My First Time Catching a Cheat (Yes, Really) (2 Viewers)

[Burke]

[Another threadjack coming]

Super casual game. All great guys. Realtively tight ship, most players know the rules and etiquette. But a social game, not cut throat.

So the house rule is that Seat 1 will shuffle while Seat 2 deals. When Seat 2 is done dealing, he takes the deck that Seat 1 shuffled, cuts it, then passes it to Seat 3 who then starts the deal of the next hand. One guy shuffles, another cuts, and a third person deals.

There's an older guy that plays. He's not super old, but he gets grief from everyone for being the oldest. Call him John.

John never cuts. I don't know if he's superstitious, sees it as an unnecessary waste of time, or just completely trusts the group (which would be a fair position to take).

So when John is to my right, I'm always left with the dilemma if I should self-cut it or just deal. Being one of the newer guys in the game, I take my cue from the regulars... They just deal it out.

How would you handle it?

[/threadjack]

Thanks for bringing this up. Had this issue one week ago and the guy who doesn’t cut was the host. I initially was self-cutting, but it was a shuffle-ahead game so it felt weird. I ended up offering most of the cuts to the guy across the table from me.

 

[JustinInMN]

I really hope the host learned two lessons.

1) He cannot be afraid of confronting this.
2) Procedures protect the game.

I am shocked that none of you corrected the deck under the table behavior immediately. That's basic etiquette I learned at age 7.

I mean it's the right thing to boot the guy, but I think all the players and host really failed. Learn the lessons and be better going forward.

 

[tabletalker7]

I really hope the host learned two lessons.

1) He cannot be afraid of confronting this.
2) Procedures protect the game.

I am shocked that none of you corrected the deck under the table behavior immediately. That's basic etiquette I learned at age 7.

I mean it's the right thing to boot the guy, but I think all the players and host really failed. Learn the lessons and be better going forward.

OK let's be real for a minute - I know people like us are used to following strict rules from the casinos and card rooms we play in but most people are not. On top of that if you stop a cheater from cheating in one certain manner, he will find another. The host and other players did not fail anyone. The only lesson to be learned here is that a cheat is a cheat, and standing up to a cheat should not make you feel bad about the situation. The bad situation is not caused by the person standing up against the cheating. The bad situation is caused by the cheater cheating, and said cheat needs to be glad he did that where he did and not in one of my games. I have A LOT of friends who play in my games that think the only way to handle a cheat in the same way Worm got dealt with at the sheriff's game.

 

[JustinInMN]

OK let's be real for a minute - I know people like us are used to following strict rules from the casinos and card rooms we play in but most people are not. On top of that if you stop a cheater from cheating in one certain manner, he will find another. The host and other players did not fail anyone.

I host a game that follows good procedure. It shows respect for all players. The failure in my opinion was willingness to let such an obvious problem slide because they didn't want to confront it.

The bad situation is not caused by the person standing up against the cheating. The bad situation is caused by the cheater cheating

I agree with this, but the signs of there being a problem were there. Not choosing to confront right away shows a lack of pride in the game.

 

[JustinInMN]

sheriff's game.

"Municipal workers."

 

[johnnycnote]

I host a game that follows good procedure. It shows respect for all players. The failure in my opinion was willingness to let such an obvious problem slide because they didn't want to confront it.



I agree with this, but the signs of there being a problem were there. Not choosing to confront right away shows a lack of pride in the game.

Well said

 

[Jimulacrum]

I host a game that follows good procedure. It shows respect for all players. The failure in my opinion was willingness to let such an obvious problem slide because they didn't want to confront it.



I agree with this, but the signs of there being a problem were there. Not choosing to confront right away shows a lack of pride in the game.

I can't speak for anyone else in the game, but I didn't let this slide. I called it out to the host as soon as I had a suspicion, and as soon as I was sure it was cheating, I confronted the cheat. Should I have prematurely accused him of cheating and had him ejected when I wasn't sure it was cheating, or tipped him off that I noticed his weird stub-handling so he could stay in the game and find better ways to conceal his cheating?

