Maybe. But I joined this game in the Fall of 2008 iirc, when someone else hosted it, and have yet to see a blowup across all those years and four venues.
Poker etiquette (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter joseywales
- Start date
Maybe. But I joined this game in the Fall of 2008 iirc, when someone else hosted it, and have yet to see a blowup across all those years and four venues.
And if someone ever did blow up in my tourney, I would hand them back their buy in and politely show them the door.
Jambine
Full House
I ask because I want to be sure that the ARE rules. Specific, codified rules
Otherwise, it's anything goes..... whatever the hosts wants to do...... or group-think, even when its wrong. There are valid reasons that rules exist, and why responsible hosts (home game, serious game, or casino) have them at their disposal.
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
I do have several issues that I try to check before sitting in a game.
1) Is there a bet line? How does it work?
2) Is there a forward motion = bet/raise rule?
3) I got a hand full of chips, does that mean they are all required to bet?
4) Is verbal binding over physical action?
5) Is an out of turn bet binding? Always or only without a change in the action?
6) How do straddles and / or sleeper bets work?
7) anything special about the game I should know?
8) if it is an "old men's" game, it might be wise to ask about check raises.
A number of these questions also apply to casino games, especially the questions about betting lines / forward motion / handful of chips. Sometimes the rules printed on the walls answer these, sometimes not so much.
Better to ask than get caught by surprise -=- DrStrange.
1) Is there a bet line? How does it work?
2) Is there a forward motion = bet/raise rule?
3) I got a hand full of chips, does that mean they are all required to bet?
4) Is verbal binding over physical action?
5) Is an out of turn bet binding? Always or only without a change in the action?
6) How do straddles and / or sleeper bets work?
7) anything special about the game I should know?
8) if it is an "old men's" game, it might be wise to ask about check raises.
A number of these questions also apply to casino games, especially the questions about betting lines / forward motion / handful of chips. Sometimes the rules printed on the walls answer these, sometimes not so much.
Better to ask than get caught by surprise -=- DrStrange.
You’re still dodging the question. What are you concerned will happen? That you will think you won a pot, then the host says “Sorry, in our game three pair beats a flush”?
But if it makes you happy, I will formally adopt whatever rules you send me. If you like, send me The Mickey Mouse Club 1965 Handbook. In the unheard-of event that a dispute arises which cannot be resolved without pulling out the rules, I will be delighted to inform the table that to win at showdown, you must (a reveal two cards and (b) sing “Chim-Chim Cheree” in a childlike falsetto.
No one was lectured, for the thousandth time. You’re just trolling now, guy-who posts-so-often it is a wonder you ever have time to play poker...
All good considerations, IMHO. But these are questions I usually get answered at a home game just by watching, or by asking casually here and there between hands. I don’t come in and barrage the host with questions.
Jambine
Full House
I'm concerned that I might be in a game with no set rules. That any irregularity is subject to ruling by popular opinion, or some other subjective standard or whim or "thats the way we have always done it"
Actually, I'm not trolling, I just thought it was funny, although a bit sarcastic. And appropriately accurate. I believe the term you used to describe what happened was "chided", which means scolded or rebuked, and is a synonym for lectured.
The reason for having a good set of rules at one's disposal is not to cover any specific things that you are concerned may happen, but those situations for which most people are unprepared. In other words, I'm concerned that ~something~ will happen beyond the normal scope of play, for which nobody -- including me, as TD or host -- has an instant recall answer.
Here are some examples of ruling issues that have occurred at either my home game or games attended by other forum members. All were tournament events:
- Dealer has dealt the flop, post-flop action has ensued (a bet, a couple of folds, and a call) and as action approaches the dealer, he is found shuffling the deck stub, including the mucked cards and the flop burn card (not paying attention, he mistakenly thought the hand was over on the second fold). How do you rule?
- Dealer is dealing the flop -- burns one card, flops, and flips them over..... but there are four cards face-up on the table. The order of the four cards as they came off the deck is clear (in other words, the fourth card - which should have been the burn card - is exposed as the fourth board card, no question. How do you rule?
