what is the proper way to handle this situation?

A rather bizzare situation came up that I've never seen before....I'm pretty sure the correct ruling was made, but I am curious as to what you guys think.

* Also note that the bonehead dealer of this hand is an active member on this forum...so please give him plenty of grief for it. (Hint: his name rhymes with Bavid)

pot is raised and called by one player.....all other players fold. Dealer grabs all mucked cards and starts shuffling the deck...no flop has been dealt....

the only two rulings I can see made here are continue shuffling, cut and burn, bring the flop....

the other is return all bets to players and re-deal the hand....

we went with the first one because there had been action, and both players in the hand agreed to it.....does anyone know how they might handle this in a casino? (other than firing the dealer on the spot )

I would verbally berate him endlessly. Then I'd wait for him outside afterwards and beat the hell out of him. Seriously, how hard is it to deal a hand of hold 'em? What a moron this dealer must be.

Wait....it's coming back to me now.....oh, uh....

Stallion wrote:I would verbally berate him endlessly. Then I'd wait for him outside afterwards and beat the hell out of him.

+10000000

From Robert's Rules...

17. If the deck stub gets fouled for some reason, such as the dealer believing the deal is over and dropping the deck, the deal must still be played out, and the deck reconstituted in as fair a way as possible.

So it sounds like option #1 was correct.

I was also at that table (thank god my name doesn't rhyme with Bavid). It think it was played fairly, especially since the host was notified, other players in the tourney were made aware (as well as questioned), and the two players inthe hand agreed to the next step.

I really don't think either of the two options you listed are wrong. I know you probablywould have gotten cranky over being forced to get rid of the hand (although Steve might have preferred the other route afterwards).

dexman1349 wrote:I was also at that table (thank god my name doesn't rhyme with Bavid). It think it was played fairly, especially since the host was notified, other players in the tourney were made aware (as well as questioned), and the two players inthe hand agreed to the next step.

I really don't think either of the two options you listed are wrong. I know you probablywould have gotten cranky over being forced to get rid of the hand (although Steve might have preferred the other route afterwards).

I don't know, even if I had garbage I would have handled it the same way so as not to give away the strength of my hand.

pseudoswede wrote:

Stallion wrote:I would verbally berate him endlessly. Then I'd wait for him outside afterwards and beat the hell out of him.

+10000000

I also failed to agree with this. Endless berating shall now continue...

I had a newbie do something like that recently. I was the dealer and had folded. Newbie was SB so he was next to deal. He and the cutoff had been betting like crazy at this pot, and had built it to about $25 (at 5/10 cent stakes). I dealt the river, and while newbie was thinking about his next move, I scooped up the muck and slid the deck about half way over, so he could start to shuffle after the hand was over.

Newbie absent-mindedly grabs the deck, plops it down on his hole cards, and starts to shuffle. I stopped him just before he started the first ruffle, and said "Dude! You just mucked your cards!" He made that "Oh shit" stupid looking face that I'm sure we all are familiar with at least a little.

The official ruling was clear...he mucked. But since this was just a friendly little lunchtime game between friends, cutoff let newbie get his cards back and they both checked the river. Newbie won a monster, and was counseled to not do that too often due to the risk of getting beat up in the parking lot later.

I just felt bad for confusing newbie…

I have seen this exact thing happen up the hill on more then one occasion. Most of the time the dealer has just dropped the cards onto the muck pile and the floor person would make a decision to pick up the intact deck and continue. If the cards have been shuffled, the ruling has usually been re-shuffle the remaining deck and continue with the flop, turn, river. I say 'usually' as I have seen a floor person rule this as a mis-deal (I believe an inexperienced floor person). No one complained as it wasn't a big deal, but if there has been action they are to continue with the hands in progress.

In the dealer's defense I think this was his first time ever playing poker. He screwed up several hands at this game. By coincidence, every hand the dealer screwed up was a hand that Ian was in.

