When does a hand start?

[austin5string]

I guess I prefer a more "professional" environment instead of a "friendly game".

Gobbs

good point. It all depends on what people want.  If I want a professional environment I will go to a casino, since no other environment can be professional. All others are what we call home games or illegals. It can be pretend professional, but not professional. This is just me, but as soon as you say you have a professional environment, anything that happens to me I am suing. I get robbed, trip and fall over something, fall down the stairs, fall on a wet floor, car gets hit outside, burn myself, you name it. If I do any of that at a friendly environment, my bad. A professional environment and you had better have some insurance. There had also better be some security cameras to review any table discrepancies. Me and my guys can have a friendly game and pretend to be in a professional environment, just as easily as we can have a game with a pretend professional environment. In fact tonight I am going to tell everyone to pretend we are playing at the Bellagio.

^That^

[Martini]

In my group, I'm sure that everyone would rather have an "unprofessional" two deck game where that keeps the action going faster than a one deck "professional" game where they have to idle between hands.

[Gobbs]

Would you also be willing to participate in a friendly game if a professionally run game was not available?     

Pat

Well, I've never really run into that situation, but it depends how long I'd have to wait for a good game.  I've turned down several opportunities to play in games with a rotating deal.  I just can't stand the problems that occur with them most of the time.  So, you'll have to ask me again when I haven't been to a game in a few days and I may have a different answer, but right now, not a chance.

Gobbs

[Gobbs]

In my group, I'm sure that everyone would rather have an "unprofessional" two deck game where that keeps the action going faster than a one deck "professional" game where they have to idle between hands.

I wouldn't bet on it.  A lot of players say that until they try it.  Besides, I'd still be willing to bet my one-deck game gets in more hands than most two-deck games with a rotating deal.  At least, I've rarely seen any that can come close, but I haven't played in any in a long time.

By the way, guys, when somebody puts quotes around a word, like "professional", it doesn't mean it's a professional game.  I mean, it's run similarly to a professional game.  I don't know what all that nonsense is about suing somebody, but the word frivilous would probably come up a time or two in most of those situations.

Gobbs

[Martini]

Gobbs, I am sure that you are a very proficient and fast dealer and I have no doubt that your single deck game can move faster than someone else's dual deck game; however, I find it hard to believe that you can deal more hands per hour with one deck including shuffling in between hands than you could dealing when a second deck has already been shuffled for you. It doesn't seem possible that you could shuffle a deck properly in less time than it takes to exchange a deck with someone else who has shuffled it for you.

[Dr. Neau]

It doesn't seem possible that you could shuffle a deck properly in less time than it takes to exchange a deck with someone else who has shuffled it for you.

Anything's possible in the world of magic!

[pathand]

Would you also be willing to participate in a friendly game if a professionally run game was not available?     

Pat

Well, I've never really run into that situation, but it depends how long I'd have to wait for a good game.  I've turned down several opportunities to play in games with a rotating deal.  I just can't stand the problems that occur with them most of the time.  So, you'll have to ask me again when I haven't been to a game in a few days and I may have a different answer, but right now, not a chance.

Gobbs

I figured as much, I just wanted to make sure and I hope the question wasn't "agitating". Thanks for your candor.            

[Ghaleon]

Gobbs, honestly, I'm really tired of your ego and your condescension.  I do know the proper procedure for doing things.  I've read the rules, I've read the forums, I've played poker.  The fact is, there IS NO proper procedure written in any rule-book for a two deck game.

As for the cut being done early.  In every two deck game I've played in, the SB receives the deck to shuffle for the next hand while the current hand is being played.  Once the shuffle is completed, I see nothing wrong with him handing the deck to the button player for a cut before the current hand is over.  However, to be honest, I really haven't seen this in my game, but if I did, I would just create a new house rule that says the deck can't leave the felt until it's time to deal.  And since I use the "blinds posted" rule, there is no impact on the game if this happens.

