Burn cards in double board games. (3 Viewers)

[JustinInMN]

So this came up at a home game recently. We decided to deal a round of double board bomb pots, and the dealing procedure actually became controversial.

There is debate between whether you burn one card before adding to each board (2 burns per "street") or just one card for each street before both boards.

To explain per street:

Flop
a) Burn, deal 3 cards to "top" board, deal 3 cards to "bottom" board.
b) Burn, deal 3 cards to "top" board, burn again, deal 3 cards to "bottom" board.

Turn and River
a) Burn, deal 1 card to "top" board, deal 1 card to "bottom" board.
b) Burn, deal 1 card to "top" board, burn again, deal 1 card to "bottom" board.

I believe personally there is a right answer, but I will wait to respond as not to bias the poll.

 

[Snapplefacts]

Every double-board bomb pot I’ve played at a casino had 1 burn per street. But I mean as long as your home game is always consistent then it shouldn’t matter much

 

[JustinInMN]

Every double-board bomb pot I’ve played at a casino had 1 burn per street. But I mean as long as your home game is always consistent then it shouldn’t matter much

Which casino does these ?

 

[Chris Manzoni]

A

Since the entire reason for burning is to prevent players from getting a good look at the next card to be shown from the top of the deck, you only need to burn once per street. So burn, flop flop, no burn in between flops.

If we were to do “B” - burn, flop, burn, flop - by that logic we should burn between every single card on the flop as well.

 

[TheBigTater]

Don't know what the "right answer" is but most games I've played in (mostly home games) that used a double board it was only 1 burn card per street, not 1 burn card per board.

 

[Snapplefacts]

Which casino does these ?

There’s a casino in Nashua, NH where the dealers had no problem doing an orbit of double board bomb pots as long as the table agrees

 

[inca911]

The correct procedure for a bomb pot is a little more complicated. As you are dealing the flop immediately after the last player receives the last card (i.e., customary with bomb pots) you should not burn the flop at all since the deck has not sat with the top card exposed. The reason for a burn is to remove a "stale" top card that has been sitting visibly exposed on the deck. If the deck has not sat exposed, a burn should not be performed to ensure maximum consistency to the true intent of a burn.

The correct answer for a bomb pot is C) 0 (flop), 1 (turn), 1 (river).

 

[JustinInMN]

The correct answer for a bomb pot is C) 0 (flop), 1 (turn), 1 (river).

I didn't think there would be an outside the box answer for this, but Forrest does not disappoint. I will modify the poll.

ETA: I obviously do not think this is the "correct" answer because I didn't include it in the original poll, but it is now a live option, so @inca911 you may click that option if you wish.

 

[TheBigTater]

The correct procedure for a bomb pot is a little more complicated. As you are dealing the flop immediately after the last player receives the last card (i.e., customary with bomb pots) you should not burn the flop at all since the deck has not sat with the top card exposed. The reason for a burn is to remove a "stale" top card that has been sitting visibly exposed on the deck. If the deck has not sat exposed, a burn should not be performed to ensure maximum consistency to the true intent of a burn.

The correct answer for a bomb pot is C) 0 (flop), 1 (turn), 1 (river).

Didn't realize that. But I guess because the fact there is no bet before the flop that would make sense.

Honestly I don't see the fascination with bomb pots anyway.

 

[Snapplefacts]

Honestly I don't see the fascination with bomb pots anyway.

Because gambol

 

[BGinGA]

1 burn card per street, regardless. I see no valid reason to alter standard dealing procedure just because of a different betting structure or the number of dealt board cards per street.

Imo, 'procedural consistency = less confusion' trumps all other reasoning.

 

[TheBigTater]

I prefer the time honored flip for a buyin every so often if you feel the need to gambool.

 

[BGinGA]

I prefer the time honored flip for a buyin every so often if you feel the need to gambool.

And dealing a flip should include burn cards, too.... regardless of what Forrest thinks.

 

[inca911]

Technically, I am executing the most consistent procedure of conducting a burn only when the deck has sat idle and exposed. It’s not about the streets, it about the idleness. Else you would burn once for the Turn and again for the River in IMPLOCEAN, prior to burning the Ocean. I'm not going to die on that hill trying to win that battle, especially with Dave!

