PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Martin Roy TD on July 22, 2015, 06:43:54 AM
-
Hi Guys,
Situation :
We have substantial action and the player on the button realize that he have 3 cards.
Decision:
It's hand is dead because of the substantial action.
Action continue...
Do we burn the flop and try to protect to board as much as we can or we burn another one ?
Thanks
-
I would agree with the dead hand (player with three card) and I think flop is already burned, it keeps the right cards in the right orders for the flop. Better integrity...
-
I'm always for the "keep the board as more intact as possible", which means in this case not to burn and turn the flop.
I don't see any problems doing this because we don't know which card was actually the burn one, and so do players, so at least let's keep the board intact even if the players' cards aren't.
#EDIT
Scenario 2
Similar, we have SA, but two players discover the have 3 cards each.
What do you do, a part from gun the dealer down? ;D
-
In your scenario #2, because of the substantial action I will killed both hand.
-
In your scenario #2, because of the substantial action I will killed both hand.
Ofc, i was talking about bord cards... how would you deal with them?
-
Good Question
If you have 2 dead hands (2 extra cards) it would modify the flop for sure.
I'll probably count them as like boxed cards an burn flop, burn turn....
So if I'm doing this with 2 dead hands, I should do it with 1 dead hand.
-
Gentlemen:
These scenarios can become more complicated when one of the players holding the extra card has acted, or is one of the blinds. The hands with too many cards are certainly dead. What do we do with the blinds?
As far as the original question, with only one player having an extra card, as long as substantial action has occurred the hand will play out to conclusion. In my opinion, I would not burn a card before the flop. This would assure that the proper board will be preserved. The single player with too many cards has a dead hand. Period.
In the case of multiple players with too many cards, there are two different decisions I'd apply: #1) if recognized before substantial action, I'd rule a misdeal...#2) If two or more players have too many cards and they are not yet involved in betting but substantial action has occurred in front of them, their hands are dead and the hand will play to conclusion. #2.1) Because the proper board would be impossible to recreate, I would proceed by burning and turning the remaining deck stub as usual.
There are always unusual situations that can complicate what sometimes appears to have a very simple solution. Always try to protect the proper cards whenever possible. This means that: we must strive to preserve the board that would have tabled if no mistake were made.
In the original situation with one player holding an extra card, pre-flop followed by substantial action, the player with too many cards has a dead hand and the flop will be turned without a burn. In the next situation where two players have too many cards, their hands are dead and the flop would be preceded by a burn...what else could we do?
-
Player on button has dead hand. Everything else plays exactly the same. Burn a card before the flop just like you normally do.
What if a player in the middle had 1 card and substantial action happened, would we burn two cards? No.
What if two players had 3 cards, would we start scrambling them and grab one for the flop to make the turn and river right? No.
No need to complicate matters further.
-
Player on button has dead hand. Everything else plays exactly the same. Burn a card before the flop just like you normally do.
What if a player in the middle had 1 card and substantial action happened, would we burn two cards? No.
What if two players had 3 cards, would we start scrambling them and grab one for the flop to make the turn and river right? No.
No need to complicate matters further.
I agree with Bryan and I expect this is pretty much standard.
Although it is true there are good reasons to try to keep the board cards as intact as possible (and certain procedures such as how to deal after a premature turn or river, etc. are based on this), I think factors that may affect game integrity take precedence.
The purpose of burning is to better protect the identity of the board cards. I think it would be unsafe to allow play to continue for any material amount of time with the first board card sitting at the top of the deck waiting to be dealt, yet potentially exposed as pre-flop action occurs or has occurred.
-
What difference does it make which player has the extra card? If one extra card were dealt prior to the flop, the next three cards would be the "proper flop." I also believe that preserving the proper flop is far more practical than worrying about the protection of the top card without a burn to cover it. That is not the only purpose of the burn, and besides, what if the burn were marked? Wouldn't that be just as important?
Why would anyone rather burn a card that we know is positively one of the proper flop cards? Kill the players hand (the one holding 3 cards) and play on without a burn.
I don't like your ruling and I can't believe we can be so far apart on almost everything. Unbelievable.
