|
|
#11
11-10-2006, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Misdeal ruling regarding the button
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This avoids the "two cards in a row" problem. [/ QUOTE ] Why exactly is this a problem? [/ QUOTE ] easier to stack the deck [/ QUOTE ] As a dirty dealer, how do you stack a deck when it has been cut and passed to you? (Edit: sorry that's for home games). What does an exposed card have to do with stacking the deck? 
|
|
#12
11-10-2006, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Misdeal ruling regarding the button
[ QUOTE ]
Right, because putting two cards together with exactly nineteen on top is so easy to do. [/ QUOTE ] Even if it hassn't been stacked I would rather get 2 cards in a row with a typical hand shuffle.
|
|
#14
11-10-2006, 08:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Misdeal ruling regarding the button
After reading this thread again, there seem to be two camps here who feel the button getting two consecutive cards is bad.
The first seem to imply that cheating is easier or more likely is this case. I honestly can't see why anyone would think this. Stacking a deck with say AA as cards 20 and 21 would be fairly difficult I would think and you would have to expose the first button card "by accident" as part of the ruse. There are better ways to get villain the two desired cards than this. Then there's the camp that says two consecutive cards might be less random and thus give the button a higher likelyhood of getting a better hand than average. This again seems like a pretty good stretch. Seems like a red herring to me mixed in with a lemon twist of paranoia.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