And dealing a flip should include burn cards, too.... regardless of what Forrest thinks.

Of course you need to burn when running a flip, so that you do not influence the side-bet action! Do you think I'm a heathen?!?!

Note that the poll isn't really asking the question at hand with respect to a bomb pot game. As the poll is stated, the answer is A (i.e., one burn each time the deck is stale).

 

[JustinInMN]

So I see most votes are for "a" so far, and some for "c" (thanks again @inca911 ) I am curious what others would think the case for "b" would be, it did receive a vote.

 

[trigs]

I chose option A, but I have been in games where, due to the game and number of cards dealt, you can't burn on every street because we'd run out of cards. In that situation, we'd normally burn before flop and turn (if possible) and no burn before river.

 

[Chris Manzoni]

The reasoning for C is solid but I don’t know that it would ever actually fly in a bomb pot with experienced players who would be likely to bark the first time a flop comes out without a burn.

 

[JustinInMN]

Thank you everyone for your responses. I hope I didn't bias the poll, but it looks overwhelmingly in favor of my assumption, which was option A.

The controversy in my game surprised me because I do have fairly experienced players, so I guess we are just the victim of an incorrect local custom here.

I do want to give @inca911 some credit for an outside the box answer C, that did get a few votes.

The correct procedure for a bomb pot is a little more complicated. As you are dealing the flop immediately after the last player receives the last card (i.e., customary with bomb pots) you should not burn the flop at all since the deck has not sat with the top card exposed. The reason for a burn is to remove a "stale" top card that has been sitting visibly exposed on the deck. If the deck has not sat exposed, a burn should not be performed to ensure maximum consistency to the true intent of a burn.

The correct answer for a bomb pot is C) 0 (flop), 1 (turn), 1 (river).

Technically, I am executing the most consistent procedure of conducting a burn only when the deck has sat idle and exposed. It’s not about the streets, it about the idleness. Else you would burn once for the Turn and again for the River in IMPLOCEAN, prior to burning the Ocean. I'm not going to die on that hill trying to win that battle, especially with Dave!

And I do agree, given the main reason for burning is to follow a betting round where the back of the top card sits exposed. A good secondary feature is that it slows down the game just enough to allow players to catch a dealer that may be about to deal prematurely. But again, that wouldn't apply to a bomb pot with no preflop action. (A proper dealer slows this down even one step further by rapping the table before burning and turning.)

Good procedure also means separating the burn cards so they can be used to track the hand and solve questions as to whether or not the "burn" is down." Which is why I am compelled by @BGinGA 's point.

1 burn card per street, regardless. I see no valid reason to alter standard dealing procedure just because of a different betting structure or the number of dealt board cards per street.

Imo, 'procedural consistency = less confusion' trumps all other reasoning.

I do think reduced confusion is a good enough reason to keep the burns the same in a hold'em game, even if not "technically necessary" in a bomb pot as @inca911 pointed out above.

If the procedure of omitting the burn card for bomb pots became a standard, then dealers used to there being 1 burn down before the flop, 2 burns down on the turn, and 3 on the river have to mentally make that change for a bomb pot even if the mechanics of the deal are the same. That might cause confusion, even if momentary. That's significant enough for me to agree with keeping the procedure the same.

Also it would not be "technically necessary" to burn after an all in (except for the current card on the top of the stub), but I don't think anyone would argue for changing the dealing procedure in that instance either.

So now this thread can officially be a debate between "A" and "C", and one person voted "B" but didn't say why.

Thank you everyone for your feedback.

 

[JustinInMN]

So it's not really a rule, but the glossary in Robert's gives a pretty decisive definition.

BURNCARD: After the initial round of cards is dealt, the first card off the deck in each round that is placed under a chip in the pot, for security purposes. To do so is to burn the card; the card itself is called the burncard.

This definition would support answer "A" on the surface. Though in these terms, I would interpret @inca911 's argument for "C" as on the lines of no betting pre-flop means pre-flop and the flop are now one single round.