Pot awarded after defective deck found - Page 2

VORP · #11 08-20-2006, 10:34 PM

Mike Matt's told me about this incident this afternoon and I fully agree with his assesment. There's absolutely no room for interpretation here; the deck was fouled, the hand isn't valid and you should get your money back. I would definitely press it with gaming, I think you have a very good chance of both getting your money back and knocking some sense into Bally's managment.

bav · #12 08-20-2006, 10:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mike Matt's told me about this incident this afternoon

[/ QUOTE ]

Say what? I thought he was at MGM. How does he know about this incident?

But for me, I'm happy to close it and let it lie. Bally's rule book and Robert's Rules both seem to support that you let stand the results of playing with a 51-card deck. I got bad beaten for a $500 pot by a 2 out of 45 outter instead of what would have been a 2 out of 46er. Not a problem long as the rules also state that this is the case.

Dynasty · #13 08-20-2006, 11:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I remain curious where the jack of hearts went. Bally's is even more curious, I'm sure. Folks were acting like this was a first for all of them. Most folks were guessing that it left with a player who took it intentionally as a souvenir. I imagine some poor schmuck in surveillance has been tasked with watching an hour of videos from midnight when the new deck was supposedly spread to 1am when this was discovered.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's unlikely that somebody took the Jh. It's much more likely that it was simply was never in the deck. Decks are sometimes inproperly setup. Careless dealers may not notice it when a game starts and they spread the deck.

But, that brings up another question. Why wasn't the 51-card deck discovered by the automatic shuffler? Those things count the cards on every shuffle. If there aren't 52 cards, then the red light goes off and a warning message appears.

Assuming an automatic shuffler was used, it brings up the possiblity that the Jh was in the deck at the start of the hand and was somehow lost when the deck was counted.

groton · #14 08-21-2006, 12:17 AM

or maybe the Jh got stuck in the Autoshuffler

RR · #15 08-21-2006, 12:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mike Matt's told me about this incident this afternoon

[/ QUOTE ]

Say what? I thought he was at MGM. How does he know about this incident?

But for me, I'm happy to close it and let it lie. Bally's rule book and Robert's Rules both seem to support that you let stand the results of playing with a 51-card deck. I got bad beaten for a $500 pot by a 2 out of 45 outter instead of what would have been a 2 out of 46er. Not a problem long as the rules also state that this is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The results of a short deck should stand. The reason is a less than ethical player could lose a card on the floor. He can now freeroll the game by noticing the card on the floor if it gives him back his money.

RR · #16 08-21-2006, 12:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Now I do find it odd that the high-hand jackpot payouts are not made if a deck is found to have 51 cards. That *IS* in the rules (I saw that one). Seems like either the deck is good enough and the hand plays, or the deck is bad and the hand doesn't play. It shouldn't be good enough to award the pot, but bad enough to skip the high-hand award.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone contesting for the pot was playing with the same 51 card deck. Assuming the high hand award is a progressive amount the players competing for that were not playing with the same deck.

psandman · #17 08-21-2006, 12:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I do find it odd that the high-hand jackpot payouts are not made if a deck is found to have 51 cards. That *IS* in the rules (I saw that one). Seems like either the deck is good enough and the hand plays, or the deck is bad and the hand doesn't play. It shouldn't be good enough to award the pot, but bad enough to skip the high-hand award.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone contesting for the pot was playing with the same 51 card deck. Assuming the high hand award is a progressive amount the players competing for that were not playing with the same deck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also you no longer have concern that a player might intentionally foul the deck to freerol as you mention in another post.

VORP · #18 08-21-2006, 12:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mike Matt's told me about this incident this afternoon

[/ QUOTE ]

Say what? I thought he was at MGM. How does he know about this incident?

But for me, I'm happy to close it and let it lie. Bally's rule book and Robert's Rules both seem to support that you let stand the results of playing with a 51-card deck. I got bad beaten for a $500 pot by a 2 out of 45 outter instead of what would have been a 2 out of 46er. Not a problem long as the rules also state that this is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I work with him at MGM (or did, today was my last day). Word can travel around town pretty fast at times. I've heard about a number of incidents from people at work and then seen the a thread show up here on it a day or two later.

Randy: I could be wrong but I had thought that the gaming regulations in NV stated that any fouled deck nullified the hand, without exception. I don't know where I could double check that, but it's what I've been told in the past.

sekrah · #19 08-21-2006, 01:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I do find it odd that the high-hand jackpot payouts are not made if a deck is found to have 51 cards. That *IS* in the rules (I saw that one). Seems like either the deck is good enough and the hand plays, or the deck is bad and the hand doesn't play. It shouldn't be good enough to award the pot, but bad enough to skip the high-hand award.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone contesting for the pot was playing with the same 51 card deck. Assuming the high hand award is a progressive amount the players competing for that were not playing with the same deck.

[/ QUOTE ]

True scenario. But how did the card end up on the floor in the first place? How often does this truly happen? I can never recall a deck coming up short EVER while playing B&M.

Also, if OP is dealt J-J, how fair is it that after the hand is over, we discover that a jack is missing from the deck, cutting his odds of making a set in half..

He's putting in huge amounts of money into the pot thinking he has two jacks in the deck to help make his hand.

This is an outrageous rule. I would be stunned if the gaming commission approved of it.

RR · #20 08-21-2006, 08:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I do find it odd that the high-hand jackpot payouts are not made if a deck is found to have 51 cards. That *IS* in the rules (I saw that one). Seems like either the deck is good enough and the hand plays, or the deck is bad and the hand doesn't play. It shouldn't be good enough to award the pot, but bad enough to skip the high-hand award.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone contesting for the pot was playing with the same 51 card deck. Assuming the high hand award is a progressive amount the players competing for that were not playing with the same deck.

[/ QUOTE ]

True scenario. But how did the card end up on the floor in the first place? How often does this truly happen? I can never recall a deck coming up short EVER while playing B&M.

Also, if OP is dealt J-J, how fair is it that after the hand is over, we discover that a jack is missing from the deck, cutting his odds of making a set in half..

He's putting in huge amounts of money into the pot thinking he has two jacks in the deck to help make his hand.

This is an outrageous rule. I would be stunned if the gaming commission approved of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How the card got on the floor to begin with is a key question. As far as the guy putting a lot of money in with his card missing, how far back do you go? The card might have been missing for hours (assuming a hand dealt game where the dealers don't count as often as they should). The only times I have had to rule on a short deck the problem was discovered preflop so it was not problem to give everyone their money back.