Cash Game Ruling Assistance (1 Viewer)

[Frogzilla]

I used to be been indifferent to measures that preserve order of cards. You skipped someone, give em two cards off the top and let’s play poker.

Now...I’m flipping and think the procedures are important to learn and follow. I don’t think it would change outcome of the game..but the players that do are the ones you want to keep happy if you know what I mean

 

[bigdonkey]

I used to be been indifferent to measures that preserve order of cards. You skipped someone, give em two cards off the top and let’s play poker.

Now...I’m flipping and think the procedures are important to learn and follow. I don’t think it would change outcome of the game..but the players that do are the ones you want to keep happy if you know what I mean

I'm the "rules Nazi" of our group. I would declare a misdeal and restart the hand it the appropriate situations. It is my players that say screw it just so everyone has two cards lets play the hand. I'm willing to go with the flow in this situation as the mathematics of the hand remain unchanged. Table talk, string bets, or any other rules which prevent a player from gaining a specific advantage are strictly adhered to.

 

[Dix]

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.

For one specific hand.... where the deck is already in a predetermined (albeit unknown) order.... yes it DOES change if you reshuffle the deck.

Which is the whole point... note the topic.... Ruling Assistance.

Ruling assistance of a real-world situation of a single hand... not the effects of long term theoretical averages.

And why, you may ask, are rules such as the one under discussion, written the way they are....

I used to be been indifferent to measures that preserve order of cards. You skipped someone, give em two cards off the top and let’s play poker.

Now...I’m flipping and think the procedures are important to learn and follow.

... and, we have our winner.

 

[Legend5555]

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.

You could do that for sure. It doesn't change anything. To be clear, it doesn't mean that's the best idea. But from a randomness pov, it changes nothing.

 

[justsomedude]

...from a randomness pov, it changes nothing.

Oh. For a second here I thought we were talking about a cad game with rules and structure.

My bad.

Now I’m gonna go drive around town and ignore all traffic lights. But maybe obey others. You know... from a randomness perspective.

 

[Legend5555]

Oh. For a second here I thought we were talking about a cad game with rules and structure.

My bad.

Now I’m gonna go drive around town and ignore all traffic lights. But maybe obey others. You know... from a randomness perspective.

This debate isn't about following rules. It's about whether the order of the cards affects the random distribution of the cards. I've never argued to not follow the rules, or that it's better not to. Just that dealing from parts of the deck other than the top doesn't actually change anything about the distribution of the cards. There is no order when it comes to unseen cards.

A shuffled deck of cards is nothing more than a randomized 52 unseen objects. It doesn't matter if you take the top card, middle card, or bottom card. The deck has no order in terms of what card you get other than the physical nature of there being 52 cards stacked on top of each other. In shuffled deck, since you can't see the faces and the cards are all identical on the back, any card has an equal chance of being any remaining card in the deck until you actually see the card face.

Let's say you deal out a hand normally, following the rules. (Which we all should do normally anyway since games need standardized rules.) Before you've looked at any cards, what's to say that dealing the entire hand off the bottom of the deck may not have produced the same result? After all you didn't know where any particular card was in the deck before you saw them. You could deal part of the hand from the top, some from the middle, some from the bottom. You still may have gotten the same distribution since again you didn't know where any particular card was before you saw them.

The rules are good to follow to keep everything flowing well and make sure everything is standardized. But deck order is completely irrelevant. You can deal from any part of the deck any time you need to deal a card and it doesn't change anything about what card will show up. Because until you see the card face, it could have been any remaining card in the deck.

 

[BGinGA]

You can deal from any part of the deck any time you need to deal a card and it doesn't change anything about what card will show up.

Please stop trolling. Even my 4-year old grandchild knows you are full of shit.

 

[Frogzilla]

Please stop trolling. Even my 4-year old grandchild knows you are full of shit.

What he is saying is true though. I am 100% serious.

 

[BGinGA]

What he is saying is true though. I am 100% serious.

From a theoretical random perspective, yes. But it does indeed physically "change" things when not dealing the intended order of the set of previously randomized cards.... yet he claims that it does not.

