How do you rule? (1 Viewer)

CraigT78

Royal Flush
Supporter
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
17,226
Reaction score
48,611
Location
Dallas
Set the scene.

Player #1 is dealing for the table.

Double board game. Several bets and raises.

Gets down to heads up vs player #1 (dealer) and the villain.

Double board. River comes "5" "5"

Villain bets $100.

Player #1 raises $300

Villain calls $300.

Player #1 realizes he dealt the river on both boards with his hand, not the stub.

Action stops. Table pauses waiting for a ruling.

What is your ruling?
 
Unusual. I don't know for certain, but would love to hear the correct official resolution.
My punt: wind back the play and return the hand, deal the correct rivers and resume play. Yes Player #1 would suffer their hand being known but it was also the fault of Player #1.
 
Unusual. I don't know for certain, but would love to hear the correct official resolution.
My punt: wind back the play and return the hand, deal the correct rivers and resume play. Yes Player #1 would suffer their hand being known but it was also the fault of Player #1.
I think this would be along the lines of what I would do. I have to check if they have such a situation in TDA rules (doubt they would) but I’d imagine that its basically the same as a player exposing his hand in a HU situation, which while discouraged, is technically allowed.

We can easily deal the correct river cards as the stub has not been messed with.

Interested to hear what you ended up doing @CraigT78 ?
 
I rule with an iron fist, leveraging my northeastern canal to crush opposition and subjug—oh, you mean the hand.

Bets come back and the 5s are returned to the dealer’s hand (he basically exposed his own cards, essentially). Deal the turn from the stub and the betting starts anew.

If both players prefer, given it’s a homegame, chop the pot and sweep the dealer’s leg.
 
Not my preferred ruling, but theoretically by the book:

After all action is completed, player #1 is discovered to have an invalid hand (incorrect number of cards), which is ruled dead.

Pay attention, bro.


It's the only possible ruling that reinforces a no-angling policy. Otherwise it opens the very real possibility of a player hiding hole card(s) and claiming the river card(s) were erroneously dealt from his hand (if he loses), or saying nothing and collecting the pot (if he wins).


Edit: Is this from @MrCatPants's game?
 
Not my preferred ruling, but theoretically by the book:

After all action is completed, player #1 is discovered to have an invalid hand (incorrect number of cards), which is ruled dead.

Pay attention, bro.


It's the only possible ruling that reinforces a no-angling policy. Otherwise it opens the very real possibility of a player hiding hole card(s) and claiming the river card(s) were erroneously dealt from his hand (if he loses), or saying nothing and collecting the pot (if he wins).


Edit: Is this from @MrCatPants's game?
And your preferred ruling?
 
And your preferred ruling?
Need more info.

How many hole cards were supposed to be in P1's hand? How many cards were actually in P1's hand when he 'discovered his error'? How many cards were remaining in the deck stub? Were burn cards being used? If so, from where was the river burn card dealt? Were there any witnesses who saw him deal from his hand? Was alcohol involved?
 
Need more info.

How many hole cards were supposed to be in P1's hand? How many cards were actually in P1's hand when he 'discovered his error'? How many cards were remaining in the deck stub? Were burn cards being used? If so, from where was the river burn card dealt? Were there any witnesses who saw him deal from his hand? Was alcohol involved?
Fair enough. If presuming a fictional game (no known characters), you're seeking this additional info to assess how likely it was an intentional angle?
 
It’s a self dealt home game. Sure there are TDA rules and a Robert’s and Bubba’s, but at the end of the day only Bubba’s is directed at the self dealt game.
There are no “dealers hands” in TDA or Robert’s. It’s assumed the dealer is not a player.
Bubba says wind it back and laugh your ass off the whole time and berate the drunk bastard who did this for the next five games.
 
It’s a self dealt home game. Sure there are TDA rules and a Robert’s and Bubba’s, but at the end of the day only Bubba’s is directed at the self dealt game.
There are no “dealers hands” in TDA or Robert’s. It’s assumed the dealer is not a player.
Bubba says wind it back and laugh your ass off the whole time and berate the drunk bastard who did this for the next five games.
Fair enough in a home game. Is similar to how I'd treat it at home, assuming it appears it was an honest mistake. Still interested in TDA ruling for formal settings.
This reminds me of a casino 10/20 limit game where someone capped every round and then realised at showdown he had no cards.
 
So many factors here especially that the dealer is dealing for the table and this dealer would never be angling. By the rulebook he loses everything. But he’s dealing for the table and he would never be angling.

At minimum refund river raise, maybe refund all river action, maybe even replay the river with real rivers but some conditions like player 1’s :5x: stay face up and player 1 cannot bet or raise.
 
I would allow the player to take back their exposed cards, rewind the river bets, and deal new rivers. However, I would want to know if the burn card was also retrievable, giving the player-dealer a complete hand. If not, rewind the river bets and fold the player-dealer.

In either circumstance I would issue the player-dealer a warning, and remind him to cap his cards.
 
Unusual. I don't know for certain, but would love to hear the correct official resolution.
My punt: wind back the play and return the hand, deal the correct rivers and resume play. Yes Player #1 would suffer their hand being known but it was also the fault of Player #1.
I'm in the wind it back to the turn and re-deal the river. Dealers exposed cards are his own fault. Get better!
 
Has to be a dead hand right? Since there is no way to prove if he dealt his hand or correctly from the stub? Did he not burn a card? Doesn’t really make sense.
 
Not my preferred ruling, but theoretically by the book:

After all action is completed, player #1 is discovered to have an invalid hand (incorrect number of cards), which is ruled dead.

Pay attention, bro.


It's the only possible ruling that reinforces a no-angling policy. Otherwise it opens the very real possibility of a player hiding hole card(s) and claiming the river card(s) were erroneously dealt from his hand (if he loses), or saying nothing and collecting the pot (if he wins).

This was my initial thought too. But in a home game where angle shooting isn't an issue, I may ask the villain if he's okay with undoing the action.

Edit: Is this from @MrCatPants's game?
Legit question. I assume not, because the dealer didn't pull the 5 5 from his armpit.
 
I have to check if they have such a situation in TDA rules (doubt they would) but I’d imagine that its basically the same as a player exposing his hand in a HU situation, which while discouraged, is technically allowed.
fyi this is what TDA says about that:

TDA Rule 68: Exposing Cards and Proper Folding said:
Exposing cards with action pending, including the current player when last to act, may result in a penalty
 
I’m okay with backing up the action and dealing the correct rivers as long the “Villain” is okay with it as well. Information about villains hand strength was revealed when he bet and called the raise with the wrong rivers. If those cards were key to making his hand that can affect the new river action.

I would also be fine with taking back the river bets and awarding the pot to the Villain.
 
I suggested rolling back the action and dealing the two rivers again, but was over ruled. It wasn't game.

Villain allowed Player 1 to pull the $300 raise back but insisted the $100 stayed and that player 1's hand was dead.

Player 1 did not deal again for the table.

No alcohol involved, simply an honest mistake, no angle, no burn because we don't burn in circus games.

If it were my game, cards are exposed, betting is pulled back and the river is corrected.
 
Pretty stupid that Villain says the $100 has to stay in. What makes that bet different than the $300 raise???
The Elk's are sticklers for rules. I have no idea, he thought he was doing the dealer a favor.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom