home game controversy needs settling

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually he should not care one way or the other. While if a player folded an Ace that benefits him by increasing his outs, he has no way of know ing that a player folded an ace. If no player folded an ace then it is to his disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]


It doesn't matter what he knows, it matters what is probable. And it's more probable that the deck was more ace-rich without those disgards dealt back in.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to make the assumption that people don't fold aces. perhaps that is your experience in your games, and if I was playing in a game like that where no player ever folded an ace, I would have to agree with you.

Unfortunately I haven't found such a game. I'm sure they exist somewhere, but I haven't been so lucky.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter what he knows, it matters what is probable. And it's more probable that the deck was more ace-rich without those disgards dealt back in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it significant enough to matter?
3 Aces, 48 unknown cards= 1/16 chance that any card is an Ace.

87.5% of the cards are in the stub before the shuffle. So, it's an average of 2 5/8 Aces in the stub, vs. 3/8 of an Ace in the folded cards. Both are 1/16 chance.... so it doesn't change?

eh.. I'm too tired to think through this properly.

However, if the Ace loses by diluting the Ace-richness, he also gains by extra straight cards, extra 7's....

Never mind. I give up

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the cards matter. They DO have knowledge of the folded cards. They know they weren't very strong. For example, there is a greater probability that non-aces got dealt back into the deck.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is true, but it doesn't have anything to do whether they were folded or not.... or at least, very little, unless everyone auto plays an Ace when 5 handed.

[SDone]

But now we're forgetting that the people in front of him folded 7's, so now he's going to flop quad 7's!!

[Khabbi]

By any set of rules I've ever seen or played by the SB is correct because you don't kill hands once significant action has occurred. The folded cards make no difference to the stub as they are all unknown cards just as much as any of the cards in the deck.

Just shuffle up and deal as usual.

[Zetack]

My inclination is to declare it a fouled deck and void the hand, but the weight of the rules, although there's nothing directly on point, seems to rest on playing out the hand.

I note that Roberts Rules says a midseal can't happen after action has occurred, but then proceeds to give examples in the irregularities section that would void the hand, apparently even if action has occurred.

The most relevant rule is probably:

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd consider this a fouled deck. How best to reconstitute it? I don't think it can be recreated without the shuffled in cards, so I would say shuffle deck thouroughly, including the discards, and then deal out the board as normal.

I don't particularly like that rule here, but I think that's the best reading of the rules, and since I'm generally a big advocate of following the standard rules unless there's some very good reason not to, I say, play on!

--Zetack

[DavidNB]

Action already taken, can't be a misdeal, play would go on.

Also, neither player has any extra knowledge about the extra cards.

And, how can every player at the table miss the fact that the dealer picked up the muck and shuffled them into the deck. Someone should of caught the dealer as he picked up the muck

[pfapfap]

In your home donkaments when it's down to the last few, are you always watching the dealer? I've certainly inadvertantly shuffled or started to shuffle the stub I was dealing, too. Very easy with two decks in play.

Anyway, I love Home Poker. Not one post about how the "fated" order of cards was screwed up.

[PantsOnFire]

The correct way is to re-shuffle what is left of the deck and continue as normal.

A home poker solution I have seen is to split the pot between the two players by pf equity and maybe lay out a board to win the last (unsplittable) chip.

[jack492505]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually he should not care one way or the other. While if a player folded an Ace that benefits him by increasing his outs, he has no way of know ing that a player folded an ace. If no player folded an ace then it is to his disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]


It doesn't matter what he knows, it matters what is probable. And it's more probable that the deck was more ace-rich without those disgards dealt back in.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to make the assumption that people don't fold aces. perhaps that is your experience in your games, and if I was playing in a game like that where no player ever folded an ace, I would have to agree with you.

Unfortunately I haven't found such a game. I'm sure they exist somewhere, but I haven't been so lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure how you are going to argue that the folded hands are less likely to contain aces than average. Yes, people do fold aces, but they are much more likely to play a hand that contains an ace. Putting the cards back puts the A7 player at a disadvantage.

Not sure what can be done about it though because I agree that the hand can't be a misdeal now and needs to be dealt out.