And my "it doesn't matter" argume is totally valid.  Sure there are potential errors or angle-shoots associated with the "blinds posted" rule.  And those risks are mitigated by using the cut.  However, as I've pointed out in my previous posts, the door can be opened to new potential errors and angle shoots.  Which is why I maintain neither solution is better than the other.  As long as it is communicated and consistently applied, IT DOESN"T MATTER WHICH RULE YOU USE IN A TWO DECK GAME.

There is no rule in the books for this.  And just because you've put thousands of posts on these forums and everyone kisses your ass doesn't give you the authority to make one up and have it be law.  Your ego is really getting out of control.

And you've got alot of balls saying what you said about my rationale for insisting on the blinds posted rule.  Is your ego really that out of control that you think you can read my mind like that?  Especially since all you know of me is what you've read on this forum in the last two or three days.  The fact that you would insinuate (sp?) that I can't maintain control of my own game is frankly insulting and completely uncalled for.

Your accusation that your games are more "professionally" run than anyone else's just proves that your ego has reached the stratosphere.  Just because you made up a rule that YOU think makes sense doesn't mean that you are somehow a better host than me or anyone else here.

You twist my words, ignore my ideas, and make up my arguments for me just so you can disprove them and put on the appearance of being the all-knowing poker rules god.  

Get over yourself

[pathand]

 

[Ghaleon]

Somehow I knew that was coming.

Honestly, as soon as I hit "post" i said to myself "pat is gonna love this"

[pathand]

 

[ChrisChip10]

Actually a better way to run a two deck game is as follows (tried and tempered by bridge players, and in Hoyles Rules of Card Games from way back).

1.  The person that just got done dealing collects the cards (he has the stub already), shuffles the deck and sits it to one side.

2.  The person that was the small blind receives the second deck (while the "ex"-dealer is still shuffling the first deck), offers it to the person on his left (the new small blind) for a cut.  If he/she declines the offer passes around the table.

3.  The new small bliind returns the deck after the cut to the new dealer and the hand can begin.

4.  After this hand is completed the deck that was set (sitted?) to one side is passed over the person collecting cards for shuffling to the person on his left for the next deal.

Advantages:  Nobody is doing two jobs at the same time, i.e. shuffling, dealing, or cutting.

[Ghaleon]

Is that actually how you play when you host a game Chris?

[Dr. Neau]

Actually a better way to run a two deck game is as follows (tried and tempered by bridge players, and in Hoyles Rules of Card Games from way back).

1.  The person that just got done dealing collects the cards (he has the stub already), shuffles the deck and sits it to one side.

2.  The person that was the small blind receives the second deck (while the "ex"-dealer is still shuffling the first deck), offers it to the person on his left (the new small blind) for a cut.  If he/she declines the offer passes around the table.

3.  The new small bliind returns the deck after the cut to the new dealer and the hand can begin.

4.  After this hand is completed the deck that was set (sitted?) to one side is passed over the person collecting cards for shuffling to the person on his left for the next deal.

Advantages:  Nobody is doing two jobs at the same time, i.e. shuffling, dealing, or cutting.

Exactly what we do, except we don't offer a cut.

[Dr. Neau]

Gobbs,
...
Get over yourself

Gobbs has made the Kessel run in less than 11 parsecs

[Martini]

Gobbs,
...
Get over yourself

Gobbs has made the Kessel run in less than 11 parsecs

Yeah, but can he bullseye womp rats from a T-16?

[Dr. Neau]

Gobbs,
...
Get over yourself

Gobbs has made the Kessel run in less than 11 parsecs

Yeah, but can he bullseye womp rats from a T-16?

Back home, yes.

[Gobbs]

It doesn't seem possible that you could shuffle a deck properly in less time than it takes to exchange a deck with someone else who has shuffled it for you.

Anything's possible in the world of magic!

I can't, but I can deal and control the game in a manner that you simply can't get with almost all rotating deals.  So, in the long run, I get more hands in then virtually any rotating deal I've ever seen.