Dead serious question. Those are really the only two ways it would go, if we don't give ourselves enough time to determine what he's doing.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I have A LOT of friends who play in my games that think the only way to handle a cheat in the same way Worm got dealt with at the sheriff's game.

I used to talk like that too, but the reality is more complex.

As I've learned here, and as I've read about in other threads on this topic, catching a cheat often takes a lot more than one observation, and even more than one session. It's almost never as simple as "I caught a hanger, Sarge!" and then checking to see if the bottom card would help Matt Damon (which proves virtually nothing). Cheating comes together in the small moments that people tend not to notice. You have to watch carefully and discern things that could be innocent from things that could not be.

And that's not even getting into the social relationships. This guy works with more than half the regular players in the game (and in a long-term career setting). Just a couple weeks ago, he had one of the players from the game staying in an apartment he owns in a vacation city. The night this happened, we also had the grieving wife of a player who'd just been buried the week before in attendance. Do you really think anyone was about to drag him into the street and beat the shit out of him? Or even make a scene calling him out at the table? It was a delicate situation.

At least some of these factors are the case for most home games. The people know each other, and the cheater is preying on their trust. It's not always some Hollywood story like Rounders, where some random scumbag who knows no one comes in off the street cheating in the first minute and gets caught that same night.

 

[JustinInMN]

I can't speak for anyone else in the game, but I didn't let this slide. I called it out to the host as soon as I had a suspicion, and as soon as I was sure it was cheating, I confronted the cheat.

Fair enough, but it doesn't speak well for the game that the grand total of players willing to raise this issue was one.

Should I have prematurely accused him of cheating and had him ejected when I wasn't sure it was cheating, or tipped him off that I noticed his weird stub-handling so he could stay in the game and find better ways to conceal his cheating?

The stub-handling, cheating or not, should have been nipped immediately as a breach of etiquette. I don't know what better ways he would have if the shuffle/cut/deal involve two players.

I think this is the biggest thing misunderstood about procedures. You don't do it because you mistrust anyone in particular, but you do it to show that you respect the players in the game to deal in an open and trustworthy manner.

This is an ounce of prevention versus a pound of cure.

 

[Jimulacrum]

The stub-handling, cheating or not, should have been nipped immediately as a breach of etiquette. I don't know what better ways he would have if the shuffle/cut/deal involve two players.

And then we keep a cheat in the game and never get to find out he's a cheat, until we catch him trying to cheat in some novel way. Or even then, we just say "Hey, quit putting that reflective item under the stub while you deal," and he moves it but starts plotting some new scam. See the problem?

If he's honest, then yes, the behavior needs to be corrected. But if he's a cheat, he needs to be out of the game. We needed to know which case was true to make the proper decision.

 

[APatHand]

^^Same here, exactly

Yup.
Deal, set down the stub and cap it with a chip, e.t.c.
When the action calls for it (or the dealer is out of the hand), pick up the stub, burn, deal, set down the stub and cap it. Rinse repeat.

Alternatively, have the dealer sit out the hand. Removes dealing shenanigans and makes the action move faster because the dealer needs it to move along so s/he can play again.
Note that the dealer doesn't lose the positional advantage of being 'the button' because he will have last effective position on the next hand.

 

[JustinInMN]

And then we keep a cheat in the game and never get to find out he's a cheat, until we catch him trying to cheat in some novel way. Or even then, we just say "Hey, quit putting that reflective item under the stub while you deal," and he moves it but starts plotting some new scam. See the problem?

So correcting the dropping of the stub below the table neuters the players' ability to say no to using shiners somehow? I am missing something in this argument.

 

[Jimulacrum]

So correcting the dropping of the stub below the table neuters the players' ability to say no to using shiners somehow? I am missing something in this argument.

