Cash Game Ruling Assistance (1 Viewer)

[Hornet]

Last night in our self-dealt game, three cards were dealt to each person, but one person didn’t have any cards. That’s a clear misdeal at the casino. In the interest of keeping the game moving, however, we dealt that person three random cards as people’s fourth cards were being dealt. Random is random. Nobody in our game bats an eye anymore when something like that happens.

 

[BGinGA]

The random distribution of the cards contained in a randomized deck is not the same thing as the preordered distribution of the cards contained in a randomized deck, which is the action mandated by the rules of the game.

To say they are exactly the same is just silly.

 

[BGinGA]

Any rational person understands that how you deal out the cards (one at a time clockwise, counterclockwise, two at a time to each player, randomly until everyone has the right number of cards) doesn't affect the randomness of the deal.

There is no rational reason to think dealing the cards in a non-standard way matters at all.

It does affects the actual cards being dealt, so in a way, it does affect the randomness, even though it's still random.

It's just a different distribution set of random cards than that created by the combination of shuffle and cut, which freezes the deck into a preordained and random order of cards for that deal.

 

[Legend5555]

It does affects the actual cards being dealt, so in a way, it does affect the randomness, even though it's still random.

It's just a different distribution set of random cards than that created by the combination of shuffle and cut, which freezes the deck into a preordained and random order of cards for that deal.

But you have no idea what the cards actually are. Getting the 1st and 9th card off the deck is just as likely to be AA as getting the 1st and 2nd card, or the 3rd and 5th card, or any other 2 cards. The fact that physically it's different matters not one bit since you can't see what the cards actually are until you look at them. Knowing in hindsight what the physical order of the deck means to players holdings doesn't matter. This is why the SOotC is nonsense.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Last night in our self-dealt game, three cards were dealt to each person, but one person didn’t have any cards. That’s a clear misdeal at the casino. In the interest of keeping the game moving, however, we dealt that person three random cards as people’s fourth cards were being dealt. Random is random. Nobody in our game bats an eye anymore when something like that happens.

Random or not, the loser of the pot frequently complains likely wouldn't have lost had there not been the dealer error. We always re-deal in this situation to avoid any potential issues. It only takes another thirty seconds or so.

 

[Hornet]

Random or not, the loser of the pot frequently complains likely wouldn't have lost had there not been the dealer error. We always re-deal in this situation to avoid any potential issues. It only takes another thirty seconds or so.

A couple of people used to complain on occasion, but they’ve gotten used to it and everyone just recognizes that’s how it’s done now.

 

[BGinGA]

But you have no idea what the cards actually are. Getting the 1st and 9th card off the deck is just as likely to be AA as getting the 1st and 2nd card, or the 3rd and 5th card, or any other 2 cards. The fact that physically it's different matters not one bit since you can't see what the cards actually are until you look at them. Knowing in hindsight what the physical order of the deck means to players holdings doesn't matter. This is why the SOotC is nonsense.

It's not nonsense, and in fact is the basis of many procedural rules that are actually designed to preserve the intended order of the cards.

Dunno why this is so difficult for you to understand, unless you are indeed just trolling.

 

[Legend5555]

I'm not trolling. The only reason rules like that exist is because people have such a hard time understanding the exact thing i'm talking about. I don't think the rules are without merit from a psychological perspective. But rules that preserve the order of the cards are indeed pointless assuming no one is tracking the cards. You only know that the deck had a specific order once the card faces have been seen. For example, once the deck has been shuffled, and assuming no marks or card tracking, you have literally no idea what the top card is. It could be any of the 52 cards. Just because you flip it over and it's the Kd, doesn't mean it was always going to be the Kd. You only know that now that you've seen it. It could have just as likely been any of the other cards. Up until you saw it, it was a random card. It's just hard to believe that because you are holding a physical object and you've now seen it's "ID" so to speak.

