ArielVer18
Flush
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.
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.