Misdeal

So last night I'm playing two hands first base and next to it another guy at the table plays two hands after me I start with two face cards I have 75 on one and 60 on the other. His next card comes up and dealer skips other players second hand and draws a 4 then flips another on my first hand so I have hand 1- k and 2( which should be dealers card) hand 2 - q only (so far) they stop the table then play on to where I hit a j and the next player hits a A (which should be my card) therefore I have k/2 and q/j when I should have 20 and blackjack against a 2. Dealer then deals to his hand and finishes by going back and taking two cards off top of deck to make the other players 2nd hand (both end up being aces and he splits and so on.) the dealer then takes cards till he ends with 21 pushing the table. So do I have any sort of argument here with how this was handled I should have 20 and blackjack so about a $250 swing from automatic win to push because of a misdeal. I have never seen a misdeal handled like this and did not like that they pulled two cards for his second hand after dealing the rest as well. No matter what the dealer would have busted any other way the cards fell (i know this by seeing 4 or 5 cards due to the player spliting aces) do I have a argument here? Or am I shot out of luck?

Hand 1 - k

Hand 2 - q

Other player - 6

Other player.- skipped

Dealer - 4

Hand 1 - k/2
Stoped for pit boss

Hand 2 - q/j

Other player 6/A (should be mine)

Other player -skipped again

Dealer - 4/8 (let's say can't remember)

Then he deals two cards immediately to other players second hand - A/A
We then play our hands like usual dealer ends up hitting 21. So we push out boss told me that is how it's done no one would have lost and we would have been paid if dealer busts. But either way for me cards would have fallen and I would have black jack and 20 of done correctly so do I have an argument? Hope this cleared up my long rant

The line breaks definitely helped!

The only way that you would have an actual argument against the casino is if the Regulations in place by the Gaming Department or licensing agency, whatever the case, specifically spell out a proper procedure in the event of a misdeal and that procedure was violated in any way. To that extent, it would behoove you to try to find, if existent, the applicable Gaming Regulation for the jurisdiction in question and determine whether or not (often not) that is the case. If you care to disclose where you were playing, then I'm sure either myself or someone else would be happy to look into the Regulations for you with me doing it as soon as I have time.

Provided there is nothing in place in the Gaming Regulations that adjudicates the proper procedure for handling a misdeal, the House can essentially do whatever it wants in that event, of course, it is my position that the House should have a set procedure in place for every contingency so that such a situation is always handled in an internally consistent manner.

With that said, in my opinion, the, 'Safest,' thing to do would be for the House to declare, 'No Action,' in a situation such as that, however, I could see where that might end up being problematic because it might irritate players who started off with a decent hand. This might be true for the first player, just as an example, who may have started out with an Ace that he would have ended up with even if a player had not been skipped.

From a Customer Service standpoint, it might be beneficial for the casino (even in the event of a short-term loss) to resolve such situations in a manner that benefits the most players, even if that involves calling, 'No action,' on players that lost while paying others. I doubt if very many casinos do it that way, but I could certainly see where that would generate goodwill. Of course, that could also encourage, 'Shot-Taking,' which the casino certainly doesn't want.

In terms of it affecting the final result, based upon my interpretation of your description, everything that transpired was still random and, while the Actual Result may not have went the way you would have liked, the Expected Result was unchanged. In that sense I would suggest that, yes, the Ruling was fair unless it was some way in violation of Gaming Regulations that proscribe it being handled in a different way.

I was in missouri at harrahs. And I understand what you are saying by random. My point is basically I would have been able to get even money with my 21 even if the rest was played out accordingly. I really didn't like the fact that he went into the deck for the final hand after dealing the rest to us. Shouldn't that hand just be nullified because either way you play the cards to come out a certain way. That's like saying ok give him one then me two then him one. And that should be good.

Quote: Xray31288

I was in missouri at harrahs. And I understand what you are saying by random. My point is basically I would have been able to get even money with my 21 even if the rest was played out accordingly. I really didn't like the fact that he went into the deck for the final hand after dealing the rest to us. Shouldn't that hand just be nullified because either way you play the cards to come out a certain way. That's like saying ok give him one then me two then him one. And that should be good.