 

[Frogzilla]

From a theoretical random perspective, yes. But it does indeed physically "change" things when not dealing the intended order of the set of previously randomized cards.... yet he claims that it does not.

It “changes” from Outcome A to Outcome B. His point is that Outcome A and Outcome B are exactly identical. So did it really change?

You don’t have to agree with the viewpoint, but don’t dismiss it as a troll

Edit: and a tough question for you.. when you say “intended order of the cards”, intended by whom?

 

[BGinGA]

The outcomes are not identical. One merely has to perform both actions simultaneously to prove this.

Are you trolling, too?

 

[Hornet]

Top ten movie BTW

 

[JustinInMN]

Edit: and a tough question for you.. when you say “intended order of the cards”, intended by whom?

Uh oh, we are bringing religion into the question now.

 

[BGinGA]

a tough question for you.. when you say “intended order of the cards”, intended by whom?

Not so tough. The deck order is randomly set for the upcoming hand by a combination of the shuffle and cut. Failure to maintain that order does change the outcome, although it is still random.

 

[Frogzilla]

The outcomes are not identical. One merely has to perform both actions simultaneously to prove this.

Are you trolling, too?

I am not trolling in the slightest. I’ll simply describe what I believe the outcomes to be. This is my genuine viewpoint and again you don’t have to agree but at least accept that it’s a view some have.

For sake of example, this is a river, where we are already all in and know our opponents cards. We have our opponent has board reads

The outcome from dealing the top of the stub is (not in theory, in PRACTICE)2/44 chance we suckout and hit the K-ball, 42/44 chance of bricking. The outcome from dealing from the middle of the stub is 2/44 suckout, 42/44 JJ holds. These outcomes are, from my perspective, 100% identical.

 

[BGinGA]

I am not trolling in the slightest. I’ll simply describe what I believe the outcomes to be. This is my genuine viewpoint and again you don’t have to agree but at least accept that it’s a view some have.

For sake of example, this is a river, where we are already all in and know our opponents cards. We have our opponent has board reads

The outcome from dealing the top of the stub is (not in theory, in PRACTICE)2/44 chance we suckout and hit the K-ball, 42/44 chance of bricking. The outcome from dealing from the middle of the stub is 2/44 suckout, 42/44 JJ holds. These outcomes are, from my perspective, 100% identical.

Again, as I said earlier, they are the same from a random theoretical perspective. But they do produce different outcomes in reality -- in fact, they *must* do so, since the same identical random card cannot exist in both deck locations.

Which is exactly why the indended order of randomized cards is important, and why several rules are designed to protect that order.

 

[JustinInMN]

Failure to maintain that order does change the outcome, although it is still random.

I think the part I bolded is all @Legend5555 has been trying to say.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I can understand both viewpoints. But it can become infected if you know what the outcome "should have" been. I'll tie this to the OP to show what I mean.

JJ vs KK, all in pre. Flop comes 3J5. Woohoo, I hit the J, and rightly so cause I said "one time" before the flop. But.... someone points out that Billy forgot to burn. No worries, the J wasn't the burn card. Just fix it and move on.

But then some do-gooder googles RROP and the burn card is instead randomized. And of course, the J is burned. Turn and river are deuces.

That was my pot. I lost it because of f*cking Billy and Robert.

I think that in my homegames the house rule will be that if there is consensus on which the burn card is, that card will be burnt.

 

[Frogzilla]

I will say that

the same identical random card cannot exist in both deck locations.

This is of course true but I discount it as irrelevant, accept the dissonance, and view all cards as potentially any card. I know it is technically only one card, but until it’s flipped over, I treat it as all the cards. It’s a very healthy approach as a poker player

 

[Legend5555]

I will say that


This is of course true but I discount it as irrelevant, accept the dissonance, and view all cards as potentially any card. I know it is technically only one card, but until it’s flipped over, I treat it as all the cards. It’s a very healthy approach as a poker player

At least someone understands what I'm talking about.

 

[BGinGA]

At least someone understands what I'm talking about.

Maybe so, but this is still crap:

You can deal from any part of the deck any time you need to deal a card and it doesn't change anything about what card will show up.