Players can say no to the stub under the table. And then they can say no to riffling the stub. And then they can say no to using shiners. And then they can say no to him keeping his hands too close to the pot. Any new thing he tries, they can say no to, and rest assured that if he's a cheat, he will keep trying, and they'll never address the question of whether they have a cheat in the game and what to do about it.

If we'd followed your line of reasoning, the person we are now certain is a cheat would still be in the game. I'm a little astonished that I've had to make this argument again and again.

 

[johnnycnote]

 

[JustinInMN]

If we'd followed your line of reasoning, the person we are now certain is a cheat would still be in the game. I'm a little astonished that I've had to make this argument again and again.

Okay, light bulb moment. I did not mean to say correcting the stub precludes removing cheaters from the game. That is certainly not my line of reasoning.

But I am saying if you corrected the stub under the table right away, maybe it prevents the riffling. If it doesn't by all means boot the guy. If you catch someone using a shiner, that's not bad etiquette, that's clearly cheating, boot the guy.

Hope that's clearer.

The stub under the table may not be cheating itself, but it is what opens the doors if it's tolerated. (And based on descriptions so far, I think I am rightfully interpreting that it was tolerated.) The wrong person will take that as opportunity.

So correct me if I am wrong, but it is seeming like the argument is it was better to let him continue holding the stub under to see if he will actually cheat. But I think it is simply better to deny the opportunity when possible.

 

[Jimulacrum]

But I am saying if you corrected the stub under the table right away, maybe it prevents the riffling. If it doesn't by all means boot the guy.

Boot a 15-year player and friend/colleague of nearly everyone in the game for what, exactly? Being fidgety? How is that supposed to go? Imagine being the person who has to explain that he's out forever, without being sure he cheated, while he promises to be more careful and so on. It's essentially accusing him of cheating without admitting that's what you're doing.

If you catch someone using a shiner, that's not bad etiquette, that's clearly cheating, boot the guy.

You're assuming, like many do, that there would be a Hollywood moment where multiple people witness something as obvious as a card falling out of his sleeve. But you can employ a shiner with as little effort as leaving your phone on the table face-up, just like this guy concealed peeping the stub with fidgeting that people had grown to see as just part of his normal behavior. A lot of what cheats do can be plausibly denied in the short term, by design. It's not clear enough that it's cheating unless you observe the pattern of behavior long enough to determine that.

The stub under the table may not be cheating itself, but it is what opens the doors if it's tolerated. (And based on descriptions so far, I think I am rightfully interpreting that it was tolerated.) The wrong person will take that as opportunity.

So correct me if I am wrong, but it is seeming like the argument is it was better to let him continue holding the stub under to see if he will actually cheat. But I think it is simply better to deny the opportunity when possible.

The stub-under-the-table stuff and the stub riffling may well have predated my entry to the game by many years. I can't speak for how people previously responded to it, how it started, or exactly how long it had gone on. It's entirely possible that people did call it out, and he just got better at hiding it and misdirecting people's attention. I'd been playing with him for at least a year or two before the night when I became suspicious; before that, I couldn't even tell you if it had even happened before in my presence. Maybe he wasn't originally doing it except when he knew no one was watching, but he got bold and sloppy over time.

If you didn't watch him carefully, it was very easy for it all to fly under the radar. I sat and watched this for months while I was observing. No one else really noticed. I'm talking about a game that's loaded with constant distractions, loud talking, music, jokes, eating, drinking, props being paid, people absorbed in their phones, etc. It's a baby-stakes home game among friends. Half the time, you couldn't even hear him riffling the stub; you had to be watching closely to catch the half-second it took to happen, and most of the time it just looked like absent-minded fidgeting. When he took the stub under the table, it was only for a very brief moment, and usually when everyone else was distracted. I never even noticed how much he was doing it until I made a concerted effort to observe him.