NOTE: I went back and re-read your post and my answer is not applicable.  You said a rotating shuffle, but one dealer, me.  Yes, that would be faster, but not necessarily better.  I'd still be asking people to shuffle while playing, which I don't like, and there are always issues with people who shuffle, but don't really know how to do it well.

Gobbs

[Dr. Neau]

Is a table of rotating Gobbs with two decks better than a single, dedicated Gobbs?

[Gobbs]

Gobbs, honestly, I'm really tired of your ego and your condescension.  I do know the proper procedure for doing things.  I've read the rules, I've read the forums, I've played poker.  The fact is, there IS NO proper procedure written in any rule-book for a two deck game.

As for the cut being done early.  In every two deck game I've played in, the SB receives the deck to shuffle for the next hand while the current hand is being played.  Once the shuffle is completed, I see nothing wrong with him handing the deck to the button player for a cut before the current hand is over.  However, to be honest, I really haven't seen this in my game, but if I did, I would just create a new house rule that says the deck can't leave the felt until it's time to deal.  And since I use the "blinds posted" rule, there is no impact on the game if this happens.

And my "it doesn't matter" argume is totally valid.  Sure there are potential errors or angle-shoots associated with the "blinds posted" rule.  And those risks are mitigated by using the cut.  However, as I've pointed out in my previous posts, the door can be opened to new potential errors and angle shoots.  Which is why I maintain neither solution is better than the other.  As long as it is communicated and consistently applied, IT DOESN"T MATTER WHICH RULE YOU USE IN A TWO DECK GAME.

There is no rule in the books for this.  And just because you've put thousands of posts on these forums and everyone kisses your ass doesn't give you the authority to make one up and have it be law.  Your ego is really getting out of control.

And you've got alot of balls saying what you said about my rationale for insisting on the blinds posted rule.  Is your ego really that out of control that you think you can read my mind like that?  Especially since all you know of me is what you've read on this forum in the last two or three days.  The fact that you would insinuate (sp?) that I can't maintain control of my own game is frankly insulting and completely uncalled for.

Your accusation that your games are more "professionally" run than anyone else's just proves that your ego has reached the stratosphere.  Just because you made up a rule that YOU think makes sense doesn't mean that you are somehow a better host than me or anyone else here.

You twist my words, ignore my ideas, and make up my arguments for me just so you can disprove them and put on the appearance of being the all-knowing poker rules god.  

Get over yourself

This may be the funniest post I've ever seen.

People on this forum kiss my rear end?  Really?  Wow....I'm sure they were surprised to learn that.

I'll just say, your posts show that you do not know the proper procedures for things no matter what you say.  You didn't even know the cut is supposed to be the last thing done.  So, you can say what you want, but the proof is in your own posts.

If that's the only way you've ever seen a two-deck game played, you lead a very sheltered life.  Others have posted superior ways to do it.  Even I've seen it done many ways (and better ways) than you and I refuse to play in rotating deal games now.  Again, proof that you do not have the experience you think you have.

Now, let me give you a lesson in Logic 101.  "It doesn't matter" is not a valid argument when there are factors that clearly do matter.  You have a list of pros and cons.  You'll have some pros.  You'll have some cons.  You'll have some issue that don't matter.  You throw out the issues that don't matter and evaluate the pros and cons.  Stick to the things that do matter and you'll see the point.

OK...if I don't know why you insist on the inferior rule, why do you?  Is it because "It doesn't matter" and you don't want to change it?  Why is it?  You just want it to be more like pub poker?  

My games are run more "professionally" than almost any home game you are going to run across, but I didn't say they were - I simply said I prefer to run mine in a more "professional" environment than as a friendly game.  Kind of funny that you accuse me of putting words in your mouth in the same post that you continually twist my words.  Very humorous, indeed.  If you interpret that to mean that my games are more professionally run than anyone else's, I can suggest some good reading interpretation books for you.  There are several games that I know of that run them in a more "professional" environment than a friendly game.  A couple of them are run by some great TDs who do a great job, better than me, probably.  I'm sure there are people on this forum who run games with a more "professional" environment and I'm sure they do a great job.  That's not to say that they are better or worse than games run in a "friendly" environment - just different and definitely not my preference.