- Pre-flop action is folded around to the blinds, and the short-stacked small blind player moves all-in. The big blind covers, and calls. Both players flip over their hands, and the small blind has an Ace and a Joker (he had peeked, seen the Ace, and shoved). How do you rule?
- Pre-flop action: UTG calls and it folds around to late middle-position player who moves all-in, getting only a call from the button, who covers. Everybody else folds. Chips go in the pot, and all-in player tables A J while Button tables A K K (he had previously looked at his hand, and only saw AK - the second King was stuck to the first one). How do you rule?
- Pre-flop action is folded around to the blinds, and the short-stacked small blind player moves all-in. The big blind looks at his hand, which contains three cards. How do you rule?
- Pre-flop action is folded around to the button, who raises. The small bind folds, and the big blind looks at his hand, which contains a joker. How do you rule?
- Assume all six scenarios above occurred in a cash game, rather than during tournament play. How does this affect any of your rulings above?
Honor system, please. No fair looking up the answers.
Jambine
Full House
You mean irregularities? I have heard of those. Are you saying there are specific resolutions already spelled out somewhere?
Already addressed. I don’t have as pejorative a sense of that word as you do... speaking as someone who gets paid to write. Of course you are entitled to your understanding of language. It remains that it was not used in the sense you insist upon.
This is reasonable. Of course, things occur which are out of the ordinary. But this is not something that causes me to lose sleep as a host, or feel the need to call Judge Judy to make a decision among warring neighbors.
It’s a freaking home game among friends, not the courtroom scene of A Few Good Men. Big arguments over rules just don’t happen here, because the players are mature adults who aren’t playing for life-changing stakes. The group of guys knows and trusts each other, which means nothing can happen which can’t be resolved amicably and fairly—and without everyone pulling out poker rules which, in themselves, invite debate even when well-written. People are more than capable of pulling out their phones and googling Roberts or TDA; but it doesn’t happen.
I had 15 guys here last night, most of them well over the age of 40, and one a retired judge going on 82, who has been playing cards since he a young man in the service. There was more than three centuries of poker experience (and a lot more life experience) in the room. The guys here are not going to be flummoxed by, say, the dealer shuffling the stub, or a turn card dealt prematurely, or a boxed card appearing in the deck, or any of the other not-that-unusual situations raised in your attempt to administer a pop quiz. (If you really have some deep emotional need for my specific answers, I can do that.)
Most importantly, and as I’m sure you must know from considering various rule sets, all of the commonly-used, standard rule sets contain language which says that at the end of the day, the host/house can make rulings outside the letter of the law for the good of the game’s ecosystem. As I recall, Roberts says that the host/house can make always make decisions using their best judgement in the best interest of the game and can resolve unspecified/tricky situations in as fair a way as possible. This means that whatever is written in your preferred rules, those can still be overridden.
So even if you play in a room wallpapered with your ruleset, there still could be times when those hard rules may be disregarded at the host/house’s discretion to maintain order and good feeling in their game. (At the very worst, if a true mess occurred where multiple errors and obscure problems occurred, personally I would rather have everyone pull back their bets and the hand voided than have someone feel bitter about a ruling. But it wouldn’t even get to that.)
For example, one of our regulars is colorblind. If he pushes in a bet containing the wrong denomination chip by mistake, because he can’t distinguish red and green, no one is going to be like, “Too bad, you pushed in those chips, rules say you are committed to that amount.” (Usually he is carefully to verbalize his bets.)
If someone thinks a game is run unfairly, or the host biased, they don’t have to play there. The longevity of this game for about a decade, with a strong core of regulars, gives me confidence that we’re doing something right.
Last edited:
Yes, I would be interested in hearing your rulings, just as a barometer of how it might go in a setting without established rules from which to draw guidance. No biggie if you prefer not. Don't plan on any bashing, right or wrong.
