Rules Question (2 Viewers)

But that View attachment 262044 could never have been the river card in the first place, so it's a moot point. The river card will be as intended (as it should be). Nothing is lost.

That's is true Dave, but here's his reasoning, which I think it's very sound: In case everything had ran perfectly, the :ts: could be either on the turn or on the river. Now, since we know you're setting the river apart before shuffling it back in, the :ts: can only be on the turn. So let's say he misses the turn. He will ALWAYS fold the river since he knows it's not the :ts:. Makes sense?
 
Not really. If everything ran perfectly, the :ts: would have been the turn card. The fact that it was exposed shouldn't include it's possible appearance on the river, too. That skews the true probabilities even more, not to mention altering the actual intended river card.
 
Not really. If everything ran perfectly, the :ts: would have been the turn card. The fact that it was exposed shouldn't include it's possible appearance on the river, too. That skews the true probabilities even more, not to mention altering the actual intended river card.

Before knowing the turn was the :ts:, that card could hit the turn or the river. You only know :ts: was the turn BECAUSE the dealer fucked things up. So we want to go back to the original state, which is a possible turn OR river.
 
Before knowing the turn was the :ts:, that card could hit the turn or the river. You only know :ts: was the turn BECAUSE the dealer fucked things up. So we want to go back to the original state, which is a possible turn OR river.
However, I don't think that overrules the importance of the board containing the actual intended river card, however. That card could have also been a previous or future burn card, as well, and not appeared on either street.

Just shoot the dealer.
 
The cards are all blank until the Clown God decides what image to put on them, duh!
Since the cards are all blank, it renders the entire discuss moot.
Remember, the Clown God loves a good schmengie - don't taunt the Clown God.
 
Just shoot the dealer.

Hey, now!!! As a person who deals somewhat frequently and has been doing it for a while, I can’t get on board with shooting the dealer until I know he didn’t follow proper dealing procedures. Did the dealer tap the table and announce the number of players before prematurely turning it over? If so, I can’t advocate shooting the dealer, only pistol whipping him. If he didn’t follow proper procedures, a more cruel punishment is warranted.

(In other words, what I’m trying to say is, these things tend to happen when proper procedures aren’t followed.)
 
But that View attachment 262044 could never have been the river card in the first place, so it's a moot point. The river card will be as intended (as it should be). Nothing is lost.

Yes but you continue to favor preserving an unexposed river card over returning an exposed card to the board. The exposed card is what has the greatest effect on the hand not an unexposed card. You insist that the river is an important to be preserved. Well so is the turn card. The guy who would have hit his Royal is the player most affected. Exposed cards trump all other considerations. Yeah yeah TDA and all that. Robert's Rules has it right.

If the order is important then what makes the river more important than the turn, especially since the river is as yet unseen?
 
They are both important. However, preserving the river card guarantees that 4/5 of the board is accurate, while still retaining the possibilty that all 5 intended cards will appear. Any other process can only guarantee 3/5 of the intended board cards will appear (with some chance that 4 will appear, and a lesser chance that 5 will appear). The math favors the protecting the river card.
 
The crux of the matter to me is that poker is a game of imperfect information, and the plays we make are based on probabilities. A player can know these probabilities precisely, but a player should never (ethically) have prior knowledge of the specific card to come (or not come). Back to my example, on the flop, Player A knows the has a 46 to 1 chance of hitting :ts: on the turn and 45 to 1 chance on the river, a 39 to 8 chance of hitting a any other spade on the turn and 38 to 8 on the river, and a 44 to 3 chance of hitting any other 10 on the turn and 43 to 3 on the river.

When the :ts: is exposed, if we preserve the Order of the Cards(lets say by setting aside the river burn and river card and reshuffling the stub for the turn), not only does this change the odds for the remainder of the hand (46 to 1 and 46 to 0 for :ts:, 39 to 8 and 39 to 7 for any flush), most damningly to me, it gives players specific, unwarranted, pre-existing knowledge of the arrangement of the deck. Specifally, players know exactly a card that WILL NOT come on the river.