If I could advise Jimulacrum from a few months ago, I'd tell him to talk to the host ASAP about setting up a hidden camera or two and reviewing the footage closely after each game, to come to a determination as quickly as possible (plus shareable evidence). That's a big part of what made it take so long to catch him. Consistently watching someone's hands and eyes without him noticing he's being watched is quite difficult, especially if he knows he's doing wrong. Cameras would have made that unnecessary and likely gotten us to a position of certainty much more quickly.

 

[JustinInMN]

It's not clear enough that it's cheating unless you observe the pattern of behavior long enough to determine that.

Being fidgety? How is that supposed to go? Imagine being the person who has to explain that he's out forever, without being sure he cheated,

I can understand that, you need to be sure before you give the boot. But you observe and have others observe.

just like this guy concealed peeping the stub with fidgeting that people had grown to see as just part of his normal behavior.

My whole point here is the participants in the game permitted the concealment. Dealer/shuffler hands are much easier to observe if forced to do it above the table.

Now I want to be clear the final outcome was right and had to be done. However, even aside from the hosts reluctance to act on your observations, I just can't agree the game is better off by tolerating this breach of etiquette in the first place. Either you make him easier to catch or you deter him from turning himself into a cheater.

That was the basis for the two lessons I suggested are to be learned from this.

 

[Coyote]

I fully endorse what @Jimulacrum has done to protect that game (the people playing in it, actually), but I also get -and agree with- what @JustinInMN is saying.
In all walks of life, the objective is to get your "job" done, not test people's moral weaknesses.

All human beings have weaknesses and flaws. It's better to just not let them develop, through observing rules.
People shoudn't be given the opportunity (if possible) to do the wrong thing, 'cause some of them eventually will. Who exactly among them is NOT the issue.

I wouldn't leave money exposed, while absent from home on the day the cleaning lady comes, to test her honesty. I 'm no priest or judge; I just want my house cleaned.
I wouldn't send my wife to welcome a good friend at the door, naked.

 

[WedgeRock]

I wouldn't send my wife to welcome a good friend at the door, naked.

List of PCFers to visit
@Coyote

 

[Jimulacrum]

I can understand that, you need to be sure before you give the boot. But you observe and have others observe.

We did exactly that. I'll admit that it did take too long; if he's been cheating them for years, it's really unfortunate that no one caught it until now. But it's hard to know any of that from my perspective.

My whole point here is the participants in the game permitted the concealment. Dealer/shuffler hands are much easier to observe if forced to do it above the table.

Now I want to be clear the final outcome was right and had to be done. However, even aside from the hosts reluctance to act on your observations, I just can't agree the game is better off by tolerating this breach of etiquette in the first place. Either you make him easier to catch or you deter him from turning himself into a cheater.

That was the basis for the two lessons I suggested are to be learned from this.

I suspect you might see it differently if you were in my shoes. I agree about a lot of the claims (from you and others) that it's important to follow rules and so on, in a perfect world. But there are also lots of games like this, where it's a group of friends and pushing security measures too hard is not going to stick.

In the future, I'm going to be more insistent about keeping the stub in sight and things of that nature. This is one of the things I want to discuss with the host as a sort of post-mortem to this incident. Mandatory cut too. It may take some time to bring everyone around to the idea, but the game does need better security measures.

But if it comes up in the form of spotting cheating-like behavior off the bat, I'd take the investigative approach every time. (Cameras ASAP next time, though.)

 

[JustinInMN]

I suspect you might see it differently if you were in my shoes. I agree about a lot of the claims (from you and others)

I am starting to get it's tough because you were a late comer and literally the only person willing to look at this. And breaking friendships over this is tough. I can't say I have broken friendships over this, and in my 15+ years of hosting games we've only disinvited one guy (who wasn't even my friend).

But all I was really trying to point out is the players and host really need to learn from this and look at procedures differently than in the past if they want to take pride in the game or prevent a repeat.