I understand why the guys are giving you shit about rules - I think it's necessary to have a specific set of rules you can fall back on - if not, you do risk having decisions made by majority vote or by an arbitrary host decision - bad idea.
On the other hand, published rules aren't perfect. Often the trickiest of rulings - the one's that draw you to the rule book - are ones where multiple rules COULD be applied, or perhaps a combination of rules. And then sometimes there's stuff that there just isn't a rule for.
So I think you're whistling past the graveyard if you don't have a designated rule book you can fall back on. But like most things in life, a rule book won't be 100% fool-proof.
On the other hand, published rules aren't perfect. Often the trickiest of rulings - the one's that draw you to the rule book - are ones where multiple rules COULD be applied, or perhaps a combination of rules. And then sometimes there's stuff that there just isn't a rule for.
So I think you're whistling past the graveyard if you don't have a designated rule book you can fall back on. But like most things in life, a rule book won't be 100% fool-proof.
Ask and it shall be given...
Advance Note: After each of these questions, you ask, “How do you rule?”
The global answer in each situation is: I don’t, unless the guys involved in the hand truly can’t sort it out, and the table is in an uproar, and a ruling gets specifically demanded.
As host, I am seldom if ever asked for a unilateral ruling. I can’t remember the last time it occurred. All such situations are approached first as a discussion among friends... Not as me playing Zeus, raining down lightning bolts from the mountaintop.
I’ll always err on the side of a resolution which (a) the group agrees is fair, and (b) which can be applied uniformly if the same situation crops up again. “My” players know the game well, and mistakes/debates get resolved as mature adults.
Moreover, though the game now occurs in my house, there is a sense of communal ownership of it, since this has floated over nearly a decade across four venues. The previous hosts are all still in our game. If I do a bad job, I’d expect the guys to take the game away from me, and move it to one of their houses instead.
We play not just for money, but pleasure. From the tone of some comments here, I’m not so sure that fun and friendship is part of everyone’s home game. If so, what a shame.
So! Just to keep BG fed, happy and satisfied:
Since action has occurred, the hand should continue as best as can be managed given the (really, really annoying) dealer screwup.
My own preference would be, first, in a friendly home game, for the players who folded to privately tell the dealer what they had, to pull those cards before reshuffling and cutting the deck. I would trust my crowd to do that; in a casino setting, na ga happen. If that can’t be done, all of the down cards would remain in play, reshuffled and cut, and the hand would proceed as normal.
Also, I rule that the dealer needs to be reprimanded for his habit of smoking a joint outside during every break.
If the order is truly clear, I see no reason why the burn card would not remain the burn card. The burn should be brought to everyone’s attention, so everyone still in the hand has the same benefit of knowing what the card was, then turned back down. The hand then proceeds normally.
Also, I rule that the dealer is required to do 50 one-armed push-ups.
My ruling would be that the host is careless and incompetent, and should be fired.
If somehow a joker were in play in my game, that would be 100% my fault as host. So I would not like to see either player to be screwed over by something I failed to prevent, even though technically the small blind had a responsibility for not looking at his hand before acting.
Sidenote on hosting: I don’t know about you, but I literally tear up and throw away all jokers/promotional cards as soon as I get new decks in the mail, days before any players arrive. I wish they weren’t even included in decks anymore. They’re just a PITA. I check both new and used decks rigorously, both for correctness and for card condition, replacing any damaged/scuffed cards well in advance of each game.
This can be avoided by being well prepared—for instance, by never needing to open any totally spanking-new decks during a game. If you have plenty of pre-inspected decks of both colors (we play two decks per table, shuffling ahead, to speed things up) ready in addition to those on the tables, you will be good. I have an extra deck of each color for each of my two tables, to replace bad cards, plus one extra set between the two just to be safe in case a deck for some weird reason has to be completely swapped out.
That said... and anticipating that this answer may not quite satisfy all literal-minded pedants among us: In the hand, action has occurred, and narrowly speaking, IMHO the player with the Joker has a dead hand—if the others want to be stickler about it.
