Narrowly correct ruling vs. fairest ruling? (2 Viewers)

[Taghkanic]

Large but self-dealt VFW tourney. Seven tables are now down to the final table.

Player 1 goes all in with TT.
Player 2 calls with 99.
All others fold.

An elderly guy is dealing. He burns, then peels the whole flop as a bunch (rather than putting them out one by one) and spreads out…

A four-card flop.

One of them is a 9, giving the underdog his two-outer.

Endless argument ensues about what exactly happened and what to do. Very unfortunately, other players close to the dealer start moving around the four cards to show how they think they came out, and no one can agree what order they appeared or how they came off the deck.

The discards and first burn, at least, have remained separate and undisturbed.

Options debated included:

1. Shuffling the four cards back into the stub and redealing the flop
2. Shuffling just the four cards, dealing three and making the fourth the next burn
3. Killing the hand entirely, giving back the blinds and bets, and starting from scratch

The tourney director (a nice guy, but not really a rules pro) sweats this for a while then rules to shuffle the four cards into the stub, cut it, and have the three flop cards redealt.

The 9 comes right back out, making the whole debate moot.

My question is not just what people’s preferred rule sets say (letter of the law), but also what people think would be the most fair ruling, if that is different in anyone’s mind.

 

[Taghkanic]

FWIW, though this is a large and public tournament, the dynamic is kind of like a giant home game. Almost all the players know each other, and have played together before, and are pretty friendly (with a couple of personal feuds going on at any given time).

Not that that should change anything, rules-wise, but I’ve seen debates here which have taken into account “good for the game” ideas which lean toward maintaining good feeling over strict interpretation of rules. In my own games I’m pretty strict just because trying to make any subjective evaluation about “fairness” creates more problems than it’s worth.

P.S. I had the TT and busted.

 

[Taghkanic]

A guy who was a longtime casino dealer, though almost exclusively for cash, said after that he thought the ruling wasn’t correct — that they should have just picked three randomly from among the four cards flopped to make a new flop. I wasn’t so sure, on the idea that could introduce some weird potential angles (though the elderly dealer was so incompetent in this case that there was no question it was a clumsy accident).

 

[inca911]

You scramble the four cards face down, and then randomly select one that will become the next burn card. This preserves the action as much as possible, which is most “fair”.

 

[Taghkanic]

Yes, that’s what the TDA says… Though I don’t know if that is guaranteed to be the fairest, even if it makes the most common sense.

That certainly would seem to give the bigger chance of replicating the correct flop than shuffling them in with the whole stub.

The one issue I could imagine is if there is more action to come, then the players would know what the second burn card was going forward. Here, we were all-in, so that information wouldn’t give any advantage, however slight.

 

[Taghkanic]

(Lesson: Deal the flop one card at a time, guy.)

 

[Taghkanic]

If it were my game, I would prefer to use the TDA rule, but Roberts Rules for hold ’em (at least the last version I downloaded) says:

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.)​

​

I’ve told players at my game that in the event of a dispute, I’m going to go with Roberts, so I’d be bound by that. But I could be convinced afterward to revise the rules for my game.

(Note: I can’t see why the ruling would be different for a tourney vs. a cash game in this instance, but maybe there would be some fine distinction there.)

 

[BGinGA]

Existing rules aside....

Imo, the fairest approach is to scramble the four exposed cards, and randomly pick one card to be reshuffled back into the deck. The remaining three cards are the new flop.

The advantages of this method are that a) the fourth (now known) card still has a chance of appearing at a later street, and that b) the players have no knowledge of the next burn card.

 

[Taghkanic]

The Foxwoods tournament rule:

39: Four-Card Flop and Premature Cards​

If the flop has 4 rather than 3 cards, exposed or not, the floor will be called. The dealer then scrambles the 4 cards face down, the floor randomly selects one as the next burn card and the other 3 are the flop.​

 

[Taghkanic]

I guess one counterargument could be that if there are four cards on the flop, the dealer may have made any number of dumb errors besides what we assumed here (that he accidentally peeled four off the top of the deck).

Might he actually have taken three cards off the deck, then accidentally placed it on some stray card? Say, one that had been mucked and shoved toward the dealer for collection, or some other card that for whatever reason made it out of the stub?

There are plenty of times in these self-dealt games where cards slip around during the cut, players throw or slide their mucks around in sloppy ways, discards get pulled back by the dealer while players are acting, inexperienced dealers forget to use the cut card, etc.

This is just speculation but I suspect that random scenarios and uncertainties like these are why Roberts went with redealing the flop instead of randomly choosing a burn. By the same token, I’m betting that TDA decided to go with their rule not just because it feels fairer, but that it causes somewhat less uproar among aggrieved players who want one or more of the misflopped cards to count.

 

[KHarp1]

I don't like the shuffle the 4 cards and then pull one and use the remaining 3 as flop, that could directly affect the betting, as in the situation you described. If everyone sees the 9 come out and then on the 4 card shuffle it doesn't come out, the person with 99 now knows he only had one out, in most situations. There's always the chance the board could give them a straight or flush, but, it will change the way people view their betting options. I'd rather put all 4 cards back in the deck, shuffle, and then flop.

