Well, if a deck has 51 or 53 cards, that's not a true 52 card deck.. That's why they ruled the deck invalid and the finished hand dead.

I thought it was a bad ruling myself and questioned whether I would even get up and leave if I were the hand's winner.

It's the casino's electronic shuffler error and the dealer's error for not spotting it.

That said, i'm still not surprised of the ruling they made.

BTW.. I did notice Ari in the house that evening but i do not know whether he was there during this occurrence. He was definitely not part of this solution (although some floorman was on the phone chatting about the situation so I suppose Ari could have been in on the ruling to some degree).

After the settlement he did cash out and leave. He was an older gent who didn't make an overly big ordeal about it, just was disappointed at the ruling and that he had to give back the winnings.

I don't much think the size of the pot changes the principle result. That's kinda why I was in a quandary. The loser shouldn't be out the money because of a casino error, yet I feel the same for the winner.

And the hand was well over before the deck issue became apparent.

Sorry, but as told, this ruling seems incorrect (see second part of below). The card has to appear during the hand for a misdeal to be declared; finding it in the stub afterwards is not enough.

From Robert's Rules of Poker:

Irregularities:

3. If a card with a different color back appears during a hand, all action is void and all chips in the pot are returned to the respective bettors. If a card with a different color back is discovered in the stub, all action stands.

Entirely different situation if the deck is missing cards (possibly removing outs and altering odds) vs containing an extra card of a different color that had no possible bearing on action, odds, etc.

How is PARX Monday-Thursday?

I know this isn't a democracy, and I don't even play tourneys, but for the good of the room I hope that Parx emulates Borgata's tournaments and structures.

Entirely different situation, but same result:

Action should have stood as played. No money should have been refunded. At least, according to RRoP.

So what? Discovered after play is over... how do you rule about a refund?

Especially if a different color card is in play and the extra card never hits the board or a dealt hand....

I don't see how the losing hand gets a refund here- they're gonna complain that the deck mix would have been different, or the cooler card wouldn't have come out?

Please!

Dinesh,

I am surprised about that the ruling from Roberts. A fouled deck includes:

1. A joker found in the deck
2. A missing card
3. An extra card
4. A card of different color

1st visit .....WTF is up with waitresses ... They all look like this in Philly? Should I move?? Lol

According to rrop #1 and #2 do not foul the deck. #4 does only if the mis-colored card is used. Action stands if its in the stub.

But regardless, when action is declared void chips IN THE POT are returned to bettors. Once the chips are awarded to a player, this is no longer an option.

So basically we could slip a card we need into game during a hand. Then as long as no one notices during play of said hand once hand is over it's too late to do anything?
Are we all just assuming the extra card was there" acccidentally"?
It's ok to cheat just don't get caught DUI g the hand?
Ok

I think were all assuming that the different color card was the result of dealer or player error.

If its cheating, then there are criminal penalties for that, and the casino should enforce them and confiscate _all_ winnings and chips from the player in question. But based on the story we're not even sure that the winner of the hand had anything to do with the extra card.

Place seems understaffed for a casino during a national holiday.

17 waiting for 1/2NL, 11 for 2/5NL, 14 for Omaha HiLo, and a 7 name list for 5/10NL.

And it's not even lunchtime yet.

If you think about it logically though, each hand of hold'em plays with a set sequence of 26 cards once the deck is cut, assuming 9 players dealt. If no joker or duplicate cards made it into the 26-card sequence, then any action during the hand has not been compromised in any way and should stand. That's the case in this situation, since the card from the other deck did not impact the 26-card sequence.

This was the case Friday too. I couldn't believe the lists had at least 11-15 players on 3 different wait lists and you had dealers at empty tables. There was someone dropping the ball filling empty seats at two different tables too.

Ari -

Check out this section in Robert's Rules which focuses on Irregularities - http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/chapter3.php.