But if a ruling were needed, I would prefer to void the hand entirely, because the original screw-up was mine. The host blew it long before the player did by only peeking. I’d prefer that the shoves get pulled back, the deck inspected, and the table redealt from scratch as a new hand. It wasn’t supposed to happen, so it shouldn’t.
A Zero Tolerance approach would be to blame the player with the joker for not looking. I suppose a very creative solution splitting the difference might be for the player with the joker to be supplied with a second card to replace the joker off the top of the deck once the board has been run. But that would be… well, very creative.
If the two players turned over something like A-Joker and QQ, and they agreed to run it out, with the one guy playing the lone ace… and there were no objections from the room, I wouldn’t get in the way of it running it. It’s between them. And if nothing else, it would be a hand people would talk about for a long time. Because we actually try to have fun in our game, not lawyer each other to death.
Also, I rule that the host is required as a penalty to yodel “The Lonely Goatherd” from the Sound of Music.
Since all that action occurred, a narrow ruling would be that this is not a misdeal, and the AKK hand is dead. AJ takes it down.
But—consistent with all other comments about home games and aiming for amicability, as above with Jokers, our game tends to treat these situations as first and foremost a matter for the players in the hand to decide. If they both want to treat the whole hand as void, and no one else is too scandalized by that, I wouldn’t get in the middle. If they even agreed to say, randomly pick one of the two Ks as the card in play, I again would not consider it my business to object, unless it was causing a more general dispute.
I know that will send some purists into a tizzy, but once again: Home game. Friends. Interest of the game ecosystem, both in the short and the long run.
Also, I rule that the player with the AKK hand is required to do an impression of Bill the Cat.
That’s a much simpler situation, to my mind, because the big blind has not acted. Action has occurred, but the big blind hasn’t acted, so the big blind’s hand is dead. Small blind takes the pot.
Also, I rule that the dealer must gargle salt water while running around the table three times.
See above, the difference being that the big blind has not acted, so it’s a little easier to sort out.
Plus, I rule that the host must commit seppuku for his disgraceful negligence, which has brought such shame upon this family.
The specific situations you raise don’t, to my mind, differ betwen cash and tourneys that I notice at first glance. Maybe I am missing something, which you will enlighten me about.
Obviously, there are differences in other situations (e.g., whether someone who has called an all-in has to show his hand in cash vs. a tournament). So some of the scenarios you set forth might have played out slightly differently, and caused more friction, since errors (e.g. the stuck-together kings) might not have been discovered at the same stage.
Now, it’s you’re big chance to further enlighten and lecture me about my friendly, long-running home game, if I have caused any offense to you as Poker God by running a solid, stable, well-established, friendly game.
But not before I rule that you must post a video proving how many hot dogs you can swallow in 60 seconds.
P.S. I will pose one question in return: If, say, you go out to play tennis or golf with friends, do you bring along a rulebook? And a compass? And MREs, in case war breaks out? Like the unholy spawn of Urkel and Ned Flanders? Just wondering.
Last edited:
Jambine
Full House
After reading all those rulings (and non-rulings), it is clear that you need to adopt some specific rules (and use them).
(1) Still waiting for you to specify what rules you use, and what is off in anything I’ve said. Post or send them by DM. Otherwise, you’re just taking potshots with no backup. And it’s lame.
(2) Unless you specify exactly which of your rules goes against any the above, you’re just blustering.
(3) If we ever did get stuck, all of us could pull out our phones and pull up TDA/Roberts/other common rulesets, cite them, and take the discussion from there. Then resolve it like mature adults. It wouldn’t really matter what we picked, because there are virtually no points of disagreement among them.
(4) You still seem to be missing the broader point: We don’t have disputes or rule issues. Debates are resolved sensibly, based on accrued poker knowledge, fairness, and to the group’s satisfaction. And, as noted in the *very first item* of the TDA, ultimately every single narrow rule can be broken if the host/director believes it is the right decision for that particular moment:
1: Floor Decisions: The best interest of the game and fairness are top priorities in decision-making. Unusual circumstances occasionally dictate that common-sense decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over technical rules.