 

[upNdown]

Existing rules aside....

Imo, the fairest approach is to scramble the four exposed cards, and randomly pick one card to be reshuffled back into the deck. The remaining three cards are the new flop.

The advantages of this method are that a) the fourth (now known) card still has a chance of appearing at a later street, and that b) the players have no knowledge of the next burn card.

I’d go with this one.
New rule for my home game!

 

[Taghkanic]

Or you could select two, make one the burn, and shuffle one in, then deal two… or…

 

[JustinInMN]

(Lesson: Deal the flop one card at a time, guy.)

The lesson is the burn card should ALWAYS go under the pot. Not sure what you mean by deal "one at a time" but if you burn separately there are other methods of dealing a flop technically that are every bit as accurate.

The book ruling is the fairest for a reason. You know you have 4 cards and 3 of which SHOULD be the flop. The stub is correct in any case, no reason to alter it.

If there is uncertainty, randomly selecting the burn card means each of the four possible flops are equally likely.

The ruling that was made was grossly unfair to the player with 99 in this sense. If there was a 75% of a 9 on that flop among the known cards shuffling it all on the stub is obviously to that player's disadvantage instead of using 3 of the 4 known possible cards.

 

[BGinGA]

Or you could select two, make one the burn, and shuffle one in, then deal two… or…

Making any of them the burn card eliminates any chance of a possible misdealt board card from ever appearing.

 

[Colquhoun]

The lesson is the burn card should ALWAYS go under the pot. Not sure what you mean by deal "one at a time" but if you burn separately there are other methods of dealing a flop technically that are every bit as accurate.

The book ruling is the fairest for a reason. You know you have 4 cards and 3 of which SHOULD be the flop. The stub is correct in any case, no reason to alter it.

If there is uncertainty, randomly selecting the burn card means each of the four possible flops are equally likely.

The ruling that was made was grossly unfair to the player with 99 on a sense. If there was a 75% of a 9 on that flop among the known cards shuffling it all on the stub is obviously to that player's disadvantage.

I think the deal “one a a time” was because the dealer here just grabbed what he thought was 3 cards off the top of the stub and turned them over.
The proper way is either peel off one card and place it on the board, then go back and peel another, etc….or, deal 3 cards separately face down, then flip the 3 together. No chance of 4 cards hitting the board when done either way.

 

[upNdown]

The stub is correct in any case, no reason to alter it.

You mean the random stack of cards is perfectly random at that point and it should not be altered to become imperfectly random?

 

[BGinGA]

Obv answer is obv -- play it out with four flops.

 

[Taghkanic]

Not sure what you mean by deal "one at a time"

I meant don’t peel the three burn cards from the deck as a bunch in the air, and then toss them over together, at least if you’re not used to dealing.

Pretty sure in this case the old guy did that—slid what he thought were three cards into his hand and tossed them over, but managed to grab a fourth.

I’m fine with dealing the three cards one at a time, face down, then flipping them over (like many casino and televised game dealers), if that’s what you meant.

As long as the cards are placed one at a time initially so the dealer is sure how many he’s got.

I think amateurs are best off doing it the clunky inelegant way — peel
a card, flip it over, place it on the felt, then repeat twice more. It just means fewer errors.

I do think either the stub or four-card ruling is OK, for the reasons above; once the mistake is made there is no perfect resolution.

I’d prefer the select one to shuffle back, keep three method as long as there is reasonable confidence the person really got all four off the top of the deck.

 

[moose]

(Lesson: Deal the flop one card at a time, guy.)

I think the deal “one a a time” was because the dealer here just grabbed what he thought was 3 cards off the top of the stub and turned them over.
The proper way is either peel off one card and place it on the board, then go back and peel another, etc….or, deal 3 cards separately face down, then flip the 3 together. No chance of 4 cards hitting the board when done either way.

I meant don’t peel the three burn cards from the deck as a bunch in the air, and then toss them over together, at least if you’re not used to dealing.

Pretty sure in this case the old guy did that—slid what he thought were three cards into his hand and tossed them over, but managed to grab a fourth.

I’m fine with dealing the three cards one at a time, face down, then flipping them over (like many casino and televised game dealers), if that’s what you meant.

As long as the cards are placed one at a time initially so the dealer is sure how many he’s got.

I think amateurs are best off doing it the clunky inelegant way — peel
a card, flip it over, place it on the felt, then repeat twice more. It just means fewer errors.

I do think either the stub or four-card ruling is OK, for the reasons above; once the mistake is made there is no perfect resolution.

I’d prefer the select one to shuffle back, keep three method as long as there is reasonable confidence the person really got all four off the top of the deck.

Correct procedure is to deal three cards one at a time facedown and flip them over simultaneously so that no reads may be gained from any player reacting to any single card.

 

[JustinInMN]

The proper way is either peel off one card and place it on the board, then go back and peel another, etc….or, deal 3 cards separately face down, then flip the 3 together. No chance of 4 cards hitting the board when done either way.

