were considered "better" than others: cutoff shuffle (CO shuffle) and big blind shuffle (BB shuffle). The name is derived from the position of the player who should be shuffling the next deck while the current hand is being played. The consensus appears to be that BB shuffle is slightly better for short-handed poker, but both methods are perfectly fine for a full table.

Therefore, I was baffled by the strong opinions here on pokerchipforum until I realized the "shuffle ahead vs shuffle behind" debate is a false dilemma fallacy (aka "either-or" fallacy). It incorrectly assumes there are only two shuffling methods where one method is obviously superior. In most people's minds, "shuffle ahead" refers to small blind shuffle (SB shuffle), where the SB of the current hand shuffles, cuts, then deals the next hand. Alternatively, the SB could offer the cut to the player to the right, which is slightly better, but it brings up the "crossing the stream" issue since this player is the old button player who is throwing the old deck to the next SB.

Not trying to change anyone's opinion about CO shuffle because it's perfectly fine if that's what your players are familiar with and never play short handed. I just think it's disingenuous to claim all "shuffle ahead" methods are bad.

 

[timinater]

I like shuffle behind because it's natural for the current dealer to gather up the cards etc. Here's how it works for us after the end of a hand:

1. dealer pushes the pot,
2. dealer washes/gathers cards
3. dealer hands the cut card to the new dealer
4. new dealer cuts and deals.
5. former dealer shuffles and once deal is completed hands deck ahead to SB who will deal next.
6. repeat.

At some point we'll switch from shuffle behind (Cutoff/former dealer) to BB shuffle. As we get shorter we need the little bit of extra time before action will be on the bb.

Two decks in a tournament, and one deck in a cash game because we can't be bothered, and we're not against the clock.

 

[BGinGA]

1. current dealer pushes the pot, kills the winning hand, and moves the dealer button as his last official dealer acts
2. as the now-previous dealer, he then cuts the new shuffled deck (located to his right) and passes it to the new dealer (located to his left), who begins dealing the new hand with a fresh shuffled and cut deck
3. the now-previous dealer gathers, washes, and shuffles the cards from his deal, and places the newly-shuffled deck to his left with the cut card on top of the deck
4. repeat.

Above is our slight variation of the shuffle-behind procedure, which requires two decks and two cut-cards. The shuffle, cut, and deal actions are all performed by different people, and a cut card covers the newly-shuffled deck (providing both clear identification of a shuffled/un-cut deck and added security of the top card in the deck stub).

This process works exceptionally well if every dealer controls the muck pile, the burn and board cards, and the deck stub during their deal. Very litlle post-hand card gathering is actually needed, as everything should already be close nearby.

 

[BGinGA]

Not trying to change anyone's opinion about CO shuffle because it's perfectly fine if that's what your players are familiar with and never play short handed. I just think it's disingenuous to claim all "shuffle ahead" methods are bad.

BB shuffle is marginally better than SB shuffle, but still suffers from card traffic crossover and shuffler-in-the-way issues of any shuffle-ahead process.

 

[Machine]

I've had at least two chippers come to my home game who were surprised I don't do the "shuffle behind" method.

Before PCF was founded, I would occasionally join the home poker discussions on 2p2. It's a ghost town now, but you can still find evidence of a mass grave of broken keyboards that resulted from the heated debate regarding the "correct" self-dealt home game procedure.

Two decks is a must; the debate is who does the shuffling. Two shuffle methods were considered "better" than others: cutoff shuffle (CO shuffle) and big blind shuffle (BB shuffle). The name is derived from the position of the player who should be shuffling the next deck while the current hand is being played. The consensus appears to be that BB shuffle is slightly better for short-handed poker, but both methods are perfectly fine for a full table.

Therefore, I was baffled by the strong opinions here on pokerchipforum until I realized the "shuffle ahead vs shuffle behind" debate is a false dilemma fallacy (aka "either-or" fallacy). It incorrectly assumes there are only two shuffling methods where one method is obviously superior. In most people's minds, "shuffle ahead" refers to small blind shuffle (SB shuffle), where the SB of the current hand shuffles, cuts, then deals the next hand. Alternatively, the SB could offer the cut to the player to the right, which is slightly better, but it brings up the "crossing the stream" issue since this player is the old button player who is throwing the old deck to the next SB.

Not trying to change anyone's opinion about CO shuffle because it's perfectly fine if that's what your players are familiar with and never play short handed. I just think it's disingenuous to claim all "shuffle ahead" methods are bad.

So you're saying that the dichotomy of shuffle ahead vs shuffle behind is a fallacy, while the 'bifurcation' of the cut off vs the bb is not a fallacy.

Westley: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

My conclusion is that all 3 of these methods are inferior to a single dealer with a card shuffler.