-
Actually, you don't know for certain that the third card "should" be the proper burn anyways, at the point when the card was discovered, How do we know whether the player was dealt the third card on this deal or on a previous deal? What happens if the player had two extra cards, possibly left from a previous hand (this is not uncommon). What do you do then?
A marked card that happens to be the top card IS bad. And it would be bad if the action is live and players are making decisions potentially with the benefit of knowledge of that mark. Another reason for burning in this situation.
-
Ken, I actually had started typing out those points as well, but it was getting too long so I took them out, good points :)
Part of the reason for it being a dead hand is that a player could have a 3rd card because he held a card, in which case the remaining cards were dealt and the burn actually is in the right place it's just you have someone potentially outright cheating and have to kill his hand accordingly.
-
Are you telling me, that holding a card from the previous hand is common? You've got to be kidding me. My use of rule #1 would never allow for a burn in the situation we are discussing, sorry. I would never like that call if I were involved in the hand. I really wish I could agree with you but I can't.
-
The player with the fouled hand has a dead hand.
Rest of the hand plays out as normal. I'm not adjusting the flop, nor skipping any burns.
Burn, Flop
Burn, Turn
Burn, River
... just like normal.
-
Ralph, Good to hear from you ;D
I base my decision in part on one of the more common errors that dealers make, exposing a card during the deal. The situations are different for sure, but the method used preserves the "proper flop." Exchanging the exposed card with what would have been the "proper burn." You can also consider the "uncovered" top card that will be used in the flop when this occurs.
Why I prefer my method: Without a burn the "proper" board remains intact 100%... Your method: Burning and turning will guarantee that one of the flop cards and the turn and river will not be the proper board! That's 60% (3 of 5) not proper cards.
Not a big issue because it should be a very rare occurrence, but that's how I see it.
-
Just to throw some additional mud into the discussion:
How is this situation materially any different than an exposed card during the deal to a player not in the blinds? In that case the exposed card is shown to all players and is used as the burn prior to the flop.
In this discussion, the only real difference is that the 3rd card is NOT exposed to the players, so the only person that might know which card was the"3rd" would be the player with the dead hand. That player is no longer involved since the hand is automatically dead and if the player discloses the hole card should be subject to penalty.
So why not just flop and proceed?
Chet
-
Chet,
Did you read my last reply? I addressed this very subject and explained why.
-
Ya Nick, I saw it, but I have forgotten how to read apparently.
What really amazes me is the amount of discussion on this subject. In over 40 years of playing poker, I have only seen ONE TIME where a player had 3 hole cards.
I really don't see how this rather minor topic can create so much controversy, but that is just me.
I don't get to play in events with hundreds or thousands of players so maybe my "poker life" has been sheltered.
Chet
-
Chet,
I have to agree with you on this one. ;) What others describe as a common occurrence, I haven't experienced in in years. Like you, I don't play that much anymore but the only extra cards dealt, that I remember date back to the days when seven card stud was the main game! :D
Going back to both of our most recent posts...we don't burn a new card and proceed when a card is accidently exposed on the initial deal, we substitute the exposed card with the "would be " burn! Thus preserving the proper board. So what's the difference?
Any arguments against my example of 100% VS 40% proper cards?
I rest my case and await further discussion. K-Lo, are you there?
-
Going back to both of our most recent posts...we don't burn a new card and proceed when a card is accidently exposed on the initial deal, we substitute the exposed card with the "would be " burn! Thus preserving the proper board. So what's the difference?
Any arguments against my example of 100% VS 40% proper cards?
I rest my case and await further discussion. K-Lo, are you there?
The difference is that when a card is exposed on the initial deal, (a) you will be 100% certain that the next 4 cards on the deck are, in fact, the proper burn and the proper flop because you are able to correct the problem immediately, and (b) your dealer will exchange the proper burn with the exposed card in his hand so that the first flop card is never left exposed for a significant amount of time during the pre-flop betting round.
If you had dealt the SB a third card by mistake, you would certainly put that third card back on the deck and correct that mistake immediately. This is OK. Again, you are 100% certain that the proper flop has been left intact and can correct the situation immediately AND the first flop card is not left unexposed during the first betting round.