This is 100% consistent with the above. Both I as host and the group as a whole protects the integrity and fairness of our game.
(5) Maybe you spend a lot of time trying to fix stuff that ain’t broke; I don’t.
Or maybe your players deal very sloppily, don’t know the game, and frequently get into fights, so you have to pull out a rule book all the time. Or maybe you’re just dodging specifics to be a pissant.
Last edited:
P.S. I’d like to propose something constructive: Those who have strong feelings about rules might want to work toward an official/unofficial PCF ruleset.
Start a new thread, and post your preferred rules, so then people can comment, propose changes, come to a consensus, etc. (I assume nothing like this exists already, or one of the Rule Nazis would have already pointed us there, but if it does please do say so.) Personally, I would go with HPT’s guidelines, which are basically Roberts+.
I’ll be glad to adopt those as my home game rules, if it makes anyone feel better.
Start a new thread, and post your preferred rules, so then people can comment, propose changes, come to a consensus, etc. (I assume nothing like this exists already, or one of the Rule Nazis would have already pointed us there, but if it does please do say so.) Personally, I would go with HPT’s guidelines, which are basically Roberts+.
I’ll be glad to adopt those as my home game rules, if it makes anyone feel better.
Steve Birrer
Two Pair
So Tag I have a question on your answer to this one.
Pre-flop action is folded around to the blinds, and the short-stacked small blind player moves all-in. The big blind looks at his hand, which contains three cards. How do you rule?
You said the ruling is that the BB has a dead hand. So how is that equitable? The BB has done nothing incorrect at this point. To be consistent with other responses why wouldn't you rule that the blinds just take their blinds back and the hand is redealt? This ruling punishes the BB for the dealers mistake.
The rest of your answers seem to go to the reasonable and fair end result but this one seems different, to me anyway.
Pre-flop action is folded around to the blinds, and the short-stacked small blind player moves all-in. The big blind looks at his hand, which contains three cards. How do you rule?
You said the ruling is that the BB has a dead hand. So how is that equitable? The BB has done nothing incorrect at this point. To be consistent with other responses why wouldn't you rule that the blinds just take their blinds back and the hand is redealt? This ruling punishes the BB for the dealers mistake.
The rest of your answers seem to go to the reasonable and fair end result but this one seems different, to me anyway.
Well, though I’m not here to answer 70,000 questions, I’ll try to explain my understanding and answer on this one. If I’m mistaken, I’ll be glad to be corrected—with specifics, not just some vague variation on “you’re wrong and terrible, because I say so.” <tm Jambine>
As I understand things, the time to correct a misdeal is before action is taken on the hand. Per Roberts, but also pretty much every other serious ruleset I have ever read,
“Once action begins, a misdeal cannot be called.”
The big blind had an opportunity while others ahead of him folded to the SB, and the SB considered his decision, to alert the dealer that s/he was dealt too many cards. (The question did not note how many people were in the hand, but I am assuming from the way it was worded that it was at least four, and maybe more, since it said “folded around.”)
Sure, many players don’t peek until the action comes to them, but checking whether you were dealt in properly with the right number of cards is a responsibility players need to take upon themselves, IMHO. You can see how many cards you have without looking at them.
Since it’s too late for a misdeal, and the player obviously can’t call with three cards, and they haven’t put anything in the pot except their big blind, it seems to me by both standard poker rules and common sense, making their hand dead and giving the SB the pot (which consists of nothing but one big blind) is both the correct and least unfair option among all others.
If however—remembering that this is our friendly home game—the SB were to say, “well, forget it, just keep your blind and let’s start the hand over,” I wouldn’t get in the way of that, for all the reasons already stated above.
If there were bets/raises before the SB shoved, things would seem slightly more complicated, since the hand would really have to proceed with the BB forfeiting their hand without any chance to act. But that seems a relatively minor penalty.