Before the :ts: is exposed, players also know that, say, the odds of the :6d: appearing on the board are 46 to 1 and 45 to 1. These probabilities are the only information they know, and the premise under which the game is played. Let's say after the :ts: is exposed, the procedure is to immediately reshuffle the deck and deal a new turn. But, before doing so, the dealer peeks at what "should have" been the river, and it is indeed the :6d:. After the entire stub is reshuffled, the odds of the :6d: coming and 46 to 1 and 45 to 1, exactly the information that was available to them before the accidental exposure of the card. Basically, it is a factory reset to the conditions that existed before a card was exposed.

The integrity of the game is FAR better protected by preserving the knowledge with which players are operating (specifically, having no prior knowledge as to which cards will or will not come) than by preserving the original order of the cards (which none of us should know, as we shouldn't be "peeking" at the stub.)
 
I agree, the integrity of the game must be maintained, which is exactly why the order of the cards must be preserved as much as possible. Otherwise, what’s to stop the dealer from taking a pinky peek at the turn or river card and, if he/she doesn’t see the card(s) wanted, expose the turn early and get two new shots at it? At least, if you preserve the river, he only gets one new shot.
 
I agree, the integrity of the game must be maintained, which is exactly why the order of the cards must be preserved as much as possible. Otherwise, what’s to stop the dealer from taking a pinky peek at the turn or river card and, if he/she doesn’t see the card(s) wanted, expose the turn early and get two new shots at it? At least, if you preserve the river, he only gets one new shot.
Again, ethically, a player should have no prior knowledge of the cards to come. If your self-dealt game is full of cheaters, there's no integrity to be protected anyway.
 
The crux of the matter to me is that poker is a game of imperfect information, and the plays we make are based on probabilities. A player can know these probabilities precisely, but a player should never (ethically) have prior knowledge of the specific card to come (or not come). Back to my example, on the flop, Player A knows the has a 46 to 1 chance of hitting :ts: on the turn and 45 to 1 chance on the river, a 39 to 8 chance of hitting a any other spade on the turn and 38 to 8 on the river, and a 44 to 3 chance of hitting any other 10 on the turn and 43 to 3 on the river.

When the :ts: is exposed, if we preserve the Order of the Cards(lets say by setting aside the river burn and river card and reshuffling the stub for the turn), not only does this change the odds for the remainder of the hand (46 to 1 and 46 to 0 for :ts:, 39 to 8 and 39 to 7 for any flush), most damningly to me, it gives players specific, unwarranted, pre-existing knowledge of the arrangement of the deck. Specifally, players know exactly a card that WILL NOT come on the river.

Before the :ts: is exposed, players also know that, say, the odds of the :6d: appearing on the board are 46 to 1 and 45 to 1. These probabilities are the only information they know, and the premise under which the game is played. Let's say after the :ts: is exposed, the procedure is to immediately reshuffle the deck and deal a new turn. But, before doing so, the dealer peeks at what "should have" been the river, and it is indeed the :6d:. After the entire stub is reshuffled, the odds of the :6d: coming and 46 to 1 and 45 to 1, exactly the information that was available to them before the accidental exposure of the card. Basically, it is a factory reset to the conditions that existed before a card was exposed.

The integrity of the game is FAR better protected by preserving the knowledge with which players are operating (specifically, having no prior knowledge as to which cards will or will not come) than by preserving the original order of the cards (which none of us should know, as we shouldn't be "peeking" at the stub.)
So, based on your argument......any time a card is exposed, the deck should be immediately reshuffled, regardless of when it was exposed, and regardless if it was a live card, a burn card, or a mucked card -- because exposure of any of those cards also changes the amount of knowledge known (i.e., which cards will or will not come on subsequent streets -- or deal, for that matter).