However, once the action proceeds for some time after the dealing of the hole cards and then you find -- after all that time has passed, after substantial action has taken place -- that someone has more than two cards, how can you be *100%* certain that the extra card(s) got there on the deal for that same hand? I don't think you can be 100% certain at that point in the hand, otherwise you would have corrected that mistake immediately when you saw it happen. Furthermore, even if somehow you were 100% certain, there is no good reason to allow pre-flop action to continue with the back of the first flop card exposed for all to see.
I agree with you that this does not happen that often. But if that's the case, what's wrong with doing it the way 99% of TDs around the world are doing it now? If you must insist on using your method of not burning (which I would never do and is not common practice), might I suggest at the very least put one of the extra cards that you are going to use as the burn to cover the top of the deck until the pre-flop betting round is complete. (To be clear though, I HATE the idea of putting back cards on top of an otherwise undisturbed deck, so I'm cringing even as I suggest this).
-
Ken,
I've mentioned this several times on other posts on this subject. Over 30 years ago, when I worked at the Treasury, when a card was exposed and needed to be replaced, we would take the second card from the bottom of the deck and use it as the replacement instead of the burn. The card was certainly a "random" card, and it preserved the "proper" burn and flop. There was no "risk" of exposing the top card, and we at least knew that the exchanged card was random and not the burn card that never should have been dealt.
Back then the main game was seven card stud, and there were occasions when the deck would "run out" and there was a need to reshuffle and deal the river. However, with all of the flop games, there is no reason why we can't adopt the method I just described. There will always be cards remaining in the stub even when playing 10 handed Omaha.
What do you think?
-
i have few problems with the older method of replacing an exposed card with a later card as it better protects the identity of the first flop card. But that older procedure assumes dealers can get that replacement card without exposing any other cards or otherwise disturbing the deck in the process. I suspect that the current method of using the burn as the replacement for an exposed card Is just easier for dealers to understand and execute.
-
Without inserting a bunch of quotes from this thread, I'll contribute the following:
It should be extremely rare tha SA would occur with one player holding 3 cards. It would certainly be even more rare with two 3 card players. The notion that the third card originated from a previous hand and was undiscovered until the player realized he had three cards in this hand is unlikely to put it mildly. Now lets take all of this unlikelyhood and add the idea that the next card on top of the deck happened to be a marked card that one of the players yet to act was hoping to see before the others players get to see it on the flop. WOW talk about astronomical odds!
I'm killing the 3 card hand and dealing the flop without a burn.
If one of the players was the lucky son-of-a-gun who beat all those odds and won this hand by seeing the marked card ... well he was bound to win the tournament anyhow with that golden horseshoe.
-
Well, Bill that makes two of us that agree! ;D
What are your thoughts about the second card from the bottom as a replacement for the exposed card?
-
Well, Bill that makes two of us that agree! ;D
What are your thoughts about the second card from the bottom as a replacement for the exposed card?
I don't like it for the reasons K-Lo mentioned. Again, the likelyhood that the next card is marked and the cheater hasn't seen it already is too much to warrent protection now. I don't buy it.
-
Hi gang. First post.
I've been a player for about 15 years and a dealer and manager / rules guru of a pub league for about 5 years.
Other than the SB issue which is easily fixed, I've seen a player with three cards a grand total of once. And that one time, it wasn't discovered until the showdown.
Now I read this thread and can't believe the amount of discussion.
I say, regardless of when it's discovered or whatever, burn as usual.
Here's one more thing to consider: suppose a player was accidentally dealt out, but there's significant action. The hand plays, right? Are you then gonna burn THREE cards to preserve the board? Screw the damn board integrity. Shit happens. Let's not stop the game for half an hour over a silly ruling.
-
Welcome Dave,
I understand what you're saying about the unlikely occurrence, and I agreed with you on an earlier reply. Your example of skipping a player would warrant a misdeal if discovered before substantial action. As far as keeping the board intact, that would be impossible because the active players would not even be holding the "proper cards" when any player is dealt out.