A few years ago most games I play in switched to two decks to speed up the game. I remember some of the guys not liking the change because they felt they didn't have time to talk or socialize and felt rushed the whole time. I think that feeling has subsided for the most part and I personally love the 2 deck system. There is a organization fundraiser tournament in my area every other month in the winter months that attracts around 80 players on average. They still do the one deck system and it pains me every time. They have even asked for a show of hands who would like to use 2 decks and maybe 10 people raise their hands. Amazes me that people don't like 2 decks. Especially in a tourney format like that. There is usually a player or two at my table that takes a full minute or more to shuffle. Then there's a misdeal which means we start it all over. I bet it costs us 8 or 10 hands per hour. Though I've never tried to track that. Curious if anyone else has actually documented how many more hands a typical table of 8 players can get in with 2 decks versus 1? Does anyone else share this pet peeve of mine?

It certainly would vary some due to the skills of the dealers (self dealt) and what games are being played. But I think it gets you several more hands per hour without a doubt. I have not played in a home game that did not use a two deck system ,of some kind , for many years now. Likely somebody on the forum will have done some kind of experiment on this.

We use two decks, a red backed deck and a blue backed deck.

Basically you save the time it takes to gather up the cards and shuffle.

But not only that... we have the person who dealt the last hand (Player A) collect the cards and shuffle, then the person to his left (Player B) cuts the cards and places the cut on the cut card, finally the person to Player B's left, (Player C), deals. It's a smooth even distribution of labor. Everybody deals the same number of times, everybody cuts the same number of times, and everybody gathers and shuffles the same number of times.

Hard for me to see how anyone could object to that system. If I were you, I'd bring two new, unopened bicycle decks, one red, one blue, to the game, explain the Player A, Player B, Player C system described in the previous paragraph and ask if there are any objections to using two decks instead of one. I think you have to be very unpopular for anyone to object. But if someone does object, put the two new unopened decks in your pocket, sit down and shut up. (Let someone else carry the ball).

If you're not already using a cut card, they'll bitch about having to use a cut card. In that case, maybe don't mention the cut card, or get someone else to introduce the idea of cut cards. Progress is often made a small step at a time.

Buzz

1 deck system is only acceptable if people's attention is very focused on the game and they're kinda experienced players who can shuffle and deal fast and know why it's important to do.
If that's not the case, then yeah it's boring to death and if you're a bit card dead, it becomes a real pain in the ass watching slow drunk people taking 2-3min to shuffle and (mis)deal because they're telling a story and can't do 2 things at the same time.

And I'm just talking about my own experience in cash games, but I wouldn't even play a tournament without 2 deck system, it would tilt me too much watching time passing when idiots who don't have a clue take hours to deal these f***ing cards.

Usually, people are reluctant to break their habits but never tried the 2 deck system, that's why they "think" it will be too fast/complex. Suggest them just to have a try for an orbit or 2 and THEN you vote again

The biggest issue with 2 decks is that you have a player shuffling/handling the deck at a time that most players attention will be elsewhere.

Good point, but by having a third player cut, you make it difficult for the player shuffling/handling the deck to take advantage of this lack of concentration of other players on the shuffling.

Buzz

The process that Buzz described is the best one in my opinion. Another thing I prefer to see is to wait until all the cards are collected from the previous hand before allowing player b to cut and player c to deal. Often times the deck is already in player c hands and they start dealing while there are still other cards or even still chips on the table from the previous hand.

More difficult but not impossible especially if the neighbor who cuts is the partner in the scam.

If I were that worried about getting scammed in a home poker game I simply just wouldn't play in it. Sure it would be possible but not probable.

The place you will most likely be cheated is a home game.

I'm not saying you should be terrified of it. But you should consider it when creating your procedures.

That's why you use a cut card.
• Player A gathers and shuffles. It's more or less fruitless for Player A to arrange the cards because Player B is going to cut them.
While the shuffle is occurring, the other deck is being dealt.
• Player B cuts and puts the cut part on top of the cut card in full view of everybody. (And then it's hard for Player C to deal off the bottom of the deck).
• Player C deals (while the other deck is being shuffled).

It's not foolproof, but it's a decent, reasonable system.