 

[Coyote]

"Good accounts make good friends" a Greek saying goes, sadly un-observed by most Greeks, who bet too much on "love" among people

 

[Roll Tide Roll]

If you cheat your friends and associates in low stakes poker...you are a scumbag.
NO ONE would cheat at something like this and be a good person in every other aspect of their life.
In my world, he would have received a beat down by someone at the table.

 

[Jake14mw]

Jimulacrum,

Thanks for posting this thread. I read it with great interest for most of it. It's a good lesson for many of us who run games like yours where we play low stakes games among friends and don't think too much about cheating. I think you handled yourself well. I hope I never have to get put in that situation, it must be very difficult to handle. I think I will use your story to bring up correct procedures/etiquette in my game.

 

[Eastwik]

I caught a cheat last night at my weekly poker game.

For context, this is a self-dealt $0.25/0.50 NLHE game with a $20 max buy-in, rebuys allowed at $10 or less. That's right; I caught someone cheating at a short-stack micro-stakes home game, and it's a guy who does pretty well financially outside of poker too. Not only that, but he's a very likable guy who seems honest in general, and is legitimately good at poker. I don't doubt he'd be a net winner with or without cheating. I was really shocked when my suspicions first arose.

The group is made up of people who mostly work with each other, many of whom (including the cheat) have been playing together a very long time. The cheat himself has been part of the group for about 15 years, and he's friends outside of poker with many of the people in the game. He's also a very experienced player; I've played everything from NLHE to pot-limit Scarney and Route 66 with this guy, and he plays well and knows his stuff. I've been in the game for about 3 years, and I'm friends with the host and socialize with him and some of the other players outside of poker as well.

Let's call the cheat Chuck. Chuck is a fidgety type of guy. Very animated, talks a lot, gestures a lot with his hands, constantly moving. And he is the same way at the poker table. This is part of what allowed him to fly under the radar for a long time, in addition to the laid-back atmosphere of the game. Knowing what I know now, it makes me wonder if he's really that fidgety, or if it was all just subterfuge the whole time.

A few months ago, I was coming back from the bathroom during his deal, and I spotted him holding the stub under the table with both of his hands as I was walking behind him to get back to my seat. I could swear I saw him doing something with the cards too, not just holding them, but I'm talking a split-second, and I didn't see anything definitive. I think I blurted out something like "What the fuck?!" under my breath, and it seemed from his body language that he heard me. He brought the stub back out and continued dealing. Nothing remarkable about the hand; I don't even remember if he won it.

I started watching him a little more after that. I noticed that, in addition to occasionally taking the stub under the table, he'd riffle the top several cards of the stub with his thumb in between actions, e.g., when he was waiting for action to complete preflop or on the flop. He'd hold the stub with his left hand and bring his right hand over it, and then riffle with the thumb of his right hand. He'd do it in such a way that it looked like he was just absent-mindedly screwing around. It was only sometimes, and it didn't always correlate to him making any unusual actions or even winning the pot. But it was still unacceptable to me, so I showed up early one of the following weeks and mentioned it to the host, in an "I'm concerned but not sure what I'm seeing" tone.

The host told me that it had actually come up before, many years earlier. He also said that they'd made an effort to watch him after that, but after observing for a while, they didn't think he was actually cheating, and the issue was put to rest. He recommended that I keep an eye on him in future games, and I did.

The following 2 to 3 months yielded interesting results. During my first game of actively watching, I spotted Chuck riffling the stub and looking down at it while doing so. When his eyes came back up, he looked directly at me and made eye contact, clearly noticing that I had been watching him. He suddenly decided to fold his hand, and announced to the table that he was folding because he'd accidentally seen the top few cards. He showed his cards after the hand, revealing that he'd have flopped a full house. Well played, sir.

The remainder of the observation time, up until last night, revealed quite a few instances of riffling the stub and taking it under the table, but still nothing conclusive. He also seemed to hold onto the stub for an unnecessarily long time after completing the initial deal, and would sometimes pick it up at unusual times too. I reported back to the host on a few incidents that I found particularly sketchy, but nothing rose to the level of formally accusing him of cheating. Sometime in the middle, the host told me that another player who never speaks up about anything had come to his with the same concerns.