I've heard that some online poker rooms use a randomization method that keep the cards in constant flux such that you can't predict what the next card off the deck will be. So there is no SOotC in many (if any) online poker rooms. Granted it doesn't need to have such a thing since there are no misdeals. But this is exactly what is essentially happening in real life. The card faces may as well be in constant flux as far as we care. We can't predict where any of the cards in the deck are without cheating, tracking them as they are being shuffled, or having first seen some of the cards.

 

[Hornet]

The only reason rules like that exist is because people have such a hard time understanding the exact thing i'm talking about.

I agree with you that random is random. If the rules stated that every other card off the deck while dealing people’s hands are burned, people would still get a random distribution of hands as under the current rules.

But the rules as they are today aren’t because people fail to “understand” randomness. They exist to protect the integrity of the game while at the same time avoiding unnecessarily slowing the game down.

But rules that preserve the order of the cards are indeed pointless assuming no one is tracking the cards.

I think this is the crux of the debate. The problem is I don’t think you can generally assume 100% in a live game that nobody is tracking or manipulating the cards. That is a main reason why clear rules exist on how to deal. And this is why if you are playing among friends that trust each other, those rules don’t need to be strictly followed.

 

[Dix]

I've heard that some online poker rooms use a randomization method that keep the cards in constant flux such that you can't predict what the next card off the deck will be.

This was (maybe still is? - not sure if it's still that way since new ownership took over) the way FullTilt's dealing process went. Cards were generated from the RNG one at a time on request. It was touted as an added layer of security.

If you dig through the archives on 2+2 you can find a lot of discussion on it.

In fact, if I recall correctly, Rafe Furst was the one who either came up with it, or at least had something to do with its development at FT in the beginning. I want to recall a discussion somewhere where he went into a pretty good level of detail in describing the particular process used at FT.

 

[Taghkanic]

RE: Random deals:

Isn’t game security a key purpose of dealing in sequence, as much or even moreso than randomness?

Allowing dealers to pitch cards to whomever they choose in any order opens up all kinds of additional opportunities for cheating.

For example, in a self-dealt game: If the dealer has marked a card or noticed a scuff on a card—let’s say the 2 of diamonds—he could choose to deal it if it appears on the top of deck to the big blind. This would greatly increase his chances of stealing the blinds. Then, next orbit, deal it to the cutoff. Or the strongest player at the table. etc.

Random dealing I would think also would make it harder to catch such card mechanics/sharps, because it is harder to follow exactly what the dealer is up to (if anything) with cards flying in random directions rather than an orderly procession. I would think someone who was bottom-dealing himself an ace would love to be allowed to deal randomly.

 

[Legend5555]

RE: Random deals:

Isn’t game security a key purpose of dealing in sequence, as much or even moreso than randomness?

Allowing dealers to pitch cards to whomever they choose in any order opens up all kinds of additional opportunities for cheating.

For example, in a self-dealt game: If the dealer has marked a card or noticed a scuff on a card—let’s say the 2 of diamonds—he could choose to deal it if it appears on the top of deck to the big blind. This would greatly increase his chances of stealing the blinds. Then, next orbit, deal it to the cutoff. Or the strongest player at the table. etc.

Random dealing I would think also would make it harder to catch such card mechanics/sharps, because it is harder to follow exactly what the dealer is up to (if anything) with cards flying in random directions rather than an orderly procession. I would think someone who was bottom-dealing himself an ace would love to be allowed to deal randomly.

I think people misunderstand what exactly I'm arguing. I don't think that just because dealing however you want doesn't alter randomness means that people should abandon some sort of ordered deal. There are plenty of reasons why having strict rules regarding dealing is preferred. I've been more specifically arguing that deck order only exists once cards have been seen. There is no "Sacred Order of the Cards."

My arguments have nothing to do with game integrity. It's that rules that preserve card order are pointless because the order doesn't actually exist. But there are other reasons that those rules are probably good. But in terms of "order," they are pointless.