Also, for the record, I don't need to make up rules like you do - why, because I already have a rule set that I can use - it's called Robert's Rules of Poker.  The fact that you can't say the same is proof of the more relaxed, friendly atmosphere, and a less "professionally" run game.  That doesn't necessarily make it better or worse, just different and something I prefer not to play in because they typically lead to problems.

By the way, I haven't ignored your opinions, I just don't value them - there is a difference.  I'm not the a poker rules God, but I think you will find it hard to find somebody on here who doesn't believe that I know a lot about the rules (although, I personally believe Dr. Neau knows them better than me).  I also think you'll find it hard to find somebody on here who thinks that "knowing the rules" is enough (and reading the rules is only about step 1 of 100).  Knowing the rules is only half the battle.  Interpreting them and applying them is the key.  Knowing why the rules are there, what they prevent, and their side effects is what makes you knowledgable about the rules, not just reading them and knowing them.  My opinion about making up house rules is widely known on here.  When I started posting on here, I had one house rule.  Now I have three (and I adjusted the one house rule that I did have) because of input from the people on this forum.  They are the only house rules I need because I know how to interpret and apply the rules that already exist.

So, when you can stop doing what you accuse me of doing, feel free to post again and try to validate your position.  I'm not even going to tell you that I'm right and you are wrong, but I will tell you that it does matter.  There are differences in the two rules and you need to properly weigh the potential outcomes of each to determine which is better.  I'll even tell you, there is one argument in favor your rule, but I believe there are other arguments on the other side that outweight it.

Gobbs

[Gobbs]

Is a table of rotating Gobbs with two decks better than a single, dedicated Gobbs?

Oh, c'mon...you really want there to be more than one of me?  Heck, I find it hard to believe you even want one of me.   

KC

[pathand]

Have I said these forums are great. Well I'll say it again. Best cure for a hangover.     

[R-Ho]

Just to toss a few cents in for me, my tourneys are 2 decks, next dealer shuffles during the hand and the cutoff cuts (that's why he's called the cut-off, right? j/k). My main rules for that are that two people must influence the deck and the person who cuts is not the one who gets the first card.

We determine that the hand essentially ends when its outcome is imminent. That means, last player had folded, all players have showed down, all cards have been dealt in an all-in situation. Since the next dealer is, in theory, ready to go, we don't count cleaning up from the last hand (pot moved to winner and cards moved to next dealer) as part of the hand. We just get the table cleaned up and the next dealer can start handing out cards.

As a partner to this rule, at least one blind must be posted between the end of the last hand and the final beep of the timer, otherwise they missed their opportunity and must pay the higher blind.

For us, it's one of those things that gives my game the distinction of "friendly game". This doesn't really ever become an issue. The annoying beeping of Tournament Director makes sure no one forgets the blinds are about to go up.

It sounds like you must be using two cut cards as well as two decks.  In the tourneys where I've seen two decks used, they share one cut card which must be passed from one deck to the other.

R-Ho

[Ghaleon]

This may be the funniest post I've ever seen.

People on this forum kiss my rear end?  Really?  Wow....I'm sure they were surprised to learn that.

I'll just say, your posts show that you do not know the proper procedures for things no matter what you say.  You didn't even know the cut is supposed to be the last thing done.  So, you can say what you want, but the proof is in your own posts.

If that's the only way you've ever seen a two-deck game played, you lead a very sheltered life.  Others have posted superior ways to do it.  Even I've seen it done many ways (and better ways) than you and I refuse to play in rotating deal games now.  Again, proof that you do not have the experience you think you have.

Now, let me give you a lesson in Logic 101.  "It doesn't matter" is not a valid argument when there are factors that clearly do matter.  You have a list of pros and cons.  You'll have some pros.  You'll have some cons.  You'll have some issue that don't matter.  You throw out the issues that don't matter and evaluate the pros and cons.  Stick to the things that do matter and you'll see the point.  For every con you can name for using the blinds posted rule, there is an equal con for using the cut rule.  You still haven't demonstrated to me why one is better than the other.