But that's not the actual case in how those issues are addressed. A burn card is exposed, announced, used as intended, and the information (what it is, and where it won't appear) is available equally to all -- including the player who now knows that his one-outer royal is impossible (but nobody else knows that he's drawing to one).
 
So, based on your argument......any time a card is exposed, the deck should be immediately reshuffled, regardless of when it was exposed, and regardless if it was a live card, a burn card, or a mucked card -- because exposure of any of those cards also changes the amount of knowledge known (i.e., which cards will or will not come on subsequent streets -- or deal, for that matter).

But that's not the actual case in how those issues are addressed. A burn card is exposed, announced, used as intended, and the information (what it is, and where it won't appear) is available equally to all -- including the player who now knows that his one-outer royal is impossible (but nobody else knows that he's drawing to one).
I was actually thinking about this this morning. Specifically, if a card is exposed during the deal it is used as the burn, and the would-have-been burn is dealt as the replacement. I see no reason why the exposed card shouldn't be immediately shuffled back into the deck.

As @pltrgyst mentioned up-thread, in a digital environment there is likely no pre-set stub, the software just uses an RNG to pick an available card when needed. This is analogous to the dealer continuously shuffling until a card is required then turning the top card. I see no problem with that. The probability of a specific card coming is always the same regardless of when the deck is "frozen" in position. In a home game, why not require the shuffler to shuffle exactly 7 times, not 6 or 8, because that changes the order of the cards?

The knowledge gained from an exposed card should NEVER happen, but inevitably will do to human error. If that can be rectified by reshuffling, I'm failing to see why it shouldn't be. I don't have the vast experience of many here, so I could be way off base on the whole thing. But the immediately reshuffle method seems to have proponents other than myself. If I'm reading the following quote correctly, RROP is one them, so there must be some credence to it.

Actually the latest note added to Robert's Rules v.11 Section 16 in discussion of this is that THE most important thing is that a card that would have been on the board has been prematurely exposed. It is the least disruptive to the result of the hand if that card returns to the board. Therefore, in order to give that card the most chance to appear the best thing to do is shuffle it back into the deck immediately. Then that card has two chances to return to the board.
 
Also, it seems the hangup seems to be how the exposure affects one player. In truth, as long as everybody is given the same information, it’s fair; not necessarily ideal, but fair. That’s part of the reason exposed card rules are as they are. Otherwise, we’d have to start over on every misdial.
 
Just shoot the dealer.

This is not necessary. Just don't let @detroitdad or John deal...

Let me add my 2¢. Because no one knows what the river is (as opposed to the pre-exposed turn), there can't be hard feelings. To me, keeping the correct percentages >>> putting the correct river out there.

And one more point: a dealer rapping the table before coming out with a card is a sign to the players, who can then stop him if he's about the prematurely expose a card. Avoiding the exposure makes this whole discussion moot (although it's still a good discussion). Edit: @Gobbs made this point above.

I agree, the integrity of the game must be maintained, which is exactly why the order of the cards must be preserved as much as possible. Otherwise, what’s to stop the dealer from taking a pinky peek at the turn or river card and, if he/she doesn’t see the card(s) wanted, expose the turn early and get two new shots at it? At least, if you preserve the river, he only gets one new shot.

This is such a far-fetched hypothetical so as to be too remote to consider. There are much MUCH bigger problems in this game and not one I'd want to sit at.
 
Last edited:
As @pltrgyst mentioned up-thread, in a digital environment there is likely no pre-set stub, the software just uses an RNG to pick an available card when needed.

I think shuffling the exposed turn immediately has more merits and allowing it the opportunity to come out as turn or river has merits.

However...online poker shouldn’t be the reason. PokerStars did a basic video on their algorithm and it shuffles the whole deck, then starts dealing. Doesn’t use any randomness during the hand.
 
Regardless of the discussion, the actual rules are pretty clear (see below for applicable TDA and RROP rules). It was merely my intent in post # to improve upon those rules -- by having the turn and river cards dealt in the correct order, while maintaining the original intent of the actual 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.