From a standpoint of basic fairness/good of the game, this is seems quite distinct from times when there is something fundamentally wrong with the whole game like the host allowing jokers into the decks, where the issue is so basic and out of the players’ control as to become a no fault situation.
ctually, I'm not trolling, I just thought it was funny, although a bit sarcastic. And appropriately accurate. I believe the term you used to describe what happened was "chided", which means scolded or rebuked, and is a synonym for lectured.
The reason for having a good set of rules at one's disposal is not to cover any specific things that you are concerned may happen, but those situations for which most people are unprepared. In other words, I'm concerned that ~something~ will happen beyond the normal scope of play, for which nobody -- including me, as TD or host -- has an instant recall answer.
Here are some examples of ruling issues that have occurred at either my home game or games attended by other forum members. All were tournament events:
OK Can i throw my hat in the ring - i really want to know if im on the right track.
- Dealer has dealt the flop, post-flop action has ensued (a bet, a couple of folds, and a call) and as action approaches the dealer, he is found shuffling the deck stub, including the mucked cards and the flop burn card (not paying attention, he mistakenly thought the hand was over on the second fold). How do you rule?
- Dealer is dealing the flop -- burns one card, flops, and flips them over..... but there are four cards face-up on the table. The order of the four cards as they came off the deck is clear (in other words, the fourth card - which should have been the burn card - is exposed as the fourth board card, no question. How do you rule
- Pre-flop action is folded around to the blinds, and the short-stacked small blind player moves all-in. The big blind covers, and calls. Both players flip over their hands, and the small blind has an Ace and a Joker (he had peeked, seen the Ace, and shoved). How do you rule?
- Pre-flop action: UTG calls and it folds around to late middle-position player who moves all-in, getting only a call from the button, who covers. Everybody else folds. Chips go in the pot, and all-in player tables A J while Button tables A K K (he had previously looked at his hand, and only saw AK - the second King was stuck to the first one). How do you rule?
- Pre-flop action is folded around to the blinds, and the short-stacked small blind player moves all-in. The big blind looks at his hand, which contains three cards. How do you rule?
- it has to be a dead hand You could reconstitute it but can you be sure he hasn't changed the order of the cards? Also the all in now is at a total disadvantage if you chose to re constitute the hand it means then all in did not have all of the info the other hand has to make a decision. if you reconstitute the hand the only way to be fair is the let the all in decide about his all in with all the info the 3 card had has. now that is a cluster... your in a worse position ad TD if you wnt down that route. it jsut has to be dead. i cant see a way out.
- by the way the decks that have the joker in them only indicates the TD isn't doing his job very well. What gives there?
- A few tips here. all my jokers get folded over so they can never be used then, they go in the bin the instant the deck is opened. Learn to hate jokers kill them on sight. Count the cards before the game. Fan them out to check there are no jokers.
- Pre-flop action is folded around to the button, who raises. The small bind folds, and the big blind looks at his hand, which contains a joker. How do you rule? tainted deck kill hand move on. Later, when there is a quiet moment with you and the TD, have a robust conversation to the TD on what his responsibilities are.
- Assume all six scenarios above occurred in a cash game, rather than during tournament play. How does this affect any of your rulings above?
my thoughts are for 1 no change
2 no change
3 no change
4 is questionable. you could re constitute the hand so if there was one that may be different its this one. but i would still rule the same way at this point because i don't know any different.
Was that a trick question? if not can you explain where are cash game rules different to tourney rules? and if possible explain why?
Honor system, please. No fair looking up the answers.
My point exactly.
On the other points, I agree that the “best interest of the game” general rule can always be invoked—although overusing it kind of defeats the point of having rules.
That said, the overarching rule (not unique to Roberts) about an action having been taken also applies in most of the examples. So even with rules, you are going to have some gray areas.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2014
- Messages
- 2,136
- Reaction score
- 2,342
- Location
- Northern NJ and NY/Long Island Areas
I haven't read all the posts in this thread, however, I will add my two cents regarding the aboves..