OK...if I don't know why you insist on the inferior rule, why do you?  Is it because "It doesn't matter" and you don't want to change it?  Why is it?  You just want it to be more like pub poker?  You have yet to demonstrate why it's an inferior rule.  Everything that a player in the blinds could do to angle shoot or otherwise mess up the game could be done by the player cutting the deck.  And based on some the recent suggestions of passing the deck to the left for a cut, instead of the right, it would seem that the player in the blind would ALSO being the one cutting.  So if you're putting the onus on the same player, then truly there is no difference which rule you use .300

My games are run more "professionally" than almost any home game you are going to run across, but I didn't say they were - I simply said I prefer to run mine in a more "professional" environment than as a friendly game.  Semantics Gobbs - that's basically saying the same thing.  And if you didn't say it before, you just did.  Kind of funny that you accuse me of putting words in your mouth in the same post that you continually twist my words.  Very humorous, indeed.  If you interpret that to mean that my games are more professionally run than anyone else's, I can suggest some good reading interpretation books for you.  There are several games that I know of that run them in a more "professional" environment than a friendly game.  A couple of them are run by some great TDs who do a great job, better than me, probably.  I'm sure there are people on this forum who run games with a more "professional" environment and I'm sure they do a great job.  That's not to say that they are better or worse than games run in a "friendly" environment - just different and definitely not my preference.

Also, for the record, I don't need to make up rules like you do - why, because I already have a rule set that I can use - it's called Robert's Rules of Poker Me too, but no where in those rules does it mandate a single deck game or offer any guidance for a two deck game.  Which is the whole point of this thread.  If it was in the rule book we wouldn't be having a debate.  What's your point here Gobbs?  You're just diverting attention from the actual question at hand..  The fact that you can't say the same Actually I did just say the same.  Again you've ASSUMED that you're better than me, which is truly laughable because you know nothing of me.  Simply an ego out of control here.is proof of the more relaxed, friendly atmosphere, and a less "professionally" run game.  That doesn't necessarily make it better or worse, just different and something I prefer not to play in because they typically lead to problems.  Or maybe its because you just don't have any friends

By the way, I haven't ignored your opinions, I just don't value them - there is a difference.  No, it's pretty much teh same thing when you don't offer any solid arguments to support your own opinions. I'm not the a poker rules God, but I think you will find it hard to find somebody on here who doesn't believe that I know a lot about the rules (although, I personally believe Dr. Neau knows them better than me).  I also think you'll find it hard to find somebody on here who thinks that "knowing the rules" is enough (and reading the rules is only about step 1 of 100).  Knowing the rules is only half the battle.  Interpreting them and applying them is the key.  Knowing why the rules are there, what they prevent, and their side effects is what makes you knowledgable about the rules, not just reading them and knowing them.  This is just more of you inflating your own ego Gobbs.  We are not talking about the rules here.  There isn't a rule for this situation.  Thats why it's on the forum, that's why we're debating it.  You just typed a whole paragraph that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.  And all you do is brag about how much you know and how little I know (even though you don't know me)  My opinion about making up house rules is widely known on here.  When I started posting on here, I had one house rule.  Now I have three (and I adjusted the one house rule that I did have) because of input from the people on this forum.  They are the only house rules I need because I know how to interpret and apply the rules that already exist.

So, when you can stop doing what you accuse me of doing, feel free to post again and try to validate your position. I believe I've already validated my position.  Any angle shoot done by the blind posters can be done equally as well by the player cutting the deck.  The whole question raised by this thread is "Do the blinds go up, or are they the same for one more hand?".  To answer that you simply need a rule.  And in a single deck game, the first riffle is that rule.  In a two deck game, it has to be something else.  And as long as that "something else is consistent from hand to hand and game to game, there shouldn't be a problem.  I'm not even going to tell you that I'm right and you are wrong, but I will tell you that it does matter.  There are differences in the two rules and you need to properly weigh the potential outcomes of each to determine which is better.  I'll even tell you, there is one argument in favor your rule, but I believe there are other arguments on the other side that outweight it. Yet you won't say what those arguments are.  Do you need more time to make them up?