I meant don’t peel the three burn cards from the deck as a bunch in the air, and then toss them over together, at least if you’re not used to dealing.

Pretty sure in this case the old guy did that—slid what he thought were three cards into his hand and tossed them over, but managed to grab a fourth.

I’m fine with dealing the three cards one at a time, face down, then flipping them over (like many casino and televised game dealers), if that’s what you meant.

I gotcha, and yes, my method is to burn under the pot and then put 3 face down one at a time, and turn. Never make a mistake that way.

I do think either the stub or four-card ruling is OK, for the reasons above; once the mistake is made there is no perfect resolution.

I suppose if consistent either is okay. I do think the whole stub is the only possible resolution on the event of a prematurely dealt flop. (But that is a distinct issue.) But it does seem to make sense that if you know a flop was supposed to be 3 of 4 cards, it should be selected from those 4 cards.

I’d prefer the select one to shuffle back, keep three method as long as there is reasonable confidence the person really got all four off the top of the deck.

I agree with this.

 

[JustinInMN]

You mean the random stack of cards is perfectly random at that point and it should not be altered to become imperfectly random?

You know where this argument goes if I take it to it's absurd conclusion, right?

 

[JustinInMN]

If it were my game, I would prefer to use the TDA rule, but Roberts Rules for hold ’em (at least the last version I downloaded) says:

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.)​

​

I’ve told players at my game that in the event of a dispute, I’m going to go with Roberts, so I’d be bound by that. But I could be convinced afterward to revise the rules for my game.

(Note: I can’t see why the ruling would be different for a tourney vs. a cash game in this instance, but maybe there would be some fine distinction there.)

I appreciate you bringing this up. I had not noticed this discrepancy and as my house rules rely on Robert's for cash and TDA for tournament, I am going to put the tda rule in for cash games in my list of modifications.

 

[allforcharity]

You know where this argument goes if I take it to it's absurd conclusion, right?

You eat a hot dog sandwich?

 

[casinochipper22]

Never make a mistake that way.

you would be surprised. Even dealers following procedure still manage to efff things up. Fat fingers and lazy dealers still find a way to put four cards out on the flop, even while following that procedure. one thing I noticed that prevents a lot of two cards coming out at the same time is peeling the top card off with your deck hand before you grab it with your pitching hand. Its a little more sloppy and lazy and error prone to peel the top card off with only your pitching hand. the same dealers who put out four card flops, will often pitch two cards at the same time while dealing out the hole cards.

 

[casinochipper22]

No chance of 4 cards hitting the board when done either way.

whoops, tagged the wrong comment

you would be surprised. Even dealers following procedure still manage to efff things up. Fat fingers and lazy dealers still find a way to put four cards out on the flop, even while following that procedure. one thing I noticed that prevents a lot of two cards coming out at the same time is peeling the top card off with your deck hand before you grab it with your pitching hand. Its a little more sloppy and lazy and error prone to peel the top card off with only your pitching hand. the same dealers who put out four card flops, will often pitch two cards at the same time while dealing out the hole cards.

 

[JustinInMN]

you would be surprised. Even dealers following procedure still manage to efff things up. Fat fingers and lazy dealers still find a way to put four cards out on the flop, even while following that procedure. one thing I noticed that prevents a lot of two cards coming out at the same time is peeling the top card off with your deck hand before you grab it with your pitching hand. Its a little more sloppy and lazy and error prone to peel the top card off with only your pitching hand. the same dealers who put out four card flops, will often pitch two cards at the same time while dealing out the hole cards.

I do have a hard time believing this because I think we have had at most one four card flop in the home game, and we readily identified the wrong card. I have never seen this error in casino play anywhere.

 

[casinochipper22]

I do have a hard time believing this because I think we have had at most one four card flop in the home game, and we readily identified the wrong card. I have never seen this error in casino play anywhere.

i've seen and heard a lot over the years. We should have a "rulings" section in PCF where we can talk about this stuff. I use to deal/floor and it was fun talking about random shit like this that happens. Whenever a random ruling happened in our room, we would usually include it in the shift report and then have to go over it with all the other floor so we were all on the same page. This one came up a few times.

I've been out of the casino for a few years now, so when I hang out with my poker buddies who are still working, the first thing I ask them about are the recent rulings they have made on the job. It's fun to discuss.

 

[upNdown]

You know where this argument goes if I take it to it's absurd conclusion, right?

I don’t.

 

[Lee4711]

The lesson is the burn card should ALWAYS go under the pot. Not sure what you mean by deal "one at a time" but if you burn separately there are other methods of dealing a flop technically that are every bit as accurate.

The book ruling is the fairest for a reason. You know you have 4 cards and 3 of which SHOULD be the flop. The stub is correct in any case, no reason to alter it.

If there is uncertainty, randomly selecting the burn card means each of the four possible flops are equally likely.

The ruling that was made was grossly unfair to the player with 99 in this sense. If there was a 75% of a 9 on that flop among the known cards shuffling it all on the stub is obviously to that player's disadvantage instead of using 3 of the 4 known possible cards.

This seems like a sound logic to me