Cash Game Misdeal? (3 Viewers)

[Schmendr1ck]

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.

But the problem is that when you shuffle the deck, it is very likely the only time in history that the cards have been ordered exactly that way. If you deal to an empty seat or make some other procedural fix that doesn't maintain the Sacred Order of the Cards, you've lost your chance to play with that particular ordering forever.

 

[WedgeRock]

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.

Suits are not irrelevant.

If one of you held pocket cards that revealed the deck was fouled (like you held and and the flop was ) and you failed to bring it to the dealers attention, your hand could be ruled dead and the pot awarded to the other player.

 

[WedgeRock]

A random deal is a random deal. Kill the extra hand and move on. It's all random.

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?

...except I don't have an answer for this.

If we burn once and only once, and wouldn't think to burn a second time if asked, why would we kill a hand and move on?

Saves time? Casinos have Shufflemasters and most home games have a second deck being shuffled... How much time is saved?

 

[Taghkanic]

Suits are not irrelevant.

Your point is correct, but I meant irrelevant to my action on the flop (I did not hold the duplicate jack). I wasn’t worried about being beaten by a flush and appeared to have the effective nuts when we got it in.

I suppose I could have complained that my opponent didn’t mention that he had a duplicate card... But I was confident he just didn’t notice and wasn’t angling. It was me also having jacks that alerted both of us.

All the bets were pulled back (including a small blinds IIRC returned to a third player who had folded pre) and the deck checked, fresh hand dealt.

 

[Taghkanic]

Another really basic reason to be a stickler for stuff like calling a misdeal if an extra hand is dealt just might be moral hazard—to encourage people to be more careful. If it never really matters, why pay attention to what you’re doing?

Or I guess that could be accomplished by fining the misdealer $1 and putting it in a high hand pool or whatever.

 

[JustinInMN]

Saves time? Casinos have Shufflemasters and most home games have a second deck being shuffled... How much time is saved?

Well unfortunately by definition, misdeals happen at the start of the hand so the shufflemaster (machine or human in a home game ) may not have the next deck ready.

All the bets were pulled back (including a small blinds IIRC returned to a third player who had folded pre) and the deck checked, fresh hand dealt.

Hey, that's the right ruling.

Or I guess that could be accomplished by fining the misdealer $1 and putting it in a high hand pool or whatever.

I really wouldn't favor punitive penalties in home games on a shared duty. Dealing mistakes happen, I wouldn't escalate it unless it happens so often I'm considering dis-invitation.

 

[WedgeRock]

Well unfortunately by definition, misdeals happen at the start of the hand so the shufflemaster (machine or human in a home game ) may not have the next deck ready.

Actually, misdeals can happen late in the deal when cards are given to a busted player later in an orbit. Regardless of how far along the shuffle is, its not a full shuffle... And there's another thread discussing how long it takes to shuffle a deck, so at most, you're saving some fraction of that short time.

 

[Jimulacrum]

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?

Sorry, man, my tone was a little much there.

I actually wouldn't care about cutting mid-deal or extra burn cards or whatever. Makes no difference in the end.

 

[Gobbs]

I actually wouldn't care about cutting mid-deal or extra burn cards or whatever. Makes no difference in the end.

Cool, but I would suggest you be ready to respond to players who ask you if you peaked at the cards and are trying to set them.

Any deviation from the rules and standard procedures can be met with suspicion. This includes rules for misdeals. Did you look at your hand and don’t want to redeal?

 

[BGinGA]

Any deviation from the rules and standard procedures can be met with suspicion. This includes rules for misdeals.

This is probably the single biggest - and ultimately, the best - reason to do it the same way every time. Rules are there for a reason. Randomly varying from the rules is just a recipe for disaster, and one that is completely avoidable.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

This is probably the single biggest - and ultimately, the best - reason to do it the same way every time. Rules are there for a reason. Randomly varying from the rules is just a recipe for disaster, and one that is completely avoidable.

The point that I think most folks are glossing over is that consistent procedure is the most important thing to have in your game.

We all understand that a random deck is random, and there are a lot of actions the dealer can take that don't really change the fact that he has a stack of cards in his hand that are in an unknown order. If a hand is dealt to an empty seat and you choose to muck it and keep going or call a misdeal, both options are equally valid. Just be sure you do the same thing every time.

Problems occur when you don't follow your procedure consistently, whatever that procedure is. You open the opportunity for cheating or the appearance of cheating when none is occurring. If I'm a new player at your game, and Bob deals to an empty seat and calls it a misdeal, then Joe does the same thing and says, "Muck it and let's keep going," that's a warning sign to me. Either your group doesn't really know what it's doing or there is something fishy going on.

I haven't answered the poll because they're all valid answers. You have to decide what makes a misdeal in your game, let your players know what it is, and enforce it consistently.

 

[JustinInMN]

You have to decide what makes a misdeal in your game, let your players know what it is, and enforce it consistently.

I agree with this to a point, but the major rulesets only allow declaration of a misdeal before significant action for good reason. Short of a situation like @Taghkanic 's deck with 5 Jacks (which is a foul deck, not a misdeal) you can't have players calling a misdeal later in the hand without opening up angles.

And to @Jimulacrum 's point in the original post, players should not be releasing their hands just because one player calls misdeal. Even if the player is right, the decision maker should be making the ruling before players give up hands.