 

[abby99]

I'm not trolling. The only reason rules like that exist is because people have such a hard time understanding the exact thing i'm talking about. I don't think the rules are without merit from a psychological perspective. But rules that preserve the order of the cards are indeed pointless assuming no one is tracking the cards. You only know that the deck had a specific order once the card faces have been seen. For example, once the deck has been shuffled, and assuming no marks or card tracking, you have literally no idea what the top card is. It could be any of the 52 cards. Just because you flip it over and it's the Kd, doesn't mean it was always going to be the Kd. You only know that now that you've seen it. It could have just as likely been any of the other cards. Up until you saw it, it was a random card. It's just hard to believe that because you are holding a physical object and you've now seen it's "ID" so to speak.

I've heard that some online poker rooms use a randomization method that keep the cards in constant flux such that you can't predict what the next card off the deck will be. So there is no SOotC in many (if any) online poker rooms. Granted it doesn't need to have such a thing since there are no misdeals. But this is exactly what is essentially happening in real life. The card faces may as well be in constant flux as far as we care. We can't predict where any of the cards in the deck are without cheating, tracking them as they are being shuffled, or having first seen some of the cards.

Schroedinger's cards?

 

[BGinGA]

I've been more specifically arguing that deck order only exists once cards have been seen. There is no "Sacred Order of the Cards."

My arguments have nothing to do with game integrity. It's that rules that preserve card order are pointless because the order doesn't actually exist.

The only problem is that your argument is flawed. The order is there, seen or unseen.

 

[Perthmike]

The only problem is that your argument is flawed. The order is there, seen or unseen.

You are correct. But I think @Legend5555 is saying that he doesn't care about the order of the unseen cards.

For what it's worth, I don't either. But I know I'm in the minority, and that's probably not what most rulebooks say.

Still an interesting thought. If you dealt the cards out and then shuffled the rest of the deck, before dealing the flop, would most people care?

 

[JustinInMN]

You are correct. But I think @Legend5555 is saying that he doesn't care about the order of the unseen cards.

For what it's worth, I don't either. But I know I'm in the minority, and that's probably not what most rulebooks say.

Still an interesting thought. If you dealt the cards out and then shuffled the rest of the deck, before dealing the flop, would most people care?

You have to deal right to left in your country, right? #CoriolisEffect

 

[Dix]

It's that rules that preserve card order are pointless because the order doesn't actually exist.

Actually, unless you constantly keep shuffling, an "order" does exist. Sure, it was determined in a random fashion of some sort, but, once the shuffling stops, a specific order does exist. Just because you don't know what it is, doesn't mean it's not there.

Just because I live in Maine & can't see the problem, doesn't mean that we don't have too many skirting our immigration laws via the Mexican border. (unlike some politicians)

Which I guess is the reasoning behind a lot of the rules that attempt as best they can to try and reasonably preserve that order. So the hand plays out as close as possible to the way the deck originally ended up.

A deuce on the turn as opposed to the king it would have been originally is probably going to change the outcome of a hand. By a good deal, fairly often.

I like this one as an example....

B: A premature turn card is put to the side. Another card is burned, and the normal river card is used as the new turn card. After action on the turn, the premature turn card is placed back in the stub, the stub is reshuffled, and a river card is dealt without another burn

Why bother preserving the river card as the turn card if there was no order anyway?

 

[Taghkanic]

Yes, of course it’s all random.

*But* we agree to play by rules of the game which specify by which method that randomness will be generated, among all the quadrillions of ways one could spread the cards around.

Why do we agree to that method?

Because it helps move the game along. It makes errors easier to spot. It creates fewer messy situations, sows less confusion, and minimizes opportunities for angling compared to what would occur if people dealt every hand haphazardly or “creatively.”

The simple, orderly method which is common to 99.85% of poker games works, so we use it. If a better way existed, it would have won out over the trial-and-error which has led us to this point over nearly 200 years of the game evolving. Lots of other old rules have been discarded or improved, but as far as I know this one has stood up over billions of hands.

So though there are still going to be weird situations where one has to stop and consider how to handle the deal because of some rare irregularity, these would almost surely come up more often if every hand were distributed according to each dealer’s mood.

