Home game ruling? (1 Viewer)

[upNdown]

Just wondering how this should have been handled. I did not like it.

NLHE .25/.50 Not sure of all the details, but we’re on the turn 3 handed. SB checks, BB checks, I’m in the cutoff and bet $12 into a pot of probably $30ish. SB calls, and before BB acts, dealer burns and starts to turn. He’s stopped, but the card has been exposed to some degree. Not sure what SB saw, BB says he doesn’t know the exact card, but knows it was small and black. I didn’t see the card.
I immediately suggest that we shuffle the card back into the stub, let BB act, then turn a new river. SB thinks that’s dumb, BB says he doesn’t care he was calling anyway, I’m not 100% sure of correct ruling, so I say I can’t make a ruling since I’m in the hand, and turn to a guy who’s not in the hand. There’s a brief discussion, but we decide to keep the stub intact.
BB calls, Dealer turns the same river again and it gives me the nuts. Fortunately/Unfortunately it improved everybody else too. Not sure if they both had lesser straights or if one had two pair, but suffice it so say, SB jams for something like $50, BB calls with chips behind - probably another $40 or so. I had them covered and could have should have re-jammed to take the rest of BBs stack, but I was sick over the way the hand went, I just flatted and took the pot.

 

[aggie]

Should have jammed.

 

[ChipFinderSK]

Should’ve shuffled the exposed card back into the stub and dealt a new river (what you proposed).

As played, jam the river and tell everyone to FO if they complained.

If SB saw the river and refused the reshuffle, he might’ve been angling.

 

[glynn]

Your immediate suggestion is correct.

I can’t make a ruling since I’m in the hand

You absolutely can and should if someone else is threatening to make the objectively wrong ruling.

 

[TheOffalo]

I’ve come around a little from the more strict preserve-order-at-all-cost to a looser attitude of “as long as we burn and protect the stub, it’s all random…” That said, if during dealing there’s an exposed card, I still deal the replacement card to that player last, and in this case I may have decided to burn again and deal the intended river card face down, then reshuffle the semi-exposed turn card into the stub and deal that face up.

Edit: I’m a little confused because you say you’re on the turn at first but then later talk about dealing a new river vs same river.

 

[glynn]

Edit: I’m a little confused because you say you’re on the turn at first but then later talk about dealing a new river vs same river.

They are on the turn when the dealer starts to turn [over] the river card.

 

[TheOffalo]

They are on the turn when the dealer starts to turn [over] the river card.

Got it, misread that as in the turn card would be next.

 

[upNdown]

Your immediate suggestion is correct.

You absolutely can and should if someone else is threatening to make the objectively wrong ruling.

You’re right, If I was 100% on the ruling. I wasn’t, but that’s my bad.
Part of the problem is that knowing the player and the situation, BB was 99% flat calling there anyway no matter what, so it’s tempting to lean into the “no harm no foul” way of thinking. But I agree, and I guess that’s why I was so uncomfortable with the whole thing.

If SB saw the river and refused the reshuffle, he might’ve been angling.

That is a possibility. If that’s the case, maybe he learned his lesson.

 

[jpietrella]

For the record, I was the BB and saw the river (or at least I saw that it was black and knew it was a card under a 7). I announced what I saw but had planned on calling before seeing it. I had a flush draw + a straight draw. The black 5 river gave me and the SB a straight to the 6s in our hands, making Rob's nut straight with 67. I don't know whether or not the SB saw the card but very sure he was not angling.

I am almost certain that at the casino they'd shuffle it back in and deal a new river, but obviously house rules.

If I'm Rob, I probably play it the same and just take the pot - but I think all things being equal you probably just shove for the remaining $$.

 

[jpietrella]

Either way, this hand was a fantastic reminder of the priceless advice to always be aware of your surroundings. I had been considering someone had 67 in the hand, but for whatever reason, just completely dismissed @upNdown in making my decision. I decided that Sean (SB) probably just had a 6, so I made the call with intentions of chopping.

Rob was gentlemanly enough to flat call with the nuts so I saved some gas money. Next time I'll give folding a shot.

 

[upNdown]

Next time I'll give folding a shot.

 

[jpietrella]

 

[DoubleEagle]

TDA Rule:

C: A premature river card: leave the river burn card as the burn. Return the premature river card to the deck stub and reshuffle the entire stub. Re-deal the river (without another burn) from the newly shuffled stub

 

[upNdown]

TDA Rule:

C: A premature river card: leave the river burn card as the burn. Return the premature river card to the deck stub and reshuffle the entire stub. Re-deal the river (without another burn) from the newly shuffled stub

Okay, so given this rule, does a partially exposed river card count as a premature river card?
I ask because I’ve seen more than once where somebody said they were flashed a card, the floor asked what the card was, the flashee got I wrong, and the floor let everything stand. I suspect those were bad floors and those situations seemed a bit absurd, but still it begs the question. Is partial exposure sufficient to be premature?

 

[Colquhoun]

Without knowing who exactly saw how much, I would go with the assumption that at least 1 player saw the entire card, and it should proceed that the card is an exposed, premature river card.

 

[ATLarchip]

Without knowing who exactly saw how much, I would go with the assumption that at least 1 player saw the entire card, and it should proceed that the card is an exposed, premature river card.

^^I would have done this ^^

 

[jpietrella]

Should’ve shuffled the exposed card back into the stub and dealt a new river (what you proposed).

TDA Rule:

C: A premature river card: leave the river burn card as the burn. Return the premature river card to the deck stub and reshuffle the entire stub. Re-deal the river (without another burn) from the newly shuffled stub

Without knowing who exactly saw how much, I would go with the assumption that at least 1 player saw the entire card, and it should proceed that the card is an exposed, premature river card.