 

[upNdown]

1. current dealer pushes the pot, kills the winning hand, and moves the dealer button as his last official dealer acts
2. as the now-previous dealer, he then cuts the new shuffled deck (located to his right) and passes it to the new dealer (located to his left), who begins dealing the new hand with a fresh shuffled and cut deck
3. the now-previous dealer gathers, washes, and shuffles the cards from his deal, and places the newly-shuffled deck to his left with the cut card on top of the deck
4. repeat.

Above is our slight variation of the shuffle-behind procedure, which requires two decks and two cut-cards. The shuffle, cut, and deal actions are all performed by different people, and a cut card covers the newly-shuffled deck (providing both clear identification of a shuffled/un-cut deck and added security of the top card in the deck stub).

This process works exceptionally well if every dealer controls the muck pile, the burn and board cards, and the deck stub during their deal. Very litlle post-hand card gathering is actually needed, as everything should already be close nearby.

That’s about how we do it and it works great. But the one time @glynn came to play, he pushed a varient of the same, but using only a single cut card. It worked smoothly, and with the added bonus that nobody ever accidentally shuffled in the cut card.
I have to say that when we tried the same method in the next session without him, we quickly failed and brought in the second cut card. But I think that speaks more to the fact that we’re a bunch of dummies than the one cut card method.

 

[RocAFella1]

..and you cannot lie?

 

[Saoliver]

So you're saying that the dichotomy of shuffle ahead vs shuffle behind is a fallacy, while the 'bifurcation' of the cut off vs the bb is not a fallacy.

Westley: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

My conclusion is that all 3 of these methods are inferior to a single dealer with a card shuffler.

As you wish.

 

[Rhodeman77]

As someone that plays a lot of short handed poker (4 players or less) we usually go to one deck when we get extremely short. We are already seeing a lot more hands and getting a few extra seconds break on our hands is worth the trade off of the extra couple hands dealt per hour. Plus we have been playing for many hours at that point and are very tired. Less chance of a mistake like someone dealing from the wrong deck.

 

[merkong]

My conclusion is that all 3 of these methods are inferior to a single dealer with a card shuffler.

Amen.

The Godfather Club

 

[louBdub]

Dealer runs entire table, finishes hand.

1. Dealer collects muck/pushes pot.
2. Dealer eyes felt, verifying next hand is clear for takeoff.
3. Dealer grabs deck on his right.
4. Dealer gives hot deck to new dealer on his left.
5. New Dealer starts next hand.
6. Former dealer shuffles, once completed, sets hot deck to their left, current dealers right.
7. repeat.

This is the absolute best way. Don’t argue with me. I’ll fight you over this.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Before PCF was founded, I would occasionally join the home poker discussions on 2p2. It's a ghost town now, but you can still find evidence of a mass grave of broken keyboards that resulted from the heated debate regarding the "correct" self-dealt home game procedure.

I don't remember ever banning anyone over this topic in HP - it was a mild jihad at best.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

1. current dealer pushes the pot, kills the winning hand, and moves the dealer button as his last official dealer acts
2. as the now-previous dealer, he then cuts the new shuffled deck (located to his right) and passes it to the new dealer (located to his left), who begins dealing the new hand with a fresh shuffled and cut deck
3. the now-previous dealer gathers, washes, and shuffles the cards from his deal, and places the newly-shuffled deck to his left with the cut card on top of the deck
4. repeat.

Above is our slight variation of the shuffle-behind procedure, which requires two decks and two cut-cards. The shuffle, cut, and deal actions are all performed by different people, and a cut card covers the newly-shuffled deck (providing both clear identification of a shuffled/un-cut deck and added security of the top card in the deck stub).

This process works exceptionally well if every dealer controls the muck pile, the burn and board cards, and the deck stub during their deal. Very litlle post-hand card gathering is actually needed, as everything should already be close nearby.

 

[wickedwonka121]

Somehow our games always have the cut off shuffling. Maybe because we don't want the sb or bb distracted with the shuffle. When the hand ends, the shuffled cards are given to the next dealer and they can shuffle as many times as they choose, usually they shuffle just once, but they must always allow either player to the right or left cut the deck, doesn't matter who, dealers choice. Dealer never cuts the cards.

 

[ArielVer18]

So you're saying that the dichotomy of shuffle ahead vs shuffle behind is a fallacy, while the 'bifurcation' of the cut off vs the bb is not a fallacy.

Westley: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Huh? What 'bifurcation'? There's no "versus." I'm suggesting these two methods are the best out of all the hand-shuffle procedure, not that we must choose out of these two and only two options.

 

[Machine]

Huh? What 'bifurcation'? There's no "versus." I'm suggesting these two methods are the best out of all the hand-shuffle procedure, not that we must choose out of these two and only two options.

I'm just crack'n nuts brother; It reads as though you were saying the suggested methods are false, and these other two methods are valid even though they fit the same criteria as the other two, be it one side of the button or the other.