Cash Game Misdeal? (1 Viewer)

[Irish]

@JustinInMN beat me to it by a few seconds, lol

So a strict interpretation of the rules in even @CraigT78 's situation would suggest the money be returned once a card from the wrong deck "appears."

I guess one could technically argue that, but I agree with your final point:

However, since both players are all in and no one is harmed by making action, I think this is another situation covered by the leeway in the original Robert's to make a ruling to put fairness before a strict interpretation of the rules.

 

[Taghkanic]

If you got it in preflop, then I don’t see much to discuss—the mistaken flop/turn/river are irrelevant and harmless. You could just wipe those extraneous cards (which did not influence the action) and deal it out as usual from the correct deck.

If you got it in after the flop based on cards from the the wrong deck, then there’s a huge sticky problem. I would have to consult the rules, but my instinct would be to negate all of the action, and pull back all the chips and start over.

This probably goes against some provisions about significant action being irreversible, but it’s such an extreme violation, I don’t see how you proceed with the potential of duplicate cards. I’d invoke the more general rule about “the good of the game” and go back to square one.

If you wanted to get creative, I guess you either back up to preflop, or remove the players’ cards (already exposed if it’s a tourney) from the wrong deck, and proceed from there, but that seems silly. Trying to mend such a broken hand introduces more problems than it’s worth.

 

[BGinGA]

Yeah, Roberts rules for home games seems to support this assumption as well.

Under Section 3 - General Poker Rules - irregularities


http://www.pokercoach.us/RobsPkrRulesHome.htm

So a strict interpretation of the rules in even @CraigT78 's situation would suggest the money be returned once a card from the wrong deck "appears."

However, since both players are all in and no one is harmed by making action, I think this is another situation covered by the leeway in the original Robert's to make a ruling to put fairness before a strict interpretation of the rules.

Agreed, provided all other cards dealt (live hands, mucked hands, and any previous burn and board cards) are all from the same deck.


I've actually seen a live tournament hand where the initial deal was from red deck, flop from blue deck, and turn from red deck. It was noticed before any action ocurred on the turn. Total chaos ensued.

Two players wanted to a) void the entire hand and return all bets (correct), while most wanted to b) return the flop bets, reshuffle the red cards (stub and burn/turn) and deal a brand new flop. One guy wanted to c) return the flop bets, leave the turn in place, and deal a new flop while resuming action with four board cards showing (he didn't have live cards).

It wasn't my game, and I advocated ruling it a misdeal (I had folded pre-flop). The players with great starting hands didn't want to give them up (I think there were three live players to the flop and turn, two with pocket pairs and one with AKs).

After discussing it, the strongest sentiment at the table seemed to be no misdeal and to use option c to continue the hand. When it became clear to me that no misdeal was ever going to be ruled, I pointed out that the only way to maintain the red deck's correct and intended burn and board cards -- in proper order -- was to use the turn burn card as the flop burn card, and use the turn card with the next two cards in the stub as the new flop.

Several players treated this suggestion like an alien sighting, and trying to explain why option c was actually preventing the intended board cards from appearring was like trying to explain advanced physics to hamsters. Never mind the inherent unfairness of the information now potentially available from the faux-flop betting round -- these guys couldn't get past the perceived strength of their starting hands.

The three players ended up agreeing to proceed with option c anyway. It was my first (and last) appearance at this multi-table tournament, one with no apparent rules, or a designated rule/decision maker, either -- it was all done on a table-by-table basis. That one hand burned up 15 minutes of clock time.

 

[Frogzilla]

Anyway, the dealer dealt out the flop, turn and river on both boards before the dipshit realized he dealt the board from the wrong deck. He used the blue cards, while we were holding red cards.

I remember this hand, but am unsure whether I was an observer or the dipshit. I don’t think I got stacked.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Unless significant action has ocurred before it's noticed. Then not so easy...

We pull the bets back and start over with a flop from the correct deck.. No way to continue since two decks are being used and you could get duplicates of the same cards that are in your hands. Mis-deal is totally unfair to players.

Fortunately, this has happened only a two or three times over the years. I was guilty of doing it once.

 

[DoubleEagle]

I'd say impossible, really. If this occurred in my game, with action open after wrong cards are dealt, I'd probably have to rule a dead game and return all bets. Not sure how else to do it.

If you are willing to return the bets, why not just run the flop from the correct deck. Very easy at that point.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Several players treated this suggestion like an alien sighting, and trying to explain why option c was actually preventing the intended board cards from appearring was like trying to explain advanced physics to hamsters.

 

[Taghkanic]

One added problem which I’ve seen arise, once discussion of a possible misdeal begins, if there is still potential action to occur, is:

It makes it difficult for players in the hand to express opinions without appearing to signal their hand strength.

Generally, it becomes really obvious who likes the action as it stands, and who would like to change it because they think they are behind.

This is especially glaring when, say, a premature turn (or a turn lacking a burn) brings in a possible straight or flush... and one guy is irate that it might not count, and the other is eager to shuffle it back in.