^^I would have done this ^^

You heard them, @upNdown. REDO!

Put the $$ back on the table and let's see that 5 of diamonds on the river for max pain.

 

[glynn]

I ask because I’ve seen more than once where somebody said they were flashed a card, the floor asked what the card was, the flashee got I wrong, and the floor let everything stand.

This is terribad and shouldn't be used as an example of proper procedure. I wonder if these instances were during the pitch or after the player had already taken possession of their cards. (Each is handled differently.)

I was just writing up a comment comparing the situation in the OP to flashing a card on the pitch. We don't poll the audience to ask who saw what — we immediately expose the card (thus shutting down the argument before it can start) and replace it with the appropriate card off the stub. Our guests want confidence, authority, and propriety.

Of course, knowing the proper procedure is key to making those quick decisions. imo the question Did anyone see that? should only be asked for the purpose of side bets. Just flip it.

 

[MeridianFC]

https://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1184.0

 

[glynn]

https://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1184.0

That thread is from 2015. The TDA have flipped from the "cosmic order" procedure and now prescribe the "random is random" procedure for both the turn and river. See RP-5. Prematurely Dealt Cards.

 

[BGinGA]

Okay, so given this rule, does a partially exposed river card count as a premature river card?
I ask because I’ve seen more than once where somebody said they were flashed a card, the floor asked what the card was, the flashee got I wrong, and the floor let everything stand. I suspect those were bad floors and those situations seemed a bit absurd, but still it begs the question. Is partial exposure sufficient to be premature?

Because the turn action was incomplete, both the dealt river burn card and dealt river card (exposed or not) were premature by definition.

If there is ANY possibility that the river card was seen, it's premature. Only if it's still sitting on top of the deck stub -- never having moved after the burn card was dealt -- could it be considered 'not yet dealt' or 'not premature'.

 

[BGinGA]

And if this were a tournament, @upNdown gets a warning and penalty for not raising with the nuts as last to act on the river.

Poor form for a cash game too, imo -- shades of soft-playing, regardless of intent.

Keep a hard copy or an easily-accessed link to the rules handy. Nobody should ever be guessing or taking a damn poll.

 

[upNdown]

And if this were a tournament, @upNdown gets a warning and penalty for not raising with the nuts as last to act on the river.

Poor form for a cash game too, imo -- shades of soft-playing, regardless of intent.

Keep a hard copy or an easily-accessed link to the rules handy. Nobody should ever be guessing or taking a damn poll.

You can give me shit for not enforcing the rule that I thought was correct; I'll take that.
But as for me, the host, not wanting to take all of everybody's chips on a screwed up hand that I had a part in screwing up - no, I won't accept that that's poor form. Of course if it was a tournament I would have reshoved, because that's the rule.

 

[jpietrella]

But as for me, the host, not wanting to take all of everybody's chips on a screwed up hand that I had a part in screwing up - no, I won't accept that that's poor form.

BANNED

 

[jpietrella]

And if this were a tournament, @upNdown gets a warning and penalty for not raising with the nuts as last to act on the river.

Poor form for a cash game too, imo -- shades of soft-playing, regardless of intent.

Keep a hard copy or an easily-accessed link to the rules handy. Nobody should ever be guessing or taking a damn poll.

Your games must be a hoot.

 

[BGinGA]

Your games must be a hoot.

No complaints; in fact, quite the opposite.

Players that also play elsewhere often complain about the overly-lax approach to obvious rule and protocol errors encountered in other games.

Good rules followed accordingly make games better and friendlier.

 

[Machine]

Should’ve shuffled the exposed card back into the stub and dealt a new river (what you proposed).

+1

IF the BB folds, its fine to keep the card.

 

[jpietrella]

No complaints; in fact, quite the opposite.

Players that also play elsewhere often complain about the overly-lax approach to obvious rule and protocol errors encountered in other games.

Good rules followed accordingly make games better and friendlier.

 

[ArielVer18]

And if this were a tournament, @upNdown gets a warning and penalty for not raising with the nuts as last to act on the river.

Poor form for a cash game too, imo -- shades of soft-playing, regardless of intent.

Keep a hard copy or an easily-accessed link to the rules handy. Nobody should ever be guessing or taking a damn poll.

iono why this is an unpopular opinion. It's a good idea to have a printed copy of the rules as reference for when things go awry. There's very little reason to read it, but players should know it exists. Keep things fun and give out warnings, forgiveness, and educational tips whenever there's a minor rule infraction. If there's a major disagreement, consult the unbiased rulebook.

 

[jpietrella]

iono why this is an unpopular opinion. It's a good idea to have a printed copy of the rules as reference for when things go awry. There's very little reason to read it, but players should know it exists. Keep things fun and give out warnings, forgiveness, and educational tips whenever there's a minor rule infraction. If there's a major disagreement, consult the unbiased rulebook.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that having a rulebook is not a good idea and it's not an unpopular opinion.

The unpopular part is the delivery of the previous 2 sentences. I mean, I get it but - yeesh guys. 1. It's not a tournament, so, great point? Sure? 2. Shades of soft play is a huge eye roll. I also get this one but read the room. This is a short handed table of people that are pretty friendly and Rob's the host - he's just trying not to be a dick and it was a quick decision made in the middle of the hand with not a ton of objection. I read that as an attack on character with not a ton of contextual information or a real understanding of the nature of the group of people in the room.

So we've got someone with a history of making somewhat obnoxious/cringey comments simply to broadcast their superior knowledge and you're calling OP's character into question? Yeah - that's gonna be a pretty unpopular post.