Cash Game Misdeal? (1 Viewer)

[Jimulacrum]

Situation: I bust out of a cash game and offer to deal the last few hands before the game breaks. I start dealing everyone's hole cards and accidentally deal myself in out of habit.

Player A declares "Misdeal!" and moves to pitch his cards in the middle. I say somewhat loudly and colorfully that it's not a misdeal. It's just an errant hand that will be auto-folded.

Player A insists that it's a misdeal because the additional hand changes the sequence of cards that would have been dealt. I point out that this isn't the rule when, say, someone goes to the bathroom and asks to be dealt out, but is dealt in anyway. We just muck him. Player A says that it's different because the player has chips in that situation.

Before I can get things under control, Player A pitches his cards into the middle in his usual misdeal fashion (he has a way he does it that's different from a normal fold), and half the table follows suit, essentially forcing me to treat it as a misdeal. He unilaterally calls/creates misdeals like this more than anyone else in the game.

My question is this: In which case or cases is this a legitimate misdeal, in your opinion?

 

[CraigT78]

My house rules specifically state this is a misdeal.

• Misdeals
• If two or more cards are exposed on the deal, it is a misdeal
• Two or more boxed cards (improperly faced cards) are found
• If cards are dealt to a seat not entitled to cards, it is a misdeal
• If cards are not dealt to an eligible player, it is a misdeal
• A misdeal must be called prior to two actions; checking and folding do not count
  • Any two raises or calls

 

[Rhodeman77]

In my game we would muck the extra hand and play the hand out as normal. It’s about saving time. We only have so long to play and want to get as many hands in as possible. Why waste extra time shuffling and dealing another hand?

 

[DrStrange]

I have compassion for player A if he hasn't looked at his cards. I suspect A is angle shooting if he looks first and then decides on a misdeal.

@CraigT78 is on point by having house rules covering the situation. THE important thing is consistency where we all know what is and isn't a misdeal.

DrStrange

PS I had a player in my group who loved to pull this angle shoot. Look at his hand and then find any reason to call a misdeal when he held poor cards. We ended up parting ways after a confrontation over this behavior.

 

[1A25R]

I have understood that "you give cards to the chips" and fold if the player is not seat at the end of the deal. (except in cash game when he declared a SIT OUT)

I voted misdeal because I suppose 2 cards were distributed to a non eligible player.
(if were just 1 you pass it along to the right player)

 

[Jimulacrum]

I have compassion for player A if he hasn't looked at his cards. I suspect A is angle shooting if he looks first and then decides on a misdeal.

@CraigT78 is on point by having house rules covering the situation. THE important thing is consistency where we all know what is and isn't a misdeal.

DrStrange

PS I had a player in my group who loved to pull this angle shoot. Look at his hand and then find any reason to call a misdeal when he held poor cards. We ended up parting ways after a confrontation over this behavior.

Player A did not look at his cards, and I would be fully shocked to see any kind of angle from him. He does like to call misdeals more often than anyone else, but he's pretty consistent that he's doing it to try to enforce a perceived rule. I may disagree with him about things, but he's an honest guy, even if he adheres to that Sacred Order of the Cards nonsense.

Part of the trouble with this hand is that not only does the house not have written rules, but the host happened to be out of town. He let us use his place for the usual weekly game, but he wasn't available to make the decision when this hand happened. (Group's been playing together for 10+ years, so lots of trust and rules that people just know because they've been repeated a million times over the years.)

TBH, the host is usually not firm enough about stuff like this. I've seen a couple hands where a turn card was dealt prematurely, for example, and we handled it according to the book. However, it changed the outcome of the hand, and the guy who would've had a flush / would've boated up / would've had his aces hold up / whatever was not happy about it, so the host (who won) decided to split the pot with him. As much as I want to laud him for his generosity, it seems like a bad policy to give away chips when you feel bad because a ruling doesn't play out in someone else's favor.

