1-2 plo today anyone? I started a list

From what I understood in the original post, the deck with which the debated hand was played was short 1 card. This was discovered as the next hand was being shuffled/prepared/dealt, when an extra card with the wrong colored back was discovered. In this scenario, according to RRoP, the hand played with the missing card should stand as played.

As an aside, any hand played with an extra card which is dealt is a fouled deck and all money is returned. Any hand played with an extra card which remains in the stub is fine, and no money is returned.

Several people have concocted scenarios where a player "inserts" a card with a different colored back into a deck/their hand in an attempt to freeroll. This won't work, because:
1- If a different colored card is discovered (i.e. dealt) during a hand, the deck is fouled and all money is returned, so there is no freeroll.
2- If the different colored card is inserted into the deck such that it is never dealt and it remains in the stub, then it didn't affect the hand anyway, and it doesn't invalidate the results of the hand either, so it is not a freeroll.
3- If a player knows the deck is fouled and doesn't say anything, their hand is dead, so they cannot freeroll.
4- If a player somehow has an extra card(s) in their hole cards, regardless of what color the back is, their hand is dead, so there is no freeroll.
5- If a player is caught inserting or removing cards, or otherwise cheating, they will probably get permabanned anyway.

There is nothing magical about pushing the pot. Any player has the right to appeal the previous hand up until the next hand has begun. If the ruling goes against the person who was pushed the pot, they are required to give up those chips to the rightful owner(s).

RRoP defines "the next hand beginning" as being when the next shuffle starts, but that doesn't really work in a place running two decks and an automatic shuffler. Usually, in this case, it would be when the dealer cuts the new deck onto the cut card in preparation for dealing the next hand.

I don't know if this card issue was a dealer error, a player error, cheating, or a cosmic coincidence, but it doesn't matter. There is no way the house is liable for the amount. The floor will use the rules and his/her judgment to decide how to proceed, and the money will move according to that ruling.

The house may decide to provide compensation to one or more parties, but that is up to them in a customer service capacity, not any sort of "making the pot right" capacity.

Ari,

Has anything been discussed regarding changing the card backs? The color of the two decks are very similar and I feel that a lot of problems could be avoided by making the backs a bit more distinct.

there is nothing magical about pushing the pot specifically, no. There is some reasonable time after the pot is pushed but before the next hand begins where its still the pot, and if an error is discovered it can be re-awarded. If not, how else could someone object if the pot was pushed to the wrong player.... But the next hand, at least according to the poster, had begun...

the dealer has pushed the pot. The dealer has mixed the muck in with the stub, squared the deck, put it in the autoshuffler, removed the new deck and was prepared to deal the cards. Were the cards being shuffled by hand, the point where the error was discovered would be congruous to the next shuffle not just being started but to the next shuffle being completed.

Would you feel differently if the dealer had dealt a couple of cards in the next hand before discovering the off color card? Or if the dealer had dealt all hands in the next hand and discovered the off color card counting down the new stub? I think at some point you have to acknowledge that the hand becomes over, and there is no remedy for dealer or player error.

Can any regs help me out with this?

check the game report up until then: it is up-to-the-second accurate.

http://www.parxcasino.com/gamereport/

This can help:

http://www.taeyeonkim.com/parx/

I've never seen the room 100% dead except for the one time they closed for snow. Around 4AM on weekdays, there's maybe 5 1/2 tables and 1 2/5 table going, mostly shorthanded, with people dropping out steadily. Around 8 or 9, it'll get down to 2-3 tables going, and around 10 - 12, people will start trickling back in.

Just cause you did not cheat or would not, does not mean that someone else did not cheat. I don't think it's so far fetched to think that people might actually cheat at a card game played for money. Preposterous?
And just because that was not the case this time does not mean it won't be next time.

I don't understand this point. Wouldn't the idea be that the player knows the deck is fouled, and doesn't say anything unless he loses the pot? If he loses the pot, he says something--so in effect he CANNOT lose the pot. If he wins the pot, he doesn't say anything, so there's a chance no one else notices the fouled deck. What do you mean they "cannot" freeroll?

OK, if it is determined that he knew the deck was fouled and didn't say anything, his hand is dead. But how will you ever prove that he knew the deck was fouled?

You're last question is a good one anyone care to answer, dinesh? I never met so many honest and trusting poker players before. Jus sayin.

Yes, I agree. This is exactly what I said.

It is not the same thing as what you originally said:

To put a fine point on it, until the next hand begins, chips can be taken back and redistributed, even if they have already been pushed to someone. Whether or not the chips are still "in the pot" or have been "awarded to a player" is immaterial.