Gobbs

[Martini]

I know it's kind of late for me to make a relevant post but I just thought of something. Since the single deck rule says the first "riffle", wouldn't it makes sense to apply the same rule for the second deck? In other words, no matter who is assigned to shuffle the next deck, the riffle of the second deck should be sufficient if it happens before the timer goes off for the next level. I don't remember reading this option so I apologize for not re-reading all of the posts.                 

That was all the way down in the second post of the thread.

[pathand]

I knew I couldn't add any relevance to this thread. Thanks Martini.     

[Gobbs]

Do I really need to say it again....when a blind doesn't post, who does it hold up?  Nobody.

When I dealer delays the cut, who does it hold up?  Everybody.

Therefore, which is better to use for a starting hand signal, the person who holds up nobody or the person who holds up everybody?  Obviously, the rest of the table has a stake in making sure the dealer doesn't hold things up.  So, I think it's pretty obvious.

Besides that, the dealer should be the one controlling the game, not a person in a blind.  Gee, didn't I say that already, too?  Oh, yeah, I did.

Next time, I won't assume that some people can read and understand a point.  Albeit, I do find it very amusing that the person who can't read and accuses me of things does the very thing he hates and well, you get the point.....

Gobbs

[Ghaleon]

Pat

That is a perfectly reasonable solution.

It solves many of the potential problems that arise with the "blinds posted" rule.  Such as what if the blinds are posted before the end of a current hand?  What if one of the blinds doesn't post and the other does?  What if a player deliberately delays the posting of his blind?

However, it creates new potential problems, errors, and angleshoots.  Such as, what if the first riffle of the deck for the next hand happens during the current hand?  You could have a situation where a hand starts, the deck is being shuffled for the next hand, and then the timer goes off.  Now, you've essentially played TWO hands into the next blind level using the lower blinds.  Or what if the player shuffling (not the dealer of the current hand) sees that there is only a few seconds left on the clock and decides to accelerate or delay his shuffling in order to play at the more preferable blind level next hand?  As long as he's ready to deal at the start of the next hand, he hasn't delayed the game at all, and is thus fulfilling his duties as dealer.  However, he was allowed to modify his procedures to create the most preferable situation for him or another player.

Again, this is my point.  There is no fool proof solution in a two deck game.  And any solution has its pros and cons.  If you notice, my posts all along, I haven't strongly advocated one approach over another.  I know what I do in my own game and I'm comfortable with it.  And the people who play in my game are comfortable with it.  So, at the end of the day, I know I've run a game that was both fair and fun for everyone.  I've never had a problem, but I am aware of the potential problems and I know how to deal with them if they arise.

This is the difference between a game that is "professionally" run and a home game.  The "professional" game, emphasizes fairness over fun.  And thus it uses stricter rule sets.  But, it sacrifices a little bit of fun.  For example, by using a single deck, they are dealing less hands.  And while each hand is marginally more fair, the fact that there are fewer hands detracts from the fun.

In home games, it's different.  While, I agree that you absolutely cannot sacrifice fairness, you have to place an equal amount of emphasis on fun.  Otherwise you might as well just go to the casino.  In the example of this thread, you add some more fun to your game by using two decks, but you sacrifice having a clearly defined critiria for starting a hand (the "riffle" rule).  Which means that as the host, it's up to you to come up with an alternative that is BOTH fair, and maintains the same level of fun for all players. 

[Ghaleon]

Do I really need to say it again....when a blind doesn't post, who does it hold up?  Nobody.

When I dealer delays the cut, who does it hold up?  Everybody.

Therefore, which is better to use for a starting hand signal, the person who holds up nobody or the person who holds up everybody?  Obviously, the rest of the table has a stake in making sure the dealer doesn't hold things up.  So, I think it's pretty obvious.