Buzz

Player puts the arranged cards in the center of the deck and a slight jog marking where player B should cut to put the arranged cards at the top. Player C doesn't have to be in on it.

We also draw for seats before the game ever starts which would also help prevent this from happening. Don't do it for that reason but that is an added benefit. We do that so you can't choose to have position on certain players.

Cheating would have the same possibility in either a one deck or 2 deck system. I rarely if ever concentrate on the people shuffling the deck because I trust the guys I choose to play cards with. There has been one occurrence of confirmed cheating that I have seen in my 13 years of playing poker. That was years ago in a one deck system.

Cheating can occur regardless and almost certainly does occur. (People will cheat even when $ is not involved).

I'm just saying two decks increases the chances for this particular type of cheating.

I'm a fan of the 2 deck, shuffle behind system, and willing to add a little bit of risk in order to gain more hands.

Unfortunately, although I've gotten that to be successful on occasion, there are simply too many people who are used to shuffling and dealing their own deck for it to really stick. You can't always help people who don't want to be helped.

How much more efficient do you guys think the 2 vs,1 system is? In a normal holdem game I think it's atleast 5 hands per hour minimum. In a 4 hour poker night I'd say it's 20 hands not played. Just a guess. Curious if anyone has actually took the time to document this.
I guess at the small stakes I play in it makes more of a difference since there are fewer real big decisions to make as there is never a ton of money on the line.

You're right. Lack of focus on the shuffler is a reason that could be given for preferring the use of one deck.

But I think I could watch the shuffler and the dealer at the same time, so as to make sure there was no hanky panky. Or, you could minimize that danger simply by focusing on the person shuffling the cards. If you're using a cut card, it's difficult for the dealer to cheat by dealing bottoms.

If two players in adjacent seats wanted to cheat, I think there are many easier and less suspicious ways to cheat than having one confederate arrange the cards and the other confederate cut the cards in a certain place. For example, Player A and B could simply flash their cards to each other. That would be harder to detect and thus easier to pull off than arranging cards when shuffling.

I think the danger of one player arranging the cards while shuffling and having a confederate who would cut the deck in a certain spot is unworthy of serious consideration. You're right that it could happen, but I doubt it would happen.

Buzz

I don't think I've ever played a home game where we used one deck. Sounds awful. Also, the idea that two decks might make it easier to cheat is just beyond me.

1. 2 you are just asking to get cheated.

We use 2 decks and have for several years. We use a cut card always. Different person cuts than the shuffler. Our stakes are low .25-.50. Could a really good amateur card mechanic cheat us? Sure it's possible , but how likely? Could this type be willing to risk some unpleasant results if caught for a .25-.50 game?? Maybe also possible, but how likely is it with all the higher stakes underground games that are spread in our locality offering much higher rewards for cheating? In short , nobody is wrong in saying that cheating is possible, but it is really unlikely if folks pay decent attention to methods and results. As host I do this and others do too. Using 2 decks, speeds up our game and gets us more hands per hour. This is important when you only play a few hours a session and weekly usually.

can you do this with hold em? sounds awesome gonna try it the next time I have a tournament running.

Of course you can. The player to the right of the dealer is actively shuffling the cards for the next hand. Saves a good 30 seconds to a minute between every hand. Give it a try and I bet you never look back.

OK let's try to let the cheating thing go for a while and talk about the question in the OP.

If the game is NLH in a casino the best you can hope for is about 30 hands per hour, with a prime dealer and a table full of alert experienced players, and no major controversy. Not too often.

Self Dealt home games getting 20 hands per hour of play are doing well, due to stuff we all understand and have experienced countless times. One hand per 3 minutes roughly.

Lets say it takes 30 seconds (average) to shuffle a deck due to various levels of shuffling skills. So maybe about 10 minutes per hour could be saved by having a second deck in play. That could be between 3 and 5 extra hands per hour depending.

At our game that is 18 to 30 extra hands per session (5-6 hours). Worth it to me.

BTW Casinos with shuffling machines are using basically a two deck system to get more hands in per down, and therefore more rake. We don't rake, but really like having more hands to play.

Just one persons opinion.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/24...ayers-1594492/

The guy is this thread got away with it for 5 years because of two decks.

Make sure your decks have two very different colored backs to avoid any getting cards in advertantly mixed