Tournament Director Exam Question (3 Viewers)

[WedgeRock]

14-person, 2 table tournament. [Edit: Relatively early in the tournament, maybe a rebuy, but I don't think any eliminations. Self-dealt game.]

PF and flop action with three players, [Edit: SB, EP and Dealer.] Burn and turn.

SB bets, EP calls. Back to dealer who twice checks his hole cards before realizing they are the burn cards, not his hole cards. He calls the other 2 players attention to the error. [Edit: The burn cards are not exposed to SB or EP and floor is called.]

[Edit: Dealer was at the end of the table, in in one of the curves and SB was next to him, also in a curve, so space was a little tighter than the traditional dealer spot. Dealer cards were capped and directly in front of dealer's chip stack. Burn cards were under the button, which was below the board cards, and directly in front of the Dealer.]

Ruling?

Show your work.

 

[Beakertwang]

If his cards are right in front of him and he just looked at the wrong cards, I'd say his hand is live, but it's fair that other players know what they are.

Also, burn cards go under the chips in pot, and cap your damn cards when you're dealing!

 

[longflop]

I am really curious about the answers here. I don't think there is anyway for the hand to recover from the dealer obtaining this extra information. I would call it a dead hand, pull all bets back and re deal. That's probably not the correct way to do it.

 

[Beakertwang]

I am really curious about the answers here. I don't think there is anyway for the hand to recover from the dealer obtaining this extra information. I would call it a dead hand, pull all bets back and re deal. That's probably not the correct way to do it.

I'd say it would be a similar situation to a card being exposed and revealed to the table. But as I think of it, two exposed cards on the deal cancels the hand. I have no idea what the official ruling should be, but as long as everyone in the hand has the same info, I'd be ok going ahead.

 

[BGinGA]

Substantial action has occurred, so no misdeal. If there is any question which two cards are actually the dealer's hand, his hand is dead, and proceed directly to the river.

If dealer's cards are clearly identifiable as his (either capped, or close to the rail and away from the muck/burn cards), then:

• ruled as an unintentional dealer mistake (although avoidable; burn cards should be tucked under the pot edge, and his hand should be capped)
• the two burn cards are exposed for all players to see
• EP's turn call amount is returned
• SB's turn bet amount is returned
• burn cards are returned to the proper location
• turn action begins with SB

Allowing dealer to act now with extra information is wrong, since neither previous turn action had that info. Better to return the bets and restart action with all players having the new info.

Much worse situation had other players folded to the SB bet with their hands now in the muck, since knowing the identity of the burn cards may or may not have affected their fold decision.

 

[WedgeRock]

Also, burn cards go under the chips in pot, and cap your damn cards when you're dealing!

Burn cards were under the dealer button, cards were capped.

 

[WedgeRock]

Allowing dealer to act now with extra information is wrong, since neither previous turn action had that info. Better to return the bets and restart action with all players having the new info.

Agreed. But giving all players two extra cards worth of information could affect what the action. Board for sure had a straight possibility. If the burn cards revealed dead draws, the action might dry up.

Much worse situation had other players folded to the SB bet with their hands now in the muck, since knowing the identity of the burn cards may or may not have affected their fold decision.

What is your ruling here, same result?

 

[CantSpellPoker]

I have no idea what the official answer is, but the logical choice to me would align with what @BGinGA said.

As long as the dealer’s actual hole cards are easily identifiable, I would keep all hands live, expose the 2 burn cards, and pull back any action that had occurred in that betting round and start the betting from scratch with the exposed burn cards available to everyone.

If the dealer says, “Well, I’m almost positive my cards are the top 2 cards on that pile over there,” then his hand is dead, and proceed with the river.

Just my 2 cents. Might not be the way the rules lay it out, but makes sense to me.

 

[phaze12]

hand is dead, next action

Just outta curiosity, is this a dedicated dealer or self dealt?

If self dealt, “DOH”!

 

[WedgeRock]

hand is dead, next action

No credit. You did not show your work.

And how many dedicated dealers get a hand?

 

[WedgeRock]

Additional info/clarity added to the OP.

And I don't think it matters to the ruling (which is why I didn't add it to the OP), but Dealer expressed (afterward) that he intended to call before the mistake. Dealer is a charming individual who enjoys sunsets and long walks on the beach; there should not be a question that Dealer was being honest about his intent and also this was a mistake and not an angle shoot.