Harrah's NKC? Like the property, used to play Poker there ten years ago when I lived in Kansas City. Although, I haven't been there since, so I can't speak for how it is now, overall. Better than Isle of Capri, I'm sure.

As soon as time permits (likely tomorrow evening) I will take a look at the Missouri Gaming Regulations and determine whether or not misdeals are to be handled in a specific and codified way. If so, and they were not handled that way, then you have an argument. If not, then likely not, but even if so, you would have to make your argument at the Table. In fact, they probably would have given you something, maybe a Match Play or something, if you had complained loudly and long enough...but I'm not necessarily advocating that. I tend to try to avoid disturbing the peace.

The order in which players are dealt to does not change the composition of the deck a priori, that's what I mean when I say that you are upset at the actual result of the hand, but the way it was dealt did not change the Expected Result of the hand prior to the cards coming out. If there were players at five betting spots, I could deal one card to the dealer (myself) first, two cards to the fourth spot, one card to the second and fifth, two cards to the first and third, then another card to the fifth and then the second and that does not change any randomness in the sense of before the cards came out. In fact, as long as I am not looking at the cards ahead of time and then deciding who to give what, from a randomness standpoint, the way those are dealt did not change anything.

I'm speaking only from experience, not as a casino employee or legal expert.

It's pretty universal that a misdeal is no action. When that happens, all cards to that point are burned, bets pushed, new hand started. I'm not exactly sure at what point the misdeal was discovered, but the confusing part to me is that the house continued to deal out the hand after the misdeal was discovered. Why did they burn those cards? Did the dealer try to avoid declaring a misdeal, dealt to completion, then you all protested and the pb declared it?

I agree with Mission and Babs.

Standard action would be to declare "No Action."

However, the way that the pit boss handled this was not intrinsically unfair to you. And nothing in the rules of Blackjack stipulates the order or sequence in which the cards must be dealt.

I think the most objectionable - or non-standard - way to handle this would have been for the dealer to rearrange the cards in the way that they should have been dealt - which is essentially what you wanted. In card games in general, it is standard for the dealer to rearrange cards so as to correct a misdeal only when the cards were dealt face down and have not been looked at by the players who received them (or any player, for that matter.)

The normal procedures for BJ at my local is to try and establish which cards would have gone to which player and establish the various hands. If I'm playing at a table and spot a misdeal I try and "stop" it when the first wrong card is dealt - that way it can be easily rectified and the hand continued. If the problem happens, at say 3CP, then it's a misdeal - this has been discussed at other threads i.e. you don't look at your hand before the dealing has finished.

Quote: charliepatrick

The normal procedures for BJ at my local is to try and establish which cards would have gone to which player and establish the various hands. If I'm playing at a table and spot a misdeal I try and "stop" it when the first wrong card is dealt - that way it can be easily rectified and the hand continued. If the problem happens, at say 3CP, then it's a misdeal - this has been discussed at other threads i.e. you don't look at your hand before the dealing has finished.

If I recall correctly Charlie is in the UK, as am I.
Here the cards are reset to where they should have gone and not burned. Pit supervisors have some discretion and I've never seen a hand abandoned. I understand that pulling back the cards and replaying them in the correct order is the exact opposite of the enforced practice in the US, where mislaid cards are burned or rounds cancelled.
The UK way can have interesting helpful side effects, such as when a hand is dealt to a player who was playing heads up and who hadn't placed a stake :o)

Yes I stopped the dealer as he was blasting through. When he skipped the second hand and then went to himself this point people are trying to stop him and he deals to me my second card as we are saying something. Therefore the second hand in the others players side should have the 4 dealer should have 2 and I should then hit 20 and 21 with the next two cards. I have been to many casinos where this happens and simply they move the cards to where they should have been played I was asking the boss what was going on and telling him in upset I would have just hit 20 and 21. He kept saying he will make it right just watch let him play it out. Just watch just watch essentially if the dealer busted out they would have paid the table instead of pushing it but to me I'm still down as for I have a automatic payout with the 21. So either way I'm loosing.

I spoke with the missouri gaming commission and seems even by harrahs rules the hand was displayed by the pit boss. I now have to file a complaint and go from there thanks for the input guys. Truly appreciate it.