Here is the relevant portion:

3. If a card with a different color back appears during a hand, all action is void and all chips in the pot are returned to the respective bettors. If a card with a different color back is discovered in the stub, all action stands.
____________

So basically...if a card with a different color back appears in the hand (ie. it is dealt to someone, it appears as part of the flop, it is one of the burn cards), then it's a misdeal and and the hand is void, all bets returned. If it is discovered in the stub (as it apparently was in this situation, since it seems like it was found as the dealer was gathering the deck for the next hand), all action stands. The hand should not be declared void, at least according to Robert's Rules.

Jeff

However, it is my belief that the extra card was found in the new deck as the dealer pulled it out of the shuffler.

I tend to think the hand in question was played with one less card.

One card must have been left behind in the shuffler and the dealer didn't realize it until she pulled out the newly shuffled deck for the next hand which had a card from the other deck in it.

How the dealer didn't notice a card left behind or the shuffler not showing a count error is still the mystery.

I do not believe any player played any part of this, so I don't think there was cheating or something scandalous occurring.

I don't think the loser of the hand should be SOL if the dealer or shuffler contributed to the error. As well I don't think the winner of a fully ended hand should have to refund his winnings after the fact.

The Casino should have taken the $100 hit, everyone would be happy and this just goes away.

Whether the casino wants to pay someone $100 is between that person and the casino (I certainly wouldn't blame that person for making a case, but it's really none of my business, and it's pretty rare for casinos to pay money in these cases). What I'm talking about is what ruling should be (based on standard rules of poker).

No one knew there was a problem with the deck during the hand - that's because the card with the different color back didn't appear during the hand. Another thing that would invalidate the hand is two cards of the exact same rank/suit are noticed during the hand. That also didn't occur. No one knew the deck was imperfect, no one knew which card was missing (if indeed one was), etc. It didn't the play of the hand. No one is entitled to a refund by rule.

However, I do agree this is a bad dealer error and if the casino wants to do something to make it right for the losing player, that would be a nice thing to do. But I feel like there is no way it's correct to force the winner of the hand to give the money back. What if you're playing and it's discovered an hour in that the deck is missing the Jc (instead there are two Jh). The hand it's discovered would be declared void - however, they aren't going to go back and invalidate previous hands - no one knew the deck is foul and all prior results stand.

I actually have had something similar happen to me years ago in a 30-60 game - I was getting CRUSHED and won a big pot - however, someone pointed out that the third burn card was a different color (the decks used were WAY too close in color to each other, which is how it was missed). Since that card appeared in the hand, it was declared void and all bets returned. I was disgusted because of my luck, but I accepted it. However, if on the next hand, it was discovered that one of the wrong cards was there, it would not invalidate the results of the hand. So yeah, there is my tangent for the day.

Jeff

Should the decks be checked? Yes.

But, as long as we're thinking sinister thoughts....

I think I'm behind. I slip in a wrong-colored card so that I can freeroll on this hand:

a) If I win, I say nothing

b) If I lose... "oh, wait, there's an extra card in the deck, that the dealer catches afterwards. I get my money back!"

Now we're just taking a solitary instance of a hand discrepancy and completely blowing it out of proportion by concocting asinine scenarios.

Your sinister thought isn't much more than a unrealistically dumb idea.

But #1's reply is okay, in your mind? Or did you just totally miss my point?

So, you're willing to lift both a dark and light Parx card off the table (perhaps even from another day).

Then while you are heated in a hand worthy of this delusion, you are going to "slip" in an extra card that isn't even the same color of the deck in play?

And no one is supposed to notice this? Not the dealer or any other player who is likely eyeing you up as well as the other hand participants?

Also, do you think the missing cards that likely immediately become apparent during phase one card lifting stage are disregarded? Don't you think they tear through that table and each of the players as well as the eye in the sky looking for said missing cards?

The whole point of the initial post was to point out what occurred, voice my opinion of how Parx/Staff handled the situation and for feedback from folks about how they handled the hand.

I saw both your points, I just happen to reply to yours first.

Going to be making an overnight drive past PARX on Wednesday, was thinking of stopping off for a few hours of cards, does this room ever go dead during the weekday? Will there even be poker around say 4am?