 

[BGinGA]

Agreed. But giving all players two extra cards worth of information could affect what the action. Board for sure had a straight possibility. If the burn cards revealed dead draws, the action might dry up.

Possibly affecting the action is exactly why the incorrectly-exposed cards should be made available to all active players prior to their (new) action, not just prior to the dealer's (initial) action. It is unfair to give that informational advantage to just one player.

Had other players been in the hand and folded, I'm probably still ruling it the same -- just liking it less.

Noteworthy to mention that if dealer chooses to fold now (upon discovery of realizing he had looked at the burn cards), then no need to publicly expose the burn cards, return bets, or redo the turn action.

That last point is somewhat a two-edged sword, however -- since the dealer did gain additional information upon which to base his fold decision. For that reason, if somebody in authority chose to rule his hand dead in all circumstances (not giving the dealer the option of folding or not) I would not strenuously argue against it. It is the least disruptive of all solutions.

EDIT: After giving this additional thought, and considering that with not only having additional card information but also knowledge of previous player actions, an astute SB player may be able to take advantage of the situation -- such as increasing his bet size (even moving all-in), or realizing he now has the nuts and slowplaying to try to get more $$ in the pot. I am officially changing my ruling to always declare the dealer's hand dead, as having the least impact on the hand.

And it's also another feather in the dedicated dealer hat argument. Pass-the-deal works best if the player currently dealing doesn't get dealt cards, allowing them to concentrate on dealing duties and eliminating any potential conflict of interest.

 

[1A25R]

BGinGA rulling +1 warning to the dealer

 

[WedgeRock]

BGinGA rulling +1

Which ruling, LOL.

If dealer's cards are clearly identifiable as his (either capped, or close to the rail and away from the muck/burn cards), then:

• ruled as an unintentional dealer mistake (although avoidable; burn cards should be tucked under the pot edge, and his hand should be capped)
• the two burn cards are exposed for all players to see
• EP's turn call amount is returned
• SB's turn bet amount is returned
• burn cards are returned to the proper location
• turn action begins with SB

or

After giving this additional thought, and considering that with not only having additional card information but also knowledge of previous player actions, an astute SB player may be able to take advantage of the situation -- such as increasing his bet size (even moving all-in), or realizing he now has the nuts and slowplaying to try to get more $$ in the pot. I am officially changing my ruling to always declare the dealer's hand dead, as having the least impact on the hand.

 

[BGinGA]

Let's explore what would happen if a different player yet to act first peeked at the burn cards, or looked at a couple of cards in the muck -- besides causing an uproar, what would likely happen? I suspect most TDs would immediately rule his hand dead -- and less for 'cheating' than for the illegal information he had gained, giving him an unfair advantage.

Similar basis for my ruling above -- even though the intent was different in the OP's scenario, the resulting situation was identical. The player with unlawfully gained informational advantage no longer has a live hand, regardless of how obtained (or why).

 

[BGinGA]

This 'show your work' shit is hard.

 

[WedgeRock]

If SB fished the muck, it would not be an accident. Dealers action here was clearly unintentional.

But both situations share the same problem: learning extra information that the other players did not know. The only difference is intent, IMO.

 

[WedgeRock]

Report card

@BGinGA: A

@Beakertwang: C+ (Dealers hand can't be live, but props for identifying dealer actions that *should* have avoided the situation)

@longflop: B+ (Dealer's hand should be dead, but why deal the turn? Only Dealer has extra information.

@CantSpellPoker: C (Dealers hand has to be dead).

@phaze12:. B (show your work)

@1A25R: B+ (You were caught copying off your neighbor. And why give the dealer a warning? He knows he made a mistake.)

Props to @ChaosRock who made the right call, on the spot, for exactly the right reasons.

 

[BGinGA]

If SB fished the muck, it would not be an accident. Dealers action here was clearly unintentional.

But both situations share the same problem: learning extra information that the other players did not know. The only difference is intent, IMO.

Agreed, but in sloppily-dealt home games, it's not unthinkable that either player adjacent to the dealer (SB or CO) could make the same error of looking at the two previously burned cards thinking it was their hand, with no ill-intent (same as the dealer did in this situation).

I think the best and least-disruptive solution is to rule the player's hand dead. It also negates any chance of angle-shooting by this or similar actions. Player's responsibility to protect and know their cards.

