Order of the deck...

[BROOKS]

Hey guys, since the summit would normally be happening around this time, I made a video about something I think we need to get people talking about.
This is something that we as a group are going to have to come to agreement on.
So please watch, and then decide which side you're on

https://youtu.be/M3F2FmiNXvQ

[Motobaka72]

I would tilt towars random, but just thinking about convincing everyone about it makes me wonder if what has been done is the correct way to do it. Introducing it a rule at a time. 

Or would it be better to change it to random for everything. Maybe an approach, as you mentioned in the video, to just make it random only when preserving the order is no longer possible.

The example of the sb is one that I've given a lot of thought. And I think illustrates the reason why maybe making it all random might not be desirable.

Great topic. Thanks for the video.

[Dave Miller]

Nice video, but it makes it hard to review parts of it.

Also, I didn't really get WHY you are proposing the change.

I mean, I agree that random is random and 'card destiny' is kinda stupid, but tradition is also important - at least regarding the premature board cards. I like the idea of fixing a misdeal, when possible.


I'm going to go a long distance to make my points, so bear with me here.


First, consider a game of blackjack, where a novice at third base makes a bad decision which changes the cards the dealer gets, 'causing the players to lose'. Few players will consider the randomness, or that the deck could have been shuffled slightly differently so that the novice's bad play helps the table. Similarly, few players remember the times that the novice's bad play DID help the table. I.E. Your randomness argument is going to be a very hard sell.


The burn is intended to hide the next card making card marking less valuable. Is that really an issue these days? I'd like to think not, at least not in commercial casinos & card rooms, but could be an issue in underground and home games. So consistency is still desirable. But as far as fixing problems goes, burns are just cards.


If there's a misdeal, why can't it simply be fixed? A player is missing a card? Give him the next card. Extra card? Have the dealer randomly select one card to discard - and since you don't know if the player looked at his hand, expose the discard to all players. Multiple problems? OK. Misdeal.


But for the premature board question, I'd like to use the example of a premature turn. You burn another card, preserve the river, then shuffle the premature turn back into the stub. But at that point, there are generally two schools of thought: Use the river as the turn, or deal a new turn using the preserved river as the intended river. And now a third option is being introduced, it's random either way, so shuffle the premature card as well as the unused river and burn.

The option of preserving the river and using it as the river as 'destined' is the worst option because it will be sitting there without a burn to cover it, it might become fouled/mucked, and it provides information - that the original exposed turn, having not become the new shuffled turn, isn't going to be the river either.

Using the river as the turn provides less information - the value of one card that may or may not become the new river.

The suggested new random method of reshuffling all unused cards before the new turn provides the slightly more information - the value of one card that may or may not become the turn OR river.

A premature flop has all the same problems and solutions, just more cards.

All three solutions have their problems and merits, so why go against tradition?

Personally, I prefer to stick with the option of using the river as the turn (or the turn/burn/river to replace the premature flop). It's what players and dealers are used to, and it's the best solution for a reason generally not discussed here: It's the fastest method. I.E. You can replace the turn or flop, then begin shuffling while the action on the replacement is taking place so the newly shuffled stub is ready when needed.


Bottom line, some rules are all about Hands Per Hour. And that makes management AND players happy. And it's the primary reason I like the idea of changing the misdeal rule. Particularly when you consider that most misdeals happen before the shuffler is done, requiring a time consuming hand shuffle.

On a side note, have you ever dealt heads-up and dealt to the button first? Should be a misdeal, but knowing neither player looked, you simply switched the hands. Is that acceptable?

[BROOKS]

Dave I think you missed the whole point of the video.

"Also, I didn't really get WHY you are proposing the change"

What do you think I am proposing?
All I'm saying is that we need to decide if our rules are going to try and preserve the order of the deck when possible, or preserving the deck is not important and we should always apply randomness.

Meaning all of our rules should be consistent. Either we do preserve this "order" or we don't.
Like I mentioned in the video, in 2017 we introduced one rule (#38) which clearly does NOT preserve the order - making our rules inconsistent.
At the last Summit the premature turn procedure was almost changed. They wanted to start going towards applying randomness.

The issue is, we need to decide, which way are we going to go?
And I think it should be decided with input from as many people as possible.

Preserve the order of the deck whenever possible, or we don't need to because it's all random.

Also, in the video, I said that I think we should be preserving the order of the deck, whenever possible. And when you can't, randomness applies.

[Dave Miller]

Brooks -

After watching the video again, I am changing my opinion of it. The production value is great, but unlike a text post, it's very difficult to review pieces of it.

