Cash Game Premature burn and turn, weird alternative? (1 Viewer)

[JustinInMN]

1-1 NLHE,

We had a premature burn and turn before the flop action closed in a game I played last night.

We proceeded by the book. Both Robert's and TDA call for completing the action, burning and turning the river in the turn's place. As a rules wonk myself, that is just standard procedure.

However, one guy in the game suggested the following and seemed so sure he was right I want to share it with you guys.

So he insisted the right procedure is to burn and turn the river face down on the board. Then shuffle the exposed card in the stub and deal the turn.

I have never heard of this, but he was so sure he was right I would think it has to have been used somewhere. Anyone else hear of this? Do you think this has some merit?

 

[Payback]

Nope, he is incorrect. The old river becomes the new turn. After action has closed on the turn shuffle everything up, and deal out the river card.

What's the point of a burn card if you place them on the table on their backs for everyone to look at prior to the river? Not to mention someone could muck a hand into the board.... Just thinking about it this way gives me nightmares.

FYI, every casino I've ever played at, which is a lot does it the way you did.

 

[JustinInMN]

Nope, he is incorrect. The old river becomes the new turn. After action has closed on the turn shuffle everything up, and deal out the river card.

What's the point of a burn card if you place them on the table on their backs for everyone to look at prior to the river?

Agreed on both counts, but he is just so sure, this has to be a rule that's in use somewhere. I am just wondering if anyone else has heard of it.

 

[JustinInMN]

I could see an argument that if there is some merit in preserving the board at all (which I know is a topic on which we have spilled plenty of digital ink), maybe setting aside the river makes sense in such a way to prevent the spying the back of thr actual river card?

 

[Rhodeman77]

I played in a home game that did as the other guy described it. Their reasoning being that it kept the integrity of the true river in place. I never liked it and thought it was stupid for the same reason @Payback said. why would you want a card just sitting on the table for so long? It could get exposed or have mucked cards get mixed with it. But it wasn’t my game and everyone excepted it. Thankfully it rarely happened,

 

[BGinGA]

I think it's a reasonable solution (although I dislike the premature dealing of down cards on the board), and have seen it used in the past.

In RROP v11, the rules dictate the procedure that you actually used, but Bob Ciaffone also adds this explanation (Section 16) outlining what he feels is a better procedure:

The present method for handling a premature dealing on the turn is used to have what would have been the last board-card used on the turn, and not reshuffling the deck until just before the last card is dealt. This method has four-fifths of the boardcards remaining the same, albeit in a different order. It would be better to reshuffle before the turn, preserving the chance of receiving the prematurely dealt card on either of the last two cards, as opposed to cutting that chance in half. The superiority of reshuffling right away is illustrated if the prematurely dealt card makes a gutshot straight-flush for a player.

I personally disagree, and advocate a solution similar to the one suggested by your player (see below)*. There was considerable discussion of this topic not long ago on the forum back in mid-March:
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/rules-question.39472/

* This was my response in how I think it is best handled, as an improvement upon the existing rules:

Actually, the best solution for dealing with a prematurely exposed turn card is this:

1. set the prematurely exposed card to the side (face-up).
2. continue with flop betting.
3. after flop betting is complete, take the top two cards on the deck stub and set them aside (face down).
4. shuffle the prematurely-exposed turn card back into the remaining deck stub, and deal the turn card face-up with no burn.
5. place the two set-aside cards back on the top of the deck stub.
6. continue with turn betting.
7. after turn betting is complete, burn and deal the (intended) river card.

This both preserves the order of intended cards (without prematurely dealing the river card), and the integrity of the turn card (as best as can be, per Paulo's reasoning above), since now the prematurely exposed turn card still has a chance of being re-dealt as the turn card, and the river card is exactly as it would have been normally.

But as you can see in the referenced thread (50 posts long), not everyone agrees. Some advocate for the addendum solution propose by Ciaffone, giving little credence to the importance of the 'intended' board cards. But the actual rules -- both RROP and TDA -- dictate the action as performed at your game.

 

[surfik]

In my opinion river shoud be delt face down. Remaining cards should be shaffled (except card burnt on turn), than new turn should faced.