 

[JustinInMN]

If his cards are right in front of him and he just looked at the wrong cards, I'd say his hand is live, but it's fair that other players know what they are.

Also, burn cards go under the chips in pot, and cap your damn cards when you're dealing!

This is probably the ruling I would have made. And even after the reveal, I want to point something out. If the action we're 4 handed, first guy bets, second guy calls, third guy folds and flashes cards, first two guys don't get to take their action back and button proceeds.

So I would say if dealer's hand is identifiable and I am satisfied it's an accident I will expose the burns and allow the dealer to act. If this repeats hand is dead and guy won't be invited back.

Burn cards were under the dealer button, cards were capped.

What were the burn cards doing there? I assume you took the opportunity to reinforce the idea that burns go under the pot.

EDIT: After giving this additional thought, and considering that with not only having additional card information but also knowledge of previous player actions, an astute SB player may be able to take advantage of the situation -- such as increasing his bet size (even moving all-in), or realizing he now has the nuts and slowplaying to try to get more $$ in the pot. I am officially changing my ruling to always declare the dealer's hand dead, as having the least impact on the hand

I am really glad you reconsidered this. There is no rolling back action any more than there is cancelling a hand for anything short of a foul deck.

So generally, I can't argue against killing the hand, but I don't think exposing two cards is the worst thing either and I think it would be okay to rule the hand live if you were confident it was an accident.

Then again, I want dealers to burn under the pot so maybe I am talking myself into the exam answer after all.

 

[longflop]

Report card

@BGinGA: A

@Beakertwang: C+ (Dealers hand can't be live, but props for identifying dealer actions that *should* have avoided the situation)

@longflop: B+ (Dealer's hand should be dead, but why deal the turn? Only Dealer has extra information.

@CantSpellPoker: C (Dealers hand has to be dead).

@phaze12:. B (show your work)

@1A25R: B+ (You were caught copying off your neighbor. And why give the dealer a warning? He knows he made a mistake.)

Props to @ChaosRock who made the right call, on the spot, for exactly the right reasons.

C's get degrees!

 

[WedgeRock]

What were the burn cards doing there? I assume you took the opportunity to reinforce the idea that burns go under the pot.

In a tight corner of a 'sloppily dealt home game' (a gross assumption, BTW), you want dealer's chips, dealers cards (capped), the muck, the pot and the board? With potential action (and cards and chips) to the left and right?

Self-dealing is not ideal, but it's a necessary compromise, sometimes. I'd prefer a dedicated dealer, always. But I've come not to expect it, and I can survive without it.

Placement of the muck and pot is not always right near the dealer in home games. Ideally it should be, but if enough people know proper procedures, adaptations can be made, without sacrificing the integrity of the game. This obviously works better with well known players. The lesser known the crowd, the greater the need for a dedicated dealer. Same for the larger stakes.

I'm not interested in discussing the degree if necessity if having a dedicated dealer. I concede that if we had one, this situation doesn't happen (if only because a dedicated dealer doesn't get cards and has no reason to accidentally check the burns). I would suspect the vast majority of PCF home games are self-dealt and situations like this one will come up from time to time. The discussion here has been good. That's the last I'll say about the admittedly better practice of a dedicated dealer.

BTW, if you haven't figured it out, I was the dealer. My hand was dead. I initially disagreed, but it's not my house. I thought the burns should be exposed and it should be my action. Thinking about it more that night, a dead hand was the right ruling. Exposing the burns is unfair, because I had information the others didn't when it was my turn to act. I had a pair and a gutshot. If the burns showed two of my gutshot outs were dead, how fair is that? This was the reason that @ChaosRock gave for his decision.

I also don't like rolling back the action, for exactly the reason @BGinGA mentions, but I hadn't even considered it at the time. The button, knowing EP called a biggish-bet, could go All In. If the EP folds to an All In, he is punished for the dealer's mistake (but maybe EP was slow playing a monster).

And, I hit my trips on the river, which would have been good.

 

[mike32]

TLDR. I thought @detroitdad didn’t play at Paulo’s this week.

Grade A+

 

[1A25R]

And why give the dealer a warning?

you know that you drive too fast, however you still get a speed ticket...
In this case it's the same, a warning and next "unintentional dealer mistake" no more booze

I was going for answer A before he changed his mind. ( ruled as an unintentional dealer mistake, burn cards exposed to other 2 players )

 

[WedgeRock]

1. I understand your point.
2. I don't drink.
3. To me, warnings are for intentional actions, not mistakes. But see #1.

 

[Beakertwang]

So if action was checked to dealer, and he accidentally looked at the burn cards rather than his hole cards, would his hand still be live?