I suppose someone with the absolute nuts could try to argue in favor of a misdeal as some kind of angle/misdirection. But most people pick sides in direct relation to their hand strength.

The mere existence of a debate (especially if the hand is still multi-way) creates a situation one wants to avoid, where tons of inappropriate information is spilling out...

 

[JustinInMN]

If you are willing to return the bets, why not just run the flop from the correct deck. Very easy at that point.

The problem with that is all the players will have an extra data point of seeing the action on the wrong flop, and then how differently players act on the "right flop" betrays the information.

Now if spotted before anybody acts, probably no harm in just doing it over. But if one player likes a king high flop and suddenly doesn't like a flop without a k, gets too easy to narrow holdings.

 

[DoubleEagle]

The problem with that is all the players will have an extra data point of seeing the action on the wrong flop, and then how differently players act on the "right flop" betrays the information.

Now if spotted before anybody acts, probably no harm in just doing it over. But if one player likes a king high flop and suddenly doesn't like a flop without a k, gets too easy to narrow holdings.

True. But I think it is more fair to all players in the hand to continue using the correct deck than to declare a misdeal.

Best solution might be to shoot the dealer.

 

[CraigT78]

I remember this hand, but am unsure whether I was an observer or the dipshit. I don’t think I got stacked.

Ben was the dipshit dealing. It was a pre-cash game so he wasn't even plowed. No excuse. It was Ty and I in the hand. We were playing some stupid shitty wild card game he called and I had two wilds down, and one up. Most everyone agreed to re-deal the board, except TY once he saw how ahead I was part of the reason no wild card games are allowed, except Q follow the Q.

 

[CraigT78]

If you are willing to return the bets, why not just run the flop from the correct deck. Very easy at that point.

The problem with that is all the players will have an extra data point of seeing the action on the wrong flop, and then how differently players act on the "right flop" betrays the information.

Now if spotted before anybody acts, probably no harm in just doing it over. But if one player likes a king high flop and suddenly doesn't like a flop without a k, gets too easy to narrow holdings.

Exactly this. If the flop comes out K72 and player 1 jams, I might have different action the next flop with my AA holding. (although I'm not any good, and would sack off my AA)

 

[JustinInMN]

True. But I think it is more fair to all players in the hand to continue using the correct deck than to declare a misdeal.

Really the nature of poker relies on secrecy of hands, not who gets dealt the strongest starting hands.

Let me put it this way if I had to choose between being dealt AA in every hand I play from now until eternity but I had to turn it face up, or being dealt random two down cards and never getting AA ever again, the latter option is surely to my advantage.

 

[BGinGA]

Absurd extremes are often useful for pointing out the validity of a position.

 

[Gobbs]

IBL when @Gobbs and @BGinGA go insane with the use of the term "muck" interchangeably with "fold" and "discard."

Yep, one does not simply muck his/her hand. One discards his/her hand (or folds) and the dealer mucks it. Only the dealer can muck a hand. So, the fact that Player A discarded his hand had nothing to do with everybody else discarding their hands. The dealer, TD, and/or whoever was in charge should have spoken up immediately until the proper decision/ruling was made (which is a misdial anyway).

 

[bigdonkey]

Really the nature of poker relies on secrecy of hands, not who gets dealt the strongest starting hands.

Let me put it this way if I had to choose between being dealt AA in every hand I play from now until eternity but I had to turn it face up, or being dealt random two down cards and never getting AA ever again, the latter option is surely to my advantage.

Let’s play heads-up NLHE. I get AA face up every hand. You get two random cards. I’ll even let you get your random AA AND you can have the button every hand. You name the stakes.

 

[Frogzilla]

Let’s play heads-up NLHE. I get AA face up every hand. You get two random cards. I’ll even let you get your random AA AND you can have the button every hand. You name the stakes.

Would you play limit holdem under these rules? Where you couldn’t just get it in pre?

 

[bigdonkey]

No, sir.

 

[FoldKing72]

Misdeal would have been ruled by me. At the local casino I deal at, I would have said “sorry guys miss deal” and If you had Aces, tough luck, you weren’t going to get them had I not made the misdeal.

The first 2 cards dealt exposes, misdeal.

In cash games you have missed blind buttons so you as a dealer don’t deal to that empty spot.

In tourney, you deal to the spot no matter if the player is there or not.

Home games, my family and I don’t really care. Would of just mucked it and moved on.

So I think there needs to be clear rules and understanding from the players involved.

 

[JustinInMN]

Absurd extremes are often useful for pointing out the validity of a position.

Well if I want to be know for one thing it would be an admirer of the absurd .

Let’s play heads-up NLHE. I get AA face up every hand. You get two random cards. I’ll even let you get your random AA AND you can have the button every hand. You name the stakes.

Well now I have been out absurded.

But I wonder if I could win that challenge playing limit as @Frogzilla said?

But bottom line, all I was trying to show is that stong hands get weaker when played face up. Which is why playing a hand out after being dealt with action on the wrong deck, doesn't work.