 

[Legend5555]

Schroedinger's cards?

Essentially, yes. I didn't want to go there, but I thought about saying that.

 

[Legend5555]

The only problem is that your argument is flawed. The order is there, seen or unseen.

Of course the cards are in a physical order. But since the back of the cards aren't marked, the order means nothing. And since you don't know what the faces are either, the order means nothing.

 

[Hornet]

Of course the cards are in a physical order. But since the back of the cards aren't marked, the order means nothing. And since you don't know what the faces are either, the order means nothing.

Has this thread really devolved into a debate about a quantum mechanics principle? @Josh Kifer, please make note for future thread derailment efforts.

 

[BGinGA]

Of course the cards are in a physical order. But since the back of the cards aren't marked, the order means nothing. And since you don't know what the faces are either, the order means nothing.

Now you ARE trolling.

 

[Dix]

Of course the cards are in a physical order. But since the back of the cards aren't marked, the order means nothing. And since you don't know what the faces are either, the order means nothing.

Unless of course, what would have been the river card that would have paired the board for your boat was no longer there to beat that turned flush that stacked you.

Still not mean anything?

The hand played out the way it did, for a reason.

I prefer to live in the real world, not some theoretical one.

In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is

Or, as I prefer..... "Theory & reality don't always play well together in the same sandbox".

 

[Dix]

Has this thread really devolved into a debate about a quantum mechanics principle? @Josh Kifer, please make note for future thread derailment efforts.

Hey, we could really take it sideways by dragging in the "Internet Poker Is Rigged - Live Poker Isn't" crowd, (or, an offshoot of it anyway) by explaining exactly how the "random" shuffle of that Shuffle Master built into the casino table works pretty much exactly like the RNG of online poker sites.

 

[Legend5555]

Unless of course, what would have been the river card that would have paired the board for your boat to beat that turned flush that stacked you.

Still not mean anything?

The hand played out the way it did, for a reason.

I prefer to live in the real world, not some theoretical one.



Or, as I prefer..... "Theory & reality don't always play well together in the same sandbox".

Still means nothing. They new card could have been there one that will you the hand as well. Every card could be any card in the deck until you see it.

 

[bigdonkey]

Unless of course, what would have been the river card that would have paired the board for your boat was no longer there to beat that turned flush that stacked you.

Still not mean anything?

The hand played out the way it did, for a reason.

This will be mathematically cancelled out by the number of times the river card wouldn't have paired the board for your boat but now does. Either way you'll hit your boat with the exact same frequency. And you'll never know which times it helped, which times it hurt and which times it made no difference, unless you have a way of knowing what the river card would be before it's turned (which is called cheating).

 

[justsomedude]

Of course the cards are in a physical order. But since the back of the cards aren't marked, the order means nothing. And since you don't know what the faces are either, the order means nothing.

By that logic, you could deal the flop from the middle of the deck. The turn off the bottom. And the river off the top.

I'm pretty sure you're trolling at this point.

 

[bigdonkey]

By that logic, you could deal the flop from the middle of the deck. The turn off the bottom. And the river off the top.

I'm pretty sure you're trolling at this point.

I think his argument is that, mathematically, you could. If you started with two suited cards, you would hit a flush with the exact same frequency regardless of where in the deck the 5 community cards were pulled from.

 

[Dix]

This will be mathematically cancelled out by the number of times the river card wouldn't have paired the board for your boat but now does. Either way you'll hit your boat with the exact same frequency. And you'll never know which times it helped, which times it hurt and which times it made no difference, unless you have a way of knowing what the river card would be before it's turned (which is called cheating).

No, you're talking about theoretical averages over time, I'm talking about a real-world specific hand.... what about that difference is confusing?

 

[bigdonkey]

No, you're talking about theoretical averages over time, I'm talking about a real-world specific hand.... what about that difference is confusing?

I don't know the outcome of the hand before it happens. All I know are the probabilities of seeing the cards I'm looking for, which don't change whether I reshuffle or not.