 

[BGinGA]

Nope.

 

[BGinGA]

In a way, his hand now sorta has 4 cards. Dead.

 

[timinater]

My gut was to expose the cards for all to see, and rewind the action so all players can act with the same information. It's not great, but hey sometimes things aren't great. I think killing the dealers hands for what amounts to accidentally flashing cards is a bit of an over-reaction.

I also get that the action could change significantly or someone could change their action. I've seen some cardrooms allow players in these situations to take back a bet/call or elect to let the bet/call stand as is and close the door on a type of angle in that situation, again not ideal, but we're in a not ideal situation to begin with.

Showing my work

From Roberts Rules: Emphasis mine...

12. Procedure for an exposed card varies with the poker form, and is given in the section for each game. A card that is flashed by a dealer is treated as an exposed card. A card that is flashed by a player will play. To obtain a ruling on whether a card was exposed and should be replaced, a player should announce that the card was flashed or exposed before looking at it. A downcard dealt off the table is an exposed card.
13. If a card is exposed due to dealer error, a player does not have an option to take or reject the card. The situation will be governed by the rules for the particular game being played.

Which leads us to this from the Hold'Em Section... not much help there.

These rules deal only with irregularities. See the previous chapter, “Button and Blind Use,” for rules on that subject.

1. If the first or second holecard dealt is exposed, a misdeal results. The dealer will retrieve the card, reshuffle, and recut the cards. If any other holecard is exposed due to a dealer error, the deal continues. The exposed card may not be kept. After completing the hand, the dealer replaces the card with the top card on the deck, and the exposed card is then used for the burncard. If more than one holecard is exposed, this is a misdeal and there must be a redeal.
2. If the flop contains too many cards, it must be redealt. (This applies even if it were possible to know which card was the extra one.)
3. If the flop needs to be redealt because the cards were prematurely flopped before the betting was complete, or the flop contained too many cards, the boardcards are mixed with the remainder of the deck. The burncard remains on the table. After shuffling, the dealer cuts the deck and deals a new flop without burning a card. [See “Section 16 – Explanations,” discussion #2, for more information on this rule.]
4. If the dealer turns the fourth card on the board before the betting round is complete, the card is taken out of play for that round, even if subsequent players elect to fold. The betting is then completed. The dealer burns and turns what would have been the fifth card in the fourth card’s place. After this round of betting, the dealer reshuffles the deck, including the card that was taken out of play, but not including the burncards or discards. The dealer then cuts the deck and turns the final card without burning a card. If the fifth card is turned up prematurely, the deck is reshuffled and dealt in the same manner. [See “Section 16 – Explanations,” discussion #2, for more information on this rule.]
5. If the dealer mistakenly deals the first player an extra card (after all players have received their starting hands), the card will be returned to the deck and used for the burncard. If the dealer mistakenly deals more than one extra card, it is a misdeal.
6. You must declare that you are playing the board before you throw your cards away; otherwise you relinquish all claim to the pot.

Ok, so when can I declare a hand dead?

Dead Hands
1.Your hand is declared dead if:
(a) You fold or announce that you are folding when facing a bet or a raise.
(b) You throw your hand away in a forward motion causing another player to act behind you (even if not facing a bet).
(c) In stud, when facing a bet, you pick your upcards off the table, turn your upcards facedown, or mix your upcards and downcards together.
(d) The hand does not contain the proper number of cards for that particular game (except at stud a hand missing the final card may be ruled live, and at lowball and draw high a hand with too few cards before the draw is live).
(e) You act on a hand with a joker as a holecard in a game not using a joker. (A player who acts on a hand without looking at a card assumes the liability of finding an improper card, as given in Irregularities, rule #8.)
(f) You have the clock on you when facing a bet or raise and exceed the specified time limit.
2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of false information given to the player.
3. Cards thrown into another player’s hand are dead, whether they are faceup or facedown.

That's about as close as I can get. As you mentioned the dealers cards were capped and separate, so I don't think that applies

 

[WedgeRock]

So if action was checked to dealer, and he accidentally looked at the burn cards rather than his hole cards, would his hand still be live?

Extra information = dead hand

Works if bet-call to button, bet-fold to button or check-check to button.