Anyway, those of you who participated in the "pet peeves" thread may already know that players forcing misdeals is a huge pet peeve of mine, and Player A is the latest offender who makes it an issue where I play.

 

[Irish]

Technically a misdeal per RROP:

MISDEALS

1. Once action begins, a misdeal cannot be called. The deal will be played, and no money will be returned to any player whose hand is fouled. In button games, action is considered to occur when two players after the blinds have acted on their hands. In stud games, action is considered to occur when two players after the forced bet have acted on their hands.

2. The following circumstances cause a misdeal, provided attention is called to the error before two players have acted on their hands.

(a) The first or second card of the hand has been exposed by a dealer error.

(b) Two or more cards have been exposed by the dealer.

(c) Two or more boxed cards (improperly faced cards) are found.

(d) Two or more extra cards have been dealt in the starting hands of a game.

(e) An incorrect number of cards has been dealt to a player, except the top card may be dealt if it goes to the player in proper sequence.

(f) Any card has been dealt out of the proper sequence (except an exposed card may be replaced by the burncard).

(g) The button was out of position.

(h) The first card was dealt to the wrong position.

(i) Cards have been dealt to an empty seat or a player not entitled to a hand.

(j) A player has been dealt out who is entitled to a hand. This player must be present at the table or have posted a blind or ante.

At my game, we often follow the same suit as @Rhodeman77 - saves some time and keeps the hand going.

 

[mummel]

In my game we would muck the extra hand and play the hand out as normal. It’s about saving time. We only have so long to play and want to get as many hands in as possible. Why waste extra time shuffling and dealing another hand?

This but our games are casual.

 

[WedgeRock]

Happened last night. Action had already taken place, so the extra hand went into the muck. We try not to treat it as a misdeal if it's correctable, but because it's an honest group and were just trying to get more hands in.

OP, I'd warn the offending player that it is not automatically a misdeal, that the floor/house will rule on whether it's a misdeal (if the defacto floor is not available, someone has to take that spot...being that you are dealing and unbiased, I'd say it's you) and if he (and/or others) discards his hand, he is at risk of folding a live hand.

I wouldn't un-misdeal the hand (and rule his discarded hand as dead) without first clarifying to him that he's not the final arbiter of what constitutes a misdeal.

 

[derekdd23]

Its a misdeal, but in general most people at a friendly game wont care.

That being said if one person wants to follow the proper rules then I think everyone needs to honor that request.

 

[derekdd23]

Where is the option that it is always a misdeal?

 

[WedgeRock]

That being said if one person wants to follow the proper rules then I think everyone needs to honor that request.

I don't disagree with your opinion generally, but your conclusion assumes RROP or some other well established rule set, which does not exist here.

It's only a misdeal if the rules state it is. If the rules say that no misdeal can be declared if the dealer is wearing a yellow shirt, then check the dealers shirt color first.

The real problem here is the lack of established rules. Although I applaud a group that is reasonable enough to play and function with just and understanding and trust of one another, issues like this aren't going to go away until there are written rules.

This guy might be right if RROP are being followed. But I don't think allowing one player and a mob mentality is the right way to handle it. Someone needs to clarify the situation before it occurs next time.

 

[TheBigTater]

Another example of why there should always be house rules so everyone knows or can refer to them in these instances.

In most casual games that I've played in the cards dealt to the empty seat would just be mucked and life goes on. Technically as mentioned earlier, if no action has taken place I believe it is considered a misdeal but whatever procedure the house rules state should be followed. The logic of "the sequence of cards have changed" is just BS/angle. As long as the cards aren't exposed they are as unknown as the cards left remaining in the deck or burned cards.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Agreed with @Irish, technically a misdeal per RROP but it's fine to just muck the errant hand and continue play.

I think the bigger problem here, as others have said, is allowing players to decide when a hand is a misdeal. This used to be a HUGE problem in my casual Tuesday night group, and we had to get pretty strict about it for a while (only the host/TD was allowed to decide if a hand was a misdeal or not). It's significantly better these days, partly because of this and partly because the group as a whole has a better understanding of what is and is not a misdeal.