Below are the TDA rules governing the premature exposure of a turn card in tournaments:
TDA rules said:
2017 Rules Version 3.0, Oct 24 2017

Dealing Rules
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.

RP-5. Prematurely Dealt Cards
Board and burn cards are sometimes dealt prematurely, before action on the preceding round is finished. The general procedures for these situations are:
B: A premature turn card is put to the side. Another card is burned, and the normal river card is used as the new turn card. After action on the turn, the premature turn card is placed back in the stub, the stub is reshuffled and a river card is dealt without another burn.


Below are the actual rules applicable to a prematurely-exposed turn card:
RROP rules said:
Robert's Rules of Poker, Version 11

IRREGULARITIES
12. Procedure for an exposed card varies with the poker form, and is given in the section for each game.
13. If a card is exposed due to dealer error, a player does not have an option to take or reject the card. The situation will be governed by the rules for the particular game being played.
15. If the dealer prematurely deals any cards before the betting is complete, those cards will not play, even if a player who has not acted decides to fold.

SECTION 5 - HOLDEM
RULES
5. If the dealer burns and turns before a betting round is complete, the card(s) may not be used, even if all subsequent players elect to fold. Nobody has an option of accepting or rejecting the card. The betting is then completed, and the error rectified in the prescribed manner for that situation.
8. A dealing error for the fourth boardcard is rectified in a manner to least influence the identity of the boardcards that would have been used without the error. The dealer burns and deals what would have been the fifth card in the fourth card’s place. After this round of betting, the dealer reshuffles the deck, including the card that was taken out of play, but not including the burncards or discards. The dealer then cuts the deck and deals the final card without burning a card. If the fifth card is turned up prematurely, the deck is reshuffled and dealt in the same manner. See “Section 16 – Explanations,” discussion #4, for more information on this rule.


In addition, Ciaffone offers the following text, although it is not part of the official Rules set forth above:
RROP Explanations said:
SECTION 16 - EXPLANATIONS
4. The rules given for rectifying a holdem situation where the dealer has dealt the flop or another boardcard before all the betting action on a round are inferior, because the dealer is told to not burn a card on a redeal. Since the “no burn” rule is so common, there was no choice but to use it here. It would be better for poker if the rule were changed to always burning a card. Here are these rules (the third rule and fourth rule in “Section 5 – Holdem”).

“If the dealer turns the fourth card on the board before the betting round is complete, the card is taken out of play for that round, even if subsequent players elect to fold. The betting is then completed. The dealer burns and turns what would have been the fifth card in the fourth card’s place. After this round of betting, the dealer reshuffles the deck, including the card that was taken out of play, but not including the burncards or discards. The dealer then cuts the deck and turns up the final card without burning a card.

The portion of this rule saying the dealer does not burn a card on the redeal is inferior. It is harder for the dealer to control the card to be dealt if a burn is required. The sentence in the rule should read, “The dealer then cuts the deck, burns a card, and turns the final card.”

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.

Nothing wrong -- legally -- in adopting Bob's explanation as an alternate rule in your own personal rulebook, but as it stands today, the actual RROP and TDA rules dictate that the river card be dealt in the turn card's place, prior to the exposed card being reshuffled into the stub and dealt as the river card. I believe that my solution (top of post) is an improvement upon that procedure, as the river card remains as the fifth board card dealt and put into play.
 
This is such a far-fetched hypothetical so as to be too remote to consider. There are much MUCH bigger problems in this game and not in I'd want to sit at.

You would think, but I’ve seen it happen not once, but twice. Granted, it was more than 10 years ago, but it can happen. (No, I don’t play in the game anymore and should have gotten out the first time it happened.)

EDIT: I should have been more clear. I’ve seen dealers peek at cards to come, but not intentionally misdeal to get new ones.
 
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.

Back
Top Bottom