Author Topic: Players with 3 cards  (Read 13686 times)

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Players with 3 cards
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2015, 02:49:24 PM »
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

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3319
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Players with 3 cards
« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2015, 03:38:46 PM »
Chet,

 Did you read my last reply? I addressed this very subject and explained why.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Players with 3 cards
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2015, 09:16:17 AM »
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

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3319
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Players with 3 cards
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2015, 11:54:12 AM »
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?

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Players with 3 cards
« Reply #19 on: August 06, 2015, 12:19:34 PM »
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).  
« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 07:12:21 AM by K-Lo »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3319
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Players with 3 cards
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2015, 07:05:07 AM »
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?

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Players with 3 cards
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2015, 08:55:13 AM »
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.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Re: Players with 3 cards
« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2015, 10:36:36 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2015, 10:44:29 AM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3319
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Players with 3 cards
« Reply #23 on: August 08, 2015, 10:42:15 AM »
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?

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Re: Players with 3 cards
« Reply #24 on: August 08, 2015, 11:02:31 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2015, 11:04:10 AM by BillM16 »

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 404
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Dave MIller Gaming
Re: Players with 3 cards
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2015, 12:01:44 PM »
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.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3319
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Players with 3 cards
« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2015, 07:33:09 PM »
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.