Chuck also seemed to catch me watching him a few times while he was handling the cards, and he seemed to cut back on the suspicious behaviors after a while. It made it really hard to watch him. Sometimes he'd win and sometimes he'd lose, even in hands where he'd engaged in the fishy behavior. After months of trying, I felt like I wasn't going to get anything conclusive short of running a surveillance camera on the guy.

Last night, I went to the game with the intention of not paying attention at all while he was dealing. No point if he was aware I was watching. Just try to play the game and see if maybe I can catch him unaware again at some point later.

And then it happened. In a big pot (relative to stakes), while waiting for the flop action, he picked up the stub in his left hand, and he brought his right hand over it. But this time, he didn't carelessly riffle the cards like I'd seen so many times before. He clearly and deliberately peeled up the corner of the top couple cards with his thumb, looking down at the stub the entire time. And then he peeled it up again as if to double-check, like people often do when they're peeping their hole cards. And then, as if that wasn't enough, he took the stub under the table with both hands. He completed his action and dealt himself a flush on the turn. One other player went all-in, he snap-called, and he took it down. (I believe the host was already all-in, but I wasn't paying as close attention to that.) Chuck at minimum knew the flush was coming. At worst, he switched the positions of the cards to give himself the flush. I suspect the latter, but either case is blatant cheating.

I left the table immediately and went to the porch upstairs. I had to call my wife for something, so I did that, and as I was wrapping up, the host came up the stairs with some dishes, on his way to the sink. I called him over and told him this time I was sure. I had watched him very deliberately peep the stub, and I couldn't know what he did under the table, but the stub peeping was totally unambiguous this time, and this guy needed to be out of the game.

We weren't sure what to do in the moment. It was an especially delicate social situation because on top of most of them working together, one of the regular players had just died the previous week, and his wife was there with us. We really did not want a blowout in front of everyone. I discussed how to handle it with the host, and he didn't want to do anything that night because of the situation. I wasn't even sure how to respond. And just that moment, Chuck came upstairs, opened the porch door, and said, "What's up, guys?"

I believe my response started with "You know what's up. I saw what you did," after which I laid out the story, more or less as I've told it here. The resulting drama went on far too long, TBH. No punches were thrown, or anything of the sort, and no one downstairs seemed to realize anything more than that we were upstairs talking a lot and arguing about something. He started off somewhat angry and offended, and it proceeded to begging for ways to regain my trust, letting me deal for him, one of us leaving, and so on, ad nauseam. In short, it was pretty much what you expect of a cheat who's been caught. He was clearly never going to admit it. What really sealed it for me was that he outright lied about things I know I saw. For example, he claimed he had his eyes on the other players in the hand while he was peeling the stub, which I knew to be false. I don't recall the exact other lie, but it was just as egregious. I remained firm in my accusation. I know what I saw.

Anyway, that went on a while, and then I went downstairs to play some more while Chuck talked to the host. I was expecting to hear him leave the house. Instead, he came back to the table and sat down like he was going to go right back to playing. My eyes must have said "What the hell do you think you're doing?" because he immediately asked me to come talk to him upstairs. Commence another 10 minutes of him begging and pleading, making ridiculous proposals like having someone else deal for him.

I eventually put it to this: he can leave, or I would leave, and they could have fun trying to explain why (I almost never leave before midnight, and it was like 9:30). I sure as shit wasn't going to keep playing with him. I could tell the host was struggling with it because he's generally not a confrontational guy, and he has to work with Chuck every day, so I took him aside without Chuck and talked a little more. Seemed like he needed some time away from him. He came to the conclusion that he would ask Chuck to leave that night, but he didn't want to blow up the whole issue in front of everyone. I shook his hand and thanked him for getting there; I know it wasn't easy. And then I went back downstairs and played while he talked to Chuck.