If I were invited to a home game tournament, it would bother me if "Joel & Vinny" across the table, get to decide themselves to pull their bets back, or get a 2nd shot at a new hand, or not.... ( But I'd probably keep it to myself)..
I've been to the occasional game where due to lax/ rules, others "got away" with doing something I would never consider ( " we all know Charlie meant to bet 500, so it's OK ..) .. So Charlie that time gets to toss out a 500 without saying "raise" & it's not a call, for him..
I've even made that mistake in the past, but even though I wish I had said raise, I kept my mouth shut , or even clarified that it was & had to be, a call, if the next player looked at the chip and asked what the bet was ..
I'm with @Jambine about simply having some rules at the game, & not 'winging it, or thinking grabbing a cellphone to try and find/look up something on the spot, , if ever needed is good...
My games are also friendly home type games, but I have created a printed set of rules, mostly standard, but a better fit "customized" to fit with my home games & address things, they are printed and sit on a side table ( most players have never read thru them, we just "play Poker"), but they are there. Rulings are still generally made on the spot, based on these rules, it doesn't mean that every situation requires the rule sheets to come out, ( I don't think I've ever had to go that far), but they are there, & I occasionally have printed out extras if people want to take a set home & read them ..
I've posted them in the past , & have said anyone can feel free to use or modify them to fit their needs.
Here's a link:
https://justpaste.it/167q3
:
Last edited:
Jambine
Full House
You got me, I surrender.
I've been playing poker since I was about 10 years old. I first started dealing in casinos in 1977.
After all these years you have convinced me that a specific set of rules are not needed.
First, let me say I am no Matt Savage, although I am a member of the TDA and have passed their certification test.
One by one:
1. Complete the current round of betting. Shuffle the stub, cut and continue with turn and river as usual.
2. If the flop has 4 cards, the dealer should scramble the 4 cards face down, and have another player randomly select one as the next burn card. The remaining three cards become the flop. This should always be done in this manner whether or not you think the proper order of the cards can be reconstructed.
3. Since there has been substantial action, the small blind's hand is dead and the big blind is awarded the pot.
The opportunity to correct the error was before substantial action had occurred. It is always the players responsibility to confirm he has a valid hand. Had he discovered the joker before substantial action, then the card would be replaced the same as if it were a boxed card. Substantial action is any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot, or any combination of three actions in turn including checks, bets, raises, calls or folds.
4. Same as #3. The button's hand is dead and the pot is awarded to the middle-position player.
5. Same as #3. The big blind's hand is dead and the pot is awarded to the small blind.
6. Same as $3. The big blind's hand is dead and the pot is awarded to the button.
7. IMO, no change in any of the scenarios. However, local casino cash game rules often vary from TDA tournament rules.
The most common thing I hear in our local games it wasn't the player's fault he had too many cards (or the joker as above). However, it is ALWAYS the players responsibility to confirm he has the correct number of cards before substantial action has occurred.
Roberts Rules says you need to deal a new flop. Does Roberts Rules vary with other sources in this regard, or is that just your personal ruling?
That is the Tournament Director Association's rule.
Rule 39: Four-Card Flops 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. For prematurely dealt cards, see Recommended Procedure 5.
FYI, they now have an app so that you can have the TDA rules at your fingertips.
Have you been playing poker well? Are you a good dealer? Age does not necessarily confer wisdom. I know some old card players who are still as terrible as the day they started. And a lot of bad dealers, too. Not saying you’re one, but the raw numbers alone don’t mean much to me. ;^)
And, as has been stated many times here (A) we don’t have the problems in our game that others seem to, and (B) if we need to reference rules to settle something, their are lots of them out there, available in seconds on any of our phones, and there are few significant differences among them.
(C) After all of this, you *still* haven’t specified which rules you prefer and use. I’d love to know, since you have been playing cards for decades.
Last edited:
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.
Similar threads
