A No-Shuffle home game? Would this work?

[bigbeardedbryan]

[ QUOTE ]

So..what if I bought about 200 decks of cards and pre-shuffled them, put them back in their boxes, and made up some system which randomizes when a deck gets used (picking it out of a hat or something)?

[/ QUOTE ]

A hat that'll hold 200 decks? You must have one god-awfully big head.

[JonPKibble]

[ QUOTE ]

Any downsides besides having to procure hundreds of decks of cards? This could be done cheaply with Bicycle or Bee cards.

Anyone willing to try this and report the results?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where can I buy some of your weed? It must be really good stuff!

[WHOOPINGCRANE]

one of the worst posts ever.

[JonPKibble]

[ QUOTE ]
one of the worst posts ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

YSSCKY.

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
one of the worst posts ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Worst 5th Post EVER

[henrikrh]

[ QUOTE ]
Shuffling is time consuming. Shuffling machines don't work well enough. Using the same deck or two allows for marking or crimping cards. Allowing players to shuffle invites cheating.

So..what if I bought about 200 decks of cards and pre-shuffled them, put them back in their boxes, and made up some system which randomizes when a deck gets used (picking it out of a hat or something)? After a deck is used once, it is set aside, and another deck is randomly chosen.

I think the home game format which would see the biggest benefit from this kind of system would be single-table tournaments. You'd be able to get in more hands since no time is spent shuffling. Or you could set the blind structure up in such a way that the levels change every so many decks/hands (like 20 or so).

Just a random idea I had while trying to sleep.

Any downsides besides having to procure hundreds of decks of cards? This could be done cheaply with Bicycle or Bee cards.

Anyone willing to try this and report the results?

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, that post made my day. Can't believe posters took you seriously, this is obviously a joke post.

[elwoodblues]

Interesting idea. You could do that, or you could just shuffle the deck as you go AS EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD DOES.

[JonPKibble]

The 2-deck setup is definitely the best idea. Otherwise, you can invest in a in-table shuffling machine as many casinos use! But personally I'd rather save the money and just give it three riffles and a cut.

Why on earth would you waste the time? Aside from spending a couple hundred dollars on it (approx.) it would take up a lot of space. At the home game we play, the shuffler works so-so. More likely, we use two decks and have the button dealing while the cut-off shuffles the next hand's cards. Sometimes a little delay, but not usually.


When it gets short-handed, a person who is sitting out and bored to death (the LAGs) will either leave the table or volunteer to be "shuffle bitch" to at least have something to do. Very few slowdowns that way. I really don't see the need to have hundreds of decks, but Hoyle would love you forever.

[deepdowntruth]

[ QUOTE ]
Haha, that post made my day. Can't believe posters took you seriously, this is obviously a joke post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure this is what they were going to do in tworooks's home casino.

Congratulations on not being a moron. :-P