 

[JustinInMN]

I think it's a reasonable solution (although I dislike the premature dealing of down cards on the board), and have seen it used in the past.

In RROP v11, the rules dictate the procedure that you actually used, but Bob Ciaffone also adds this explanation (Section 16) outlining what he feels is a better procedure:


I personally disagree, and advocate a solution similar to the one suggested by your player (see below)*. There was considerable discussion of this topic not long ago on the forum back in mid-March:
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/rules-question.39472/

* This was my response in how I think it is best handled, as an improvement upon the existing rules:

But as you can see in the referenced thread (50 posts long), not everyone agrees. Some advocate for the addendum solution propose by Ciaffone, giving little credence to the importance of the 'intended' board cards. But the actual rules -- both RROP and TDA -- dictate the action as performed at your game.

I do remember this thread now, I even liked this post at the time.

Still wondering if this idea is in some ruleset somewhere or if it is just a widespread house rule I hadn't encountered before.

So long as you still protect the back of the river card, I am thinking this makes for a credible house rule.

But I think I will personally stick with the more common rule for simplicity when I host. But I am still curious about the orgin of this idea, I guess it's probably impossible to know.

 

[ekricket]

1-1 NLHE,

We had a premature burn and turn before the flop action closed in a game I played last night.

We proceeded by the book. Both Robert's and TDA call for completing the action, burning and turning the river in the turn's place. As a rules wonk myself, that is just standard procedure.

However, one guy in the game suggested the following and seemed so sure he was right I want to share it with you guys.

So he insisted the right procedure is to burn and turn the river face down on the board. Then shuffle the exposed card in the stub and deal the turn.

I have never heard of this, but he was so sure he was right I would think it has to have been used somewhere. Anyone else hear of this? Do you think this has some merit?

I’d ask him in case of a tied hand do you go to the 6th card or 7th card to decide it?

 

[ekricket]

I think it's a reasonable solution (although I dislike the premature dealing of down cards on the board), and have seen it used in the past.

In RROP v11, the rules dictate the procedure that you actually used, but Bob Ciaffone also adds this explanation (Section 16) outlining what he feels is a better procedure:


I personally disagree, and advocate a solution similar to the one suggested by your player (see below)*. There was considerable discussion of this topic not long ago on the forum back in mid-March:
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/rules-question.39472/

* This was my response in how I think it is best handled, as an improvement upon the existing rules:

But as you can see in the referenced thread (50 posts long), not everyone agrees. Some advocate for the addendum solution propose by Ciaffone, giving little credence to the importance of the 'intended' board cards. But the actual rules -- both RROP and TDA -- dictate the action as performed at your game.

I don’t understand why Ciaffone is concerned about two chances to redeal the misdealed card.
If it was actually dealt right, there would be no chance for it to still be in the deck for the river. So the river should be dealt without the misdealt card in the deck.

 

[BGinGA]

I don’t understand why Ciaffone is concerned about two chances to redeal the misdealed card.
If it was actually dealt right, there would be no chance for it to still be in the deck for the river. So the river should be dealt without the misdealt card in the deck.

I agree, and for the reasons you mentioned.

I probably should just call him and ask if he still feels the same way today, and if so, why.

 

[bigdonkey]

I don’t understand why Ciaffone is concerned about two chances to redeal the misdealed card.
If it was actually dealt right, there would be no chance for it to still be in the deck for the river. So the river should be dealt without the misdealt card in the deck.

I don't want to rehash, but this is covered in the thread @BGinGA referenced. I can't speak for Ciaffone personally, but seeing as I wasn't even aware of the addendum until BG pointed it out and I used nearly the exact same example as Ciaffone, it's reasonable to assume my logic is the same as his.

 

[JustinInMN]

I agree, and for the reasons you mentioned.

I probably should just call him and ask if he still feels the same way today, and if so, why.

If anyone on PCF had Bob on speed dial, it probably would be @BGinGA

 

[BGinGA]

My backgammon and poker mentor, from back in the days when he ran the Cavendish Club in Detroit (backgammon, bridge, hearts, poker, chess). Everybody called him Coach. Wonderful and brilliant guy.