 

[bigdonkey]

Well now I have been out absurded.

I’ll take that as a compliment.

 

[Just1Better]

Boxed card refers to the non-playable cards that should remain in the the box -- the jokers, warranty cards, hand ranking card, etc. All are treated as a meaningless scrap of paper if discovered in play.

Since face-up cards found in the deck stub are treated the same way, they are also referred to as boxed cards.

Thank you and everyone else that contributed to the response!!

 

[jja412]

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),

What is so special about his "misdeal fashion?" My curiosity is piqued.

 

[Lash]

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?

Its a missdeal. But I usually toss the guy a buck to make his hand live

 

[RainmanTrail]

This is a misdeal in every casino or card room in every form of poker I've ever played in. The only exception would be if you caught it in time to slide the cards over one seat before anyone gets a chance to look at them. The reason it's a misdeal is because you are changing the flop cards and what should have been the starting hands for each player (even though they're still random).

 

[Taghkanic]

I just explained the "Jackson" 45 minutes to Ben last night lol. I played most of the night with some guys before and late in the game I got up to get a beer or something and saw the 4 of spades lying on the floor next to where the host pulled the cards out of the box. We all just figured we had the same odds so oh well.

I was in a big hand once early in a tourney with JJ, and the flop comes J83 (suits were irrelevant).

Top set. Beautiful.

Villain bets, I reraise, he instashoves, I instacall.

He turns over JJ.

 

[BGinGA]

The reason it's a misdeal is because you are changing the flop cards and what should have been the starting hands for each player (even though they're still random).

Yep, if you aren't going to respect the random order generated by the shuffle, why bother to shuffle at all? Just gather up the cards, cut (optional) and start dealing. Hey, random is random....

 

[Jimulacrum]

Yep, if you aren't going to respect the random order generated by the shuffle, why bother to shuffle at all? Just gather up the cards, cut (optional) and start dealing. Hey, random is random....

Your hypothetical deck will be skewed by the order in which the cards were organized during the previous hand. This "gather 'em up and deal" reduction is just a red herring.

However, if someone properly shuffles the cards into a randomized order, and then a mistake happens that causes some of the order of the shuffled cards to change in a way that no one can specifically determine, they're still randomized sufficiently to detach their order from the previous hand's results. They're not biased to help or hurt anyone, and no one can use prior knowledge to figure out which cards are where. That's what's important. If these things remain true, you can play on—as long as you don't have any players who pitch a fit about it.

Clinging to the Sacred Order of the Cards as if it's some divine gift to us mere humans is silly. When someone cuts (or declines to cut) prior to the deal, that doesn't somehow bless the current order of the cards. It doesn't mean that that exact arrangement of 52 cards must be used for the upcoming hand, or else the game is unfair or something.

After all, what happens when the Sacred Order is so undone that you can't go on? You declare a misdeal, reshuffle, and start over. In other words, you abandon the Sacred Order and re-randomize the cards. Just like having an extra hand—or ten extra hands!—dealt in by accident re-randomizes the cards. Literally the only thing that makes this a problem is a combination of superstitions and people's inability to grasp the concept of randomization.

@BGinGA, I am genuinely surprised to find you on the Sacred Order side of this. Clearly you understand randomization, if you're an expert backgammon player, and you don't strike me as the superstitious sort in any other areas, when it comes to discussing strategy.

 

[BGinGA]

Not in the sacred order of anything. I subscribe to the 'intended order of the deck' theory supported by Bob Ciaffone (also a professional backgammon and poker player) and Robert's Rules of Poker, which has absolututely nothing to do with superstition.

If you choose not to, that's your right. But you don't need to try and trivialize it, or condenscendingly insult those who do.

Remind me to cut the deck next time you are about to deal the river card, or maybe just insist you burn twice. Random randomizing should be fine, no?

 

[Taghkanic]

Seems to me the so-called Sacred Order is a useful device to lend general confidence to players of all levels and discernment that they are in a legit game.

That approach may not be perfect, and in some situations I can understand why purist adherence to it seems silly. But it is quicker, simpler and has more universal application and understanding than any other ways I can think of. Trying to deal with everything on a case-by-case basis could get excruciating, I’d think.

That said, if a friend in a home game shuffles less than perfectly and then hands the deck to another friend, who raps his knuckle on it to signify “I can’t be bothered to cut,” I’m not making a stink.

I don’t play with anyone who can stack a deck, or would try if they could. 8- or 9-handed the deal itself adds a shuffle. 9 x 2 + 5 + 3 = half the deck, distributed in an order that only a real master could predict even if they had some vague idea of some of the cards in the top half of the deck.

Most of these conventions (shuffle, cut, burn, etc.) serve to lend confidence even where game security is not really an issue... and they add sufficient randomness so that you can’t assume, “the last deal with the blue deck brought AA, AK and an AKK, so if an A or K shows up again, probably there will be several in play on this hand too.” Debating and justifying any other method in the middle of the game just leads to long delays and bad feeling.