 

[BGinGA]

By most (all?) standards of poker protocol, it's a misdeal. Simply establishing (writing or referencing) a basic set of rules is how most civilized people handle it.

 

[CraigT78]

it's fine to just muck the errant hand and continue play

I'd disagree, unless this was a stated rule, as some shithead who just lost a bunch of money on a hand now goes irate as the hand "should" have been dead. Good rules make for a friendly home game!

 

[moose]

My house rules specifically state this is a misdeal.

• Misdeals
• If two or more cards are exposed on the deal, it is a misdeal
• Two or more boxed cards (improperly faced cards) are found
• If cards are dealt to a seat not entitled to cards, it is a misdeal
• If cards are not dealt to an eligible player, it is a misdeal
• A misdeal must be called prior to two actions; checking and folding do not count
  • Any two raises or calls

You can make house rules to any effect you want but checking and folding does count as per rrop. They only have to have acted on their hands.

In button games, action is considered to occur when two players after the blinds have acted on their hands.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Agreed with @Irish, technically a misdeal per RROP but it's fine to just muck the errant hand and continue play.

I think the bigger problem here, as others have said, is allowing players to decide when a hand is a misdeal. This used to be a HUGE problem in my casual Tuesday night group, and we had to get pretty strict about it for a while (only the host/TD was allowed to decide if a hand was a misdeal or not). It's significantly better these days, partly because of this and partly because the group as a whole has a better understanding of what is and is not a misdeal.

Yeah, this is the main thing to me. It's not good game management to let the issue get decided by whoever speaks up most aggressively or throws his cards in the muck most convincingly. It's not only obnoxious, but it opens the game up to angle-shooting, wastes time, incites arguments, and creates the perception that there are no real rules.

As to the rule itself, IMO, you save time and lose nothing by just mucking the hand. It technically changes the Sacred Order of the Cards, but that's just a bunch of superstitious crap. Plenty of other dealer errors can change hole and/or board cards, but the hand plays on. Hell, you lose the order of the cards by mucking and re-dealing anyway.

That said, it's clear that I'm on the losing side of this argument about whether this particular hand should play on. I'd like to know the reasoning behind the rule, though. Every other rule in poker has some kind of justification, but this one doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Nothing's been exposed prematurely, everyone has the right number of cards, and in general nothing bad happens if you muck the hand and move on. Dealing that extra hand doesn't compromise the integrity of the game any more than dealing a hand to someone who folds without looking.

 

[CraigT78]

You can make house rules to any effect you want but checking and folding does count as per rrop. They only have to have acted on their hands.

Interesting - thank you! I will look into this.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

I'd disagree, unless this was a stated rule, as some shithead who just lost a bunch of money on a hand now goes irate as the hand "should" have been dead. Good rules make for a friendly home game!

Removing shitheads from your invite list also makes for a friendly home game.

But to your point, I agree that some games require stricter rules than others. I'm okay with a little loosey-gooseyness when I'm playing a $20 home tourney, but I want reasonably strict rules and consistent enforcement if the stakes are higher, I'm playing with people I don't know as well, or I'm playing in a casino.

 

[CraigT78]

Removing shitheads from your invite list also makes for a friendly home game.

Agree 100% - but sometimes you don't know someone is a shithead until you add alcohol

 

[QuiQuog]

I'd like to know the reasoning behind the rule, though. Every other rule in poker has some kind of justification, but this one doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Nothing's been exposed prematurely, everyone has the right number of cards, and in general nothing bad happens if you muck the hand and move on. Dealing that extra hand doesn't compromise the integrity of the game any more than dealing a hand to someone who folds without looking.

I don't have an official justification for it, but I would think that when people are showing cards at the end of a hand, and a player is able to figure out what his cards would have been if the deal had been proper, then there might be some feeling of being cheated out of whatever he imagines he could have made out of it. Imagine that hands are dealt to players A, B, and C, but the spot between A and B gets cards also. If the errant cards are just mucked, then Player C folds , and player B wins with . Player C sees that those kings would have been his. A lot of people would really hate this.