At any rate, I STILL don't see what point you are trying to make.

Why does randomness and preserving the order need to be mutually exclusive? Why can't you have both in some situations, one in other situations, and the other in other situations?

WHICH rule(s) are you trying to change?

Frankly, I believe we use the phrase "card destiny" and "preserve the order" not so much because we believe in those things, but it helps the cause I stated in my post: Keep the interruption as short as possible - maintain Hands Per Hour.

That's why I will continue to recommend that when there's a premature turn, use the river as the turn and shuffle the exposed turn into the stub.

On a side note, I didn't realize that rule 39 and procedure 5A recommend that a premature flop recommends reshuffling the entire stup. I'll continue to train my dealers to use the turn/burn/river as the flop not to "preserve the cards" (even though that's what we tell the players), but to keep the delay to a minimum.

You state that the mention of 'randomness applies' in rule 38 is a key example of abandoning the almighty card destiny. Is it? Is it really? I think they really saying that this is a situation where we use the term 'randomness' rather than saying, "It's stupid to have to stop and shuffle at this point".

You also point to procedure 14 for saying it outright: "TDs may use the concept of randomness" etc. I'm sorry, but that's really just a different way of phrasing Rule One.

Bottom line: if you stop thinking of this as "card destiny" / "preserving the order" versus "randomness", and start thinking about Hands Per Hour, it'll probably make more sense.


On a side note, as luck would have it, last night I watched California Split for the first time. It's from 1974 starring George Segal and Elliot Gould as gamblers. The opening scene is in a California poker room where players deal themselves, and there's an argument about whether a dealt card that went off the table is dead or not. Most players didn't see what happened. But the part that killed me with it's accuracy was the one player who was complaining about the delay because the seat rental clock was still ticking.

You can't tell me players aren't also concerned with hands per hours....

[Nick C]

Gentlemen, and ladies, too:

I suggest we do everything possible to preserve the proper card. A prematurely dealt turn should be replaced by the proper river. There is mention of the time that is wasted. That would certainly be the case if we reshuffled the turn and the remaining stub, because, there are many times after the proper river replaces the premature turn, that a bet is made and nobody calls...the hand is over.

Years ago, when the primary game was stud, we used to replace a card "off the table" with the second or third card from the bottom of the deck. This was to preserve the proper card on each following street.

We need to accept the fact that these situations only occur when mistakes are made. I suggest not changing the old rule, especially when there are more complex issues for us to deal with. (no pun intended).
Dave, I have never heard of a reshuffle after a prematurely exposed turn card while setting the proper river off to the side? Never. If anyone has any thoughts of suggesting that, please do not.
I don't believe that I have ever dealt the first down card in a two handed game (heads up) to the button! However, 18 years ago, I watched a tournament with head to head players and they had the big blind on the button!!! That's another story.

[Dave Miller]

Dave, I have never heard of a reshuffle after a prematurely exposed turn card while setting the proper river off to the side? Never. If anyone has any thoughts of suggesting that, please do not.

I think I saw it when I was a newbie player, in a deal yourself type league. (My league has trained dealers.) No. I'm not suggesting that procedure either.

I don't believe that I have ever dealt the first down card in a two handed game (heads up) to the button!

Working in a small pub league, it happens. It's very rare, but it happens. I think in my 9 years of dealing, I've done it less than 5 times.

However, 18 years ago, I watched a tournament with head to head players and they had the big blind on the button!!! That's another story.

I can believe it. After all, you normally deal to the small blind first. And the button is always last. It often takes me a couple attempts to teach new dealers why heads up things are different.

[Nick C]

Hello, Dave

Yes, I agree there are many standard old rules in poker that do go against the norm, or exceptions to the rules, you might say. When tournaments are down to the final two players at the table, or it is a head-to-head tournament, you are correct...the dealer does not deal to the small blind first because the small blind is on the button. It can cause a bit of confusion for some student dealers who are not seasoned players. I like to teach that no matter how many players, or no matter where the SB and BB are, you must always deal the first card off the deck away from the button, or to the first player clockwise to the button. It is a good time to mention that because of this head-to-head contest, the Button will act first pre-flop!

I'm confusing myself! Bottom line: Let's keep this part of the rules the way they have always been. Thanks for the back and forth, Dave...It's always good hearing from you, especially when we agree!

[Mathieu Perchoc]

OP's point is valid, TDA rules need to be consistent.
I think we should always apply randomness.