The definition of when "the next hand begins" is a little bit vague, though, even in RRoP, for rooms which use an automatic shuffler. The OP is also a little bit unclear about exactly when and how the mis-colored card was discovered (how exactly did anyone notice a mis-colored card while the dealer grabbed the shuffled deck from the shuffler? or even during the cut? unless the mis-colored card was on top either before or after the cut? or did the shuffler come up with a red light and a 53 card error?), so it's hard to say for sure whether or not the dealer had actually started dealing the next hand, or what.

if the next deal hadn't yet begun, then the previous hand should be up for a ruling. (though, as i understand it, it should have stood as played anyway.)

if the next deal had begun, then it should have been too late to make any changes anyway. though rule #1 could be invoked by the floor at any point if he felt it was the fairest thing given the circumstances. in general, though, i would only invoke that rule if there had been something in addition to the card being in the wrong deck - e.g. a player caught cheating.

A fair point which I lost in the process of making a lengthy post.

As you and others say, it is very, very hard to prove what a player knew or did not know. Though some might admit to it if they don't know that what they did is against the rules.

You're probably right, an unprincipled player probably could freeroll by purposefully ignoring/hiding a mis-colored card, and only revealing its existence if they lose the hand.

I guess I contend this is a low frequency event, since it is essential that no other player or dealer notices the same issue. I also contend that there isn't a rule that can fix this, any more than you can fix the "freeroll" of a player being pushed a pot that they know they didn't deserve. The rules say he has to speak up, but if he doesn't he gets to freeroll on the money, and there is nothing the rules can do to punish him for the ethical lapse.

I also don't quite understand what rule change you'd advocate to ameliorate this. If the player is the only one who sees it, and wins the hand, and therefore doesn't mention it, how do you prevent the freeroll? Wait until the shuffler discovers the extra card (in the middle of the next hand being played, most likely), then wind back to the previous hand and undo the damage?

Yes, I don't have any good rule change in mind, although perhaps as you suggest, after the shuffler finds the extra card they should undo the damage of the previous hand (upon reviewing the cameras and seeing that the extra card was actually involved in the hand).

However, I would agree with others in suggesting that the deck colors should always be VERY different. This would decrease the likelihood that the dealer and others at the table fail to recognize the winner's A from one deck and A from the other.

Yes, he can. Thats what rule three says. For example, lets say you have two sixes of clubs in your hand. You know there is an extra card in the deck, so you shove all your chips in, figuring that if everyone folds, you win. If not, the deal gets walked back and you don't lose.

Now i call you. You turn over your hand killing cards and say "no no it doesnt count. the hand is dead" Rule three says that you specifically _dont_ get your chips back in this case (though its not clear on what happens to them)

You angry?

I enjoy reading LL's posts. He just pretends hes uneducated


http://www.taeyeonkim.com/parx/timeline.php

as well

Well, the scenario of having two 6 is somewhat irrelevant, as it is pretty obvious that the dealer and players will immediately recognize that the deck is fouled when I flip my cards up. Of course in such a case you still can't prove that I knew the deck was fouled. What if I get up from my seat and go "WOAH, I thought I had two black 6's, didn't look at the suits!!!" How can you prove I knew they were both 6's? Why would I even look at the suits when I peel up my cards a little and see two black 6's?

But what if I have 6 from one deck and 6 from the other. If I lose, I realize that the deck is fouled when the dealer is mucking my cards. If I win, I hope that no one realizes when the dealer takes the tip and mixes my cards into the muck. And it's all the more likely that no one will notice when the backs are very similar. In such a case, how can you prove I knew they were from different decks when the hand started?

ive never played at parx, so i have no idea what the backs of their cards look like. However it would quite difficult to miss this, even from the other end of the table, in most casinos i have played at. If the colors are close enough so that someone could have cards from two different decks and not know it, then they should get new colors.

I agree that the likelihood of this happening is very remote. Just wondering what rules could be put in place so this would be a non-issue. It seems having starkly different cardbacks would help, in addition to having a camera review of any hand where the shuffler notices afterward that the number of cards is incorrect--or if a card with the wrong back is noticed by dealer/players the next time that deck is in play (two hands later).

How is safety around Parx? Are we talking crime-ridden war zone like parts of AC or nice and safe like the Borg?

Dinesh, do you really see this as a reasonable, or (more correctly) preferred solution, to award pots to other people after the hand is over, in THIS type of situation?

It is quite safe, it is basically in a suburban strip mall.

I do not describe Parx as a strip mall. I would describe it more like a horse track/casino/poker room... which is what it is.

Wait, so they moved it?

LL, which type of situation are you talking about?

I've already said (multiple times) that, in the case as it was originally described, I wouldn't refund any money for a missing card on the previous hand, because the rules as I understand them don't support that.

If, on the other hand, immediately after the pot was awarded, and as the dealer was squaring up the muck, it was discovered that one of the dealt cards was of the wrong color, then yes, I would refund the money (even though the pot had already been pushed).

On yet another hand, if two hands were tabled, and the pot was pushed to the wrong hand, and a player made an appeal of that pot at some point after the pot was awarded, but before the next hand begun, then yes, I would again support taking the pot away from the person who first received it and awarding it to the proper winner.

These are the rules of the game. How or why would I not support following them?