Edit: I realize that Player C wouldn't have gotten KK because the distribution would be different since there are fewer players in the proper deal. But the point is that it's conceivable that it could be deduced, at least in part, if not completely.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I don't have an official justification for it, but I would think that when people are showing cards at the end of a hand, and a player is able to figure out what his cards would have been if the deal had been proper, then there might be some feeling of being cheated out of whatever he imagines he could have made out of it. Imagine that hands are dealt to players A, B, and C, but the spot between A and B gets cards also. If the errant cards are just mucked, then Player C folds , and player B wins with . Player C sees that those kings would have been his. A lot of people would really hate this.

IMO, this is not only almost identical to the excuse Player A gave, but it's a reaction I could expect him to have.

One time, we had a flop dealt prematurely, because the player dealing didn't realize Player A hadn't acted yet. Host deferred to me for how to handle it (as he sometimes does), and I said the premature flop can't stand, but it should have the same chance to come out as it did before the error. Don't recall the exact process we did, but it was fair, was as close to casino rules as I could figure in the moment, preserved as much of the "natural" board as possible, and gave those cards the same chance of coming out on the flop as before.

Player A was furious because the premature flop had a 6 in it, and he had 66. Action was something like a raise, a shove, and a call to him, so it was a legit decision. Seems like his mind finally got made up by the anger over losing that flop with the 6 in it (though I suspect he'd have folded anyway). He grumbled "I fold," slammed his cards face-up on the table, pushed his chips forward, and said "Cash me out." I don't think we were even a full hour into the night.

So this is the kind of player that we're trying to protect with this kind of rule, or at least protect the game from adult tantrums. But the way I see it, any kind of irregularity that leaves him holding a losing hand or takes a winning hand away will make him mad, regardless of the rule or how it was enforced. Try to explain what the rule is, or even why, and all you're going to hear is a lot of dogmatic silliness about what his cards "should have been." Why bother crafting rules around that? Seems better to make rules that actually serve the interests of the game.

 

[BGinGA]

I'd like to know the reasoning behind the rule, though. Every other rule in poker has some kind of justification, but this one doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Like many of Bob's rules, it's all about preserving the integrity and original order of the deck, if at all possible. A misdeal is preferable to using a 'tainted' run-out of the previous shuffled deck.

 

[FDLmold]

I printed RROP for my casual home game just for situations like this. Don't know the answer, check the rules!

 

[cpac54]

My initial reaction was also "misdeal" and after reading through the responses here, I realize the benefits of having a clear set of house rules or having RROP on hand for such situations where there is a lack of clarity. I can certainly understand the reasoning though behind just folding the hand and playing on in the name of speed.

 

[moose]

Pretty much the only way to misdeal at our games is two exposed cards. Otherwise we are all firmly in the random is random opinion. We would rather play cards than watch someone deal.

 

[Mojo1312]

Certainly not my area of expertise, but isn't an errant hand simply cast into the muck pile? Based upon the places I have played it takes two extra hands to constitute a misdeal.

 

[Irish]

Certainly not my area of expertise, but isn't an errant hand simply cast into the muck pile? Based upon the places I have played it takes two extra hands to constitute a misdeal.

Typically 2 cards, not 2 hands. See (b) in post #7.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Certainly not my area of expertise, but isn't an errant hand simply cast into the muck pile? Based upon the places I have played it takes two extra hands to constitute a misdeal.

Yeah, the technical line for a misdeal seems to be 2 cards out of whack in one way or another, but my experience in home games is that the extra hand usually just gets mucked. Everyone more or less seems to understand that random is random, and the extra hand is totally neutral, so don't waste time re-dealing. For someone to raise a passionate fuss advocating a re-deal, especially to the extent Player A did, is strange for me.