Besides that, the dealer should be the one controlling the game, not a person in a blind.  Gee, didn't I say that already, too?  Oh, yeah, I did.

Next time, I won't assume that some people can read and understand a point.  Albeit, I do find it very amusing that the person who can't read and accuses me of things does the very thing he hates and well, you get the point.....

Gobbs

Gobbs - I do understand your point, but it's irrelevant to the question of this thread.  The question is "Do we play the hand at the current blinds, or the next level?".  We are not talking about holding up or slowing the game.  It's about defining the start of a hand to determine the correct blind level.  The price of poker effects EVERYBODY

[pathand]

OK. Muley05 has 4 pages of information to determine the best way to handle the questions asked in his OP and everybody has made their point. Now would one of you kind moderators please close this thread? My headache has gotten worse.Thanks!   

[Ghaleon]

OK. Muley05 has 4 pages of information to determine the best way to handle the questions asked in his OP and everybody has made their point. Now would one of you kind moderators please close this thread? My headache has gotten worse.Thanks!   

Yes, let's please put an end to this.

Someone post a new thread.  We've argued this one to death

[Crimson]

It sounds like you must be using two cut cards as well as two decks.  In the tourneys where I've seen two decks used, they share one cut card which must be passed from one deck to the other.

R-Ho

No, part of the cleanup is to grab the cut card. The dealer from the previous hand is the one who cuts the next hand, so he simply keeps the cut card and passes the stub to the next SB for shuffling and places that card next to the new dealer's deck and cuts it.

I don't know if I said it in this thread, but in order to reduce the possibilities of someone setting the deck up, my rule is that two people must influence the deck, and neither of those people can be the one who gets the first card. That rule covers things like when the person who's supposed to cut is in the bathroom or smoking.

I'm not going to argue that a professional dealer could run more hands than a bunch of players in a rotating deal with two decks. I've played both and a pro dealer definitely makes it run faster. My current game just can't afford one. I believe that two decks rotating deal is faster than one deck rotating so I go with that.

I am, however, considering the possibility of having competent, dedicated dealers* who also play. I never thought of it as an option but things would go much better with a dealer keeping track of who's in the hand and who's turn it is, and announcing all player actions.

*(c)Gobbs

[Ghaleon]

I don't know if I said it in this thread, but in order to reduce the possibilities of someone setting the deck up, my rule is that two people must influence the deck, and neither of those people can be the one who gets the first card. That rule covers things like when the person who's supposed to cut is in the bathroom or smoking.

That's exactly what I do too. 

[Dr. Neau]

OK. Muley05 has 4 pages of information to determine the best way to handle the questions asked in his OP and everybody has made their point. Now would one of you kind moderators please close this thread? My headache has gotten worse.Thanks!   

Yes, let's please put an end to this.

Someone post a new thread.  We've argued this one to death

http://forums.homepokertourney.com/index.php/topic,16226.0.html

[Gobbs]

Do I really need to say it again....when a blind doesn't post, who does it hold up?  Nobody.

When I dealer delays the cut, who does it hold up?  Everybody.

Therefore, which is better to use for a starting hand signal, the person who holds up nobody or the person who holds up everybody?  Obviously, the rest of the table has a stake in making sure the dealer doesn't hold things up.  So, I think it's pretty obvious.

Besides that, the dealer should be the one controlling the game, not a person in a blind.  Gee, didn't I say that already, too?  Oh, yeah, I did.

Next time, I won't assume that some people can read and understand a point.  Albeit, I do find it very amusing that the person who can't read and accuses me of things does the very thing he hates and well, you get the point.....

Gobbs

Gobbs - I do understand your point, but it's irrelevant to the question of this thread.  The question is "Do we play the hand at the current blinds, or the next level?".  We are not talking about holding up or slowing the game.  It's about defining the start of a hand to determine the correct blind level.  The price of poker effects EVERYBODY

Wow, you really don't understand, do you?

Gobbs