oh right, because none of the info in this thread can be used to enable or aid cheating.

ROFL

Sharing information informs both honest and dishonest players. I understand and except that to a point. But posting about sources where you can buy cheating supplies is where I draw the line.

So, aside from marked cards, how beatable is the procedure of: Cut card, one person shuffles, another person cuts, another person deals?

How much skill and/or collusion would that take? And what would be the "tells" of the people trying to pull it off?

Thing is, I didn't post where to get anything, I said to PM me if interested. But whatever, if you're going to draw a line in the sand like that, I'm not going to play. I'd argue the point but arguing with a mod is pointless.

You guys, have fun trying to detect stuff you've never seen before and only have a vague idea what it looks like.

dismal, the procedure is eminently beatable but I don't want to inform or enable anyone.

Not true.

I'm done with you as well.

Whatever you say, I don't have a green name so obv I'm a liar.

tease.

Perhaps someone can say what "tells" to look for, or other additions to the procedures would make manipulation more difficult, without revealing the details of the technique (though I would like a general idea of what we're trying to prevent).

The easiest way to beat the cut is ... to have it not happen at all. This is how the guy who we caught stacking the deck at our game did it. He'd stack the deck (separate discussion on how this worked) then wait for the optimal moment (usually right when the pot is being shipped) and then plop the cards down in front of the dealer -- bypassing the cut guy -- and sometimes (if he was able) setting them down in a way that made it look like the cut guy had already cut them.

Next dealer picks up the deck and just starts dealing it. In a typical home game the guy in the middle who was supposed to cut is staring at the TV, or got up to go make a drink, or whatever, and no one notices the cards weren't actually cut. This worked surprisingly well for the cheater (after one player in my game voiced some suspicion I sat myself deliberately across the table from the suspect and observed all of this first hand a few times - first time was "did I really just see that??" - and then we kicked his ass out)

Hmm, can you describe your shuffle/deal/cut procedure. What position is shuffling, and what position is cutting?

I don't see this type of inattention by the "middleman" under our procedures.

We shuffle behind, meaning the new cutoff (the old dealer) does several things: Extracts the cut card from the stub, gathers the muck, cuts to the dealer (after usually "carrying over" the deck) then shuffles. So when the pot is shipping, OldDealer/NewCutoff usually has his eyes and hands on the table. It would be tough (I hope) for someone to not notice a sneaky crossover.

Maybe the mechanic would have to slip the deck between the sb and dealer while the current hand is going on. But at least the OldDealer/NewCutoff will have the cut card as either a reminder to cut, or as a signal that the deck wasn't cut.

The system isn't fool proof, I'm sure, but avoiding the cut is somewhat conspicuous.

Yes, that exact shuffle-behind procedure. Maybe your game is more attentive than mine. It *should* be hard for this to work, for the reasons you state. But I watched it work several times; "several" because I needed to be 100% sure before having the confrontation. Frankly the first time I witnessed it my reaction was "seriously? did I really just see that?"

I did forget to add that the mechanic managed to get the cut card, sometimes as easily as by simply taking it. Always at a moment of distraction after the river was dealt or pot was being pushed or any of a variety of ways. Often by appearing to "help" gather the muck etc. The net result was that the stacked deck ended up in front of the next dealer, cut card on bottom and all ready to go.

Should the current dealer keep his eye on the ball, insist on cutting to the next guy, etc? Of course. Do all of your players do that? Mine didn't.

While I'm here: As far as stacking goes his method started with the boxing (squaring-up) of the deck when he gathered it after his deal. He did that with the cards facing him. Big red flag. He'd usually manage to get one Ace on the bottom of the deck that way. Then he'd do a really high shuffle, preserving the bottom card, to find and then just slip a second Ace onto the bottom. From there it was easy. He'd count N cards off the top, then one Ace off the bottom, then N again off the top, then the second Ace. Now he had a slug of cards set up to deal him AA. He'd keep shuffling at that point but a bad shuffle (very uneven cut of the "halves") so as to preserve the top of the stacked deck. He could do all this without looking at the cards once he had the two aces on the bottom. He'd watch the table too and do most of his work when something distracting was going on.

He was good, though not good enough to notice I was watching him out of the corner of my eye (without the use of sunglasses I might add).

Glad you caught him!

In my (PERFECTLY LEGAL HOME GAME IN A STATE OTHER THEN THE DRACONIAN ONE IN WHICH I RESIDE) we have two decks in play. The small blind is in charge of shuffling the second deck to be ready for when he or she is on the button. When a new hand starts, the previous button cuts right before the current one deals. Helps avoid a lot of what was just mentioned!