 

[Legend5555]

Again, as I said earlier, they are the same from a random theoretical perspective. But they do produce different outcomes in reality -- in fact, they *must* do so, since the same identical random card cannot exist in both deck locations.

Which is exactly why the indended order of randomized cards is important, and why several rules are designed to protect that order.

But you don't know the outcome until you see everything. The top card could be the one outer you need on the river, or the middle card could be, or the bottom card. You have know way of knowing until you've seen the cards. You can't know what the order the cards are in, thus the next card dealt could be any of the remaining unseen cards, regardless of where the card is dealt from the deck.

 

[Legend5555]

Maybe so, but this is still crap:

Incorrect. Until you see a what the face of a card is, any unseen card could be any unseen card.

 

[Hornet]

What exactly is the point of this discussion?

 

[CraigT78]

What exactly is the point of this discussion?

I don't know, but I'm enjoying the lesson.

 

[BGinGA]

What exactly is the point of this discussion?

Confirming @Legend5555 is a troll. Makes a blanket statement that is false, then defends it without ever really addressing what he actually said.

 

[Hornet]

Confirming @Legend5555 is a troll. Makes a blanket statement that is false, then defends it without ever really addressing what he actually said.

That makes sense. Thanks!

 

[Frogzilla]

Confirming @Legend5555 is a troll. Makes a blanket statement that is false, then defends it without ever really addressing what he actually said.

He is being clear. You disagree with the statements but Legend is offering a better way of viewing poker in general. I don’t know why you think it is trolling.

Deal a card face down. Turn it over. Say for example, it’s the 8 of hearts. Now think back. Before you turned it over, was it a 100% chance of being the 8 of hearts? You think obviously, of course it was. Cards don’t reprint themselves.

Now however strange it may seem, I actually disagree. Before you turned it over, it was equally likely to be any card in the deck. That card, the physical card, had a 1/52 chance of being the Jack of clubs. It defies some logic but it makes you a much much better player

 

[BGinGA]

Before you turned it over, it was equally likely to be any card in the deck. That card, the physical card, had a 1/52 chance of being the Jack of clubs. It defies some logic but it makes you a much much better player.

Of course the theoretical odds are the same. That's not my point, which you are apparently continually missing.

He is being clear. You disagree with the statements but Legend is offering a better way of viewing poker in general. I don’t know why you think it is trolling.

Yeah, except that's not what he's stating that I -- and several others -- disagree with.

He claims "You can deal from any part of the deck any time you need to deal a card and it doesn't change anything about what card will show up. "
And that's just bullshit. Two different cards will show up if dealt from different deck locations. Changing deck location changes the actual card dealt, which may or may not affect the results of hand. Matters not what the theoretical probability is (and I understand that aspect, I'm not an idiot), but changing the physical card being dealt physically changes the hand. This is a specific point he will not address when challenged.

He also claims that "rules that preserve card order are pointless because the order doesn't actually exist."
Which is also utter bullshit. The deck's set randomized order after shuffling/cut does exist, and does matter -- and rules are in place to preserve it, like it or not.

He is certainly entitled to his opinion that the existing rules are "wrong" in his view, but to claim that a fixed card order doesn't exist -- or matter to the outcome of the hand -- is simply trolling.

 

[pltrgyst]

Just in case some actual mathematical jargon might be useful:

The object is not merely to randomize each individual card dealt. If it were, that could be just as well achieved by "washing" the cards (aka a "Corgi shuffle"). and choosing each card from the pile as it is to be dealt.

A deck of 52 cards can be arranged through various shuffles and cuts into a huge number (52!) of "ordered sets". The purpose of these shuffles and cuts is to create one random but specific instance of one of those 52 factorial sets. It is that huge number of ordered sets that is the basis for essentially any card game using a standard deck.

The purpose of the existing TDA (or any other useful) rule set is to preserve the relative order of as many as possible of each pair of elements (cards) in the specific ordered set (the shuffled and cut deck).

It is *not* to insure that each card atop the deck possesses some undefined quality of randomness as it is dealt.

IOW, Dave is right.

Unless you're a climate science denier, in which case ... never mind.