They came back 10 or 15 minutes later, and both sat, but Chuck immediately said he was planning to leave soon because he was tired from being up with his kid all night. He didn't play any hands, just folded without looking. Clearly he and the host had arranged this. After a few hands, he cashed out and left. (The host took a particular interest in how much he cashed out. I suspect he's going to make him give it back, but I haven't spoken to the host about it yet.) I don't know if the host will ever tell people; I hope he does, but I'm respecting his prerogative to handle his game as he sees fit, as long as the cheat is gone.

Chuck was all red-eyed from crying or something. He made it a point to go around the room shaking hands with everyone before he left. People noticed that he seemed in poor spirits, but he played it off. I did shake his hand, and I made firm eye contact with him while doing so. As a final garnish, someone randomly made a comment about him hosting a poker game at his place sometime, and he shrugged back with some noncommittal answer on his way out. I swear, you can't write this shit.

Truthfully, I don't hate the guy. This has been a really difficult thing for me. I still don't think he's a terrible person or anything, but then again, it's hard to say when the thing standing in the way is dishonesty. I can't empahsize enough that I really liked this guy before all this stuff happened. I just hope he learns a big lesson from this. He managed to destroy multiple friendships, including some over a decade long, not to mention his work relationships, and of course his access to a regular, fun poker game with good people (and actually multiple other games where some of us play).

And for what? A small advantage in a micro-stakes home game. Net gain over his non-cheating results couldn't have been more than a couple dollars here and there.

This still feels kinda surreal. I'm not sure if I'm happy with how I handled it. I almost wish that I'd recorded him or something, so I'd have definitive proof. But once I saw unmistakable cheating, I just could not play with him anymore, and I couldn't let him continue playing with my friends. Waiting for an opportunity to record him would mean letting him cheat people indefinitely until I could produce evidence. I can see a case for taking that approach, but I wouldn't feel right about it myself.

My whole life, I've thought that if I caught a cheat, I'd beat his ass, take all his money, and divvy it up among his victims. If only it were that simple.

You handled this the right way. I swear I had nearly the identical situation happen about a year ago. Fortunately, we caught everything on video. Pretty nuts.

 

[Lemonzest]

sounds like you handled it well. People always talk tough about dealing with cheaters but as you described the reality is more complex with long term friendships in play.

 

[PhilLaFond]

It was just something I came up with on the fly the first time I played in a home game with a bunch of people I had not played with before - thought it showed I was not trying to do anything but play my hand.

I do this too, every time. Not sure where I picked it up - probably saw someone else do it somewhere, but for me it was also to protect the deck. Some cards are more slippery than others and the button on top helps keep everything neat and tidy, and minimizes the risk of cards being exposed by accident.

 

[Coyote]

With a full-time dealer, dedicated (non-playing) or not, where the Dealer Button circulates around the table without the deck, it's very handy to have a dedicated deck guard (heavy-ish)

 

[nitzilla]

You handled this the right way. I swear I had nearly the identical situation happen about a year ago. Fortunately, we caught everything on video. Pretty nuts.

So....Mike Postle?

 

[davethesave]

Thanks for sharing this @Jimulacrum

I am quite a nitpicky host with my game. I DO NOT allow cards to leave the table. I have a few guys that harmlessly lift their whole cards off the table, and I gently remind them NOT to.

I despise when the dealer is lazy either not using the cut card on the underside, or just is a mess with burn cards. My ultimate pet peeve are misdeals... anyways...

At the end of the day, angle shooters (cheats) will continue to shoot until they are caught... the consequences can be severe.

I heard a story about a baccarat game that had one angle-shooter replacing decks that were supposedly sealed decks and winning a ton. HOW? well the supposed sealed decks had been marked with luminous blue dye... blank to the naked eye, but this guy wore contacts that allowed him to see the backs of the cards so he knew what was coming.... How did it turn out? Not sure....