I personally make sure this happens every round. I'm very friendly about it and we haven't had a problem yet.

I really don't understand the reason for the "two deck" method. It shouldn't save that much time and it leaves the door open to problems.

When many of the games in the legal cardrooms in California were self dealt, you never had both decks on the table. One deck at a time and the game moved fast enough.

I think shuffle-sb is less secure than shuffle-behind, mainly because under shuffle-sb the shuffler is the same person dealing the cards and because it's easier for the dealer/cutoff to "forget"/forget to cut.

This more than makes up for that.


The downside to shuffle behind is that often times the cutoff is playing and dragging chips, thus interfering with shuffling.

Shuffling on the big blind might be the best solution if the bb isn't seeing a lot of flops.


I think it saves a lot of time.

Maybe back in the Gardena days people learned to be more patient because they didn't have Youtube, DVRs or multi-table Zoom Poker back then. Also, I think those card rooms relied on time charges, so management doesn't care how slow the games run (and maybe that's why they had so much stud!).


On the other hand, one deck lets everyone watch the shuffler. It also gives people time to socialize, etc.

In a self-dealt home game, two decks allows you to get a LOT more hands in. So often, home players are distracted, slow shufflers, or both. By giving the shuffler plenty of time to get the deck ready for the next hand, there's almost no time required to push the pot, pull in the muck, cut and start the next deal.

My home game really isn't high enough stakes to be cheated and its a carefully curated group of people (read: non-serious poker players) so the game can move very slowly. The two deck method definitely helps with this.

Some people said it's too hard to enforce proper procedure every single hand - but I dunno. I play in a very talkative, drinking game and I haven't had a problem. I think it was Limon who posted something along the lines of "In live poker you're getting 30 hands an hour if you're lucky - no excuse to not pay attention."

Any time the stakes are high enough for there to be worry about cheating (other then a misguided drunk, crime of opportunity etc) there should probably be carefully-vetted, paid dealers.

Some thoughts.

1. End of hand

2. Hole cards and Board are shoved randomly into the muck. Not placed on top of the stub. Dealer does not pick up one card here and another card there...

3. Optional table wash/scramble. Takes a few seconds. But make sure the dealer doesn't keep his hands on top of that pair of aces so they aren't mixed.

4. Deck is squared up face down. Not facing the dealer.

5. Riffle, riffle, box, riffle. If you don't like what you see ask for another riffle.

6. One handed cut going away from the body onto the cut card. The deck should be squared for the cut.

7. Deck is always held so the top card is facing the ceiling (horizontal). If the dealer rotates the deck to vertical, say when bringing in the chips, it is easier to peek top/bottom, even with a cut card. Never roll the deck so cut card is facing the ceiling.

8. Dealer never looks at folded hands, but buries them in the muck.

It's important to not get complacent just because of low stakes.

People will cheat for reasons other than money, per se (the thrill, revenge, just to see if they can do it, etc.).

On top of that, for some people even a low-stakes pot may constitute a significant amount of money.

Lastly, avoiding the appearance of impropriety is very important. When weird suckouts happen or someone goes on a heater there are some people out there who might become suspicious. And if people think something shady may be going on, that can destroy the friendly atmosphere and the game, as well as taint someone's character.

That post from Angus is very good.

RE: low stakes not being cheated. It's true that it can and does happen. However the motivations and techniques are going to be dramatically different. When I say low stakes I mean most reasonable home games. I've seen deep, uncapped games where even if the blinds are $1-$3 the straddling and huge amounts of money on the table make it much higher and thus a target for professional cheating.

I would posit that effectively all low stakes cheating falls under a few categories like: crime-of-opportunity, drunken misstep, fury at one particular opponent, being massively stuck.

You're almost never going to see mechanic level sleight-of-hand, team cheating or anything requiring equipment like a hold-out, daub etc.

What you might see is shuffling faceup, sneaking a few chips from a big and/or confusing pot and deliberately screwing up a big hand with mis-deals etc.

Just as in most situation enforcing consistent and proper procedure is how to avoid this. Prevention is the best medicine, and one of the better cliches.

I don't think $1-$3 counts as low stakes for that purpose!

Yeah! My sentence might have been unclear but that was my point.

Stakes at home games can have more to do with money on the table and amount of action then the actual blind amounts.