Stallion wrote:In the dealer's defense I think this was his first time ever playing poker. He screwed up several hands at this game. By coincidence, every hand the dealer screwed up was a hand that Ian was in.

Yeah the dealer sounds like a total poker idiot FWIW. That guy must suck bad.

Um, that is a mis-deal. I saw what Roberts says but the muck was mixed with the stub, the stub is now "mucked" and that is a mis-deal. If the dealer simply dropped the deck and it is easy to reconstruct the deck then yeah play it out. If he has started shuffling I think the bets need to be returned and a new hand dealt without moving the blinds.

Man some dealers suck real bad, I woudl yell at him for his mistake and be sure to attack his character as it looks like it needs attacking.

PoWdA wrote:

Stallion wrote:In the dealer's defense I think this was his first time ever playing poker. He screwed up several hands at this game. By coincidence, every hand the dealer screwed up was a hand that Ian was in.

Yeah the dealer sounds like a total poker idiot FWIW. That guy must suck bad.

Um, that is a mis-deal. I saw what Roberts says but the muck was mixed with the stub, the stub is now "mucked" and that is a mis-deal. If the dealer simply dropped the deck and it is easy to reconstruct the deck then yeah play it out. If he has started shuffling I think the bets need to be returned and a new hand dealt without moving the blinds.

Man some dealers suck real bad, I woudl yell at him for his mistake and be sure to attack his character as it looks like it needs attacking.

don't know if that's true after there has already been action by more than one player though...I thought the only way a mis-deal can be called that far into a hand is for a crooked deck or something (like there are two 9 of clubs)

idh78 wrote:

PoWdA wrote:

Stallion wrote:In the dealer's defense I think this was his first time ever playing poker. He screwed up several hands at this game. By coincidence, every hand the dealer screwed up was a hand that Ian was in.

Yeah the dealer sounds like a total poker idiot FWIW. That guy must suck bad.

Um, that is a mis-deal. I saw what Roberts says but the muck was mixed with the stub, the stub is now "mucked" and that is a mis-deal. If the dealer simply dropped the deck and it is easy to reconstruct the deck then yeah play it out. If he has started shuffling I think the bets need to be returned and a new hand dealt without moving the blinds.

Man some dealers suck real bad, I woudl yell at him for his mistake and be sure to attack his character as it looks like it needs attacking.

don't know if that's true after there has already been action by more than one player though...I thought the only way a mis-deal can be called that far into a hand is for a crooked deck or something (like there are two 9 of clubs)

yeah you are talking about "substantial action" but there was only one action, a bet. A call or a check is considered passive; not an action so substantial action did not occur. (substantial action is 2 actions) I would have called the hand dead but I guess you can judge it the other way.

Was the dealer smoking crack?


disclaimer: I havn't been dealing for about 6 months now and I am a little rusty but I do not believe calling is truly considered an "action"

PoWdA wrote:
Was the dealer smoking crack?

Whatever he was smoking he was definately not sharing. A dealer that bad was under the influence of the full dose...

alright I emailed it to a couple people who have dealt in casinos...I am really curious now.

I am probably one of few people who would actually think this...but I think being a floorperson would be an awesome job...and personally it drives me nuts when people (especially myself) don't know all the rules...

idh78 wrote:alright I emailed it to a couple people who have dealt in casinos...I am really curious now.

I am probably one of few people who would actually think this...but I think being a floorperson would be an awesome job...and personally it drives me nuts when people (especially myself) don't know all the rules...

Unfortunatly the dealer school I went to closed down so I can't call them. I do believe there is a differnce between a retrievable stub and one that is lost and can't be used. This sounds like the latter and I do not believe substantial action occured. I think with a partially shuffled stub that has mucked cards, probably burn cards, and most likely some of the dealers hair mixed in (if this is the dealer I am thinking of he is probably losing some of his) the hand cannot continue fairly, which is the goal of every deal a dealer makes.