Rules Question (1 Viewer)

[Cdgiguob]

We had our bi-monthly home game last night and the following situation took place.

There were 4 players in the hand after the flop. During the betting after the flop there was a bet, fold, and call. As the 4th player began to raise, the dealer exposed the turn card. This is a friendly $20 neighborhood game and only 2 players have any experience. The situation was discussed and all agreed that everyone would pull there money back. I knew this was wrong, but I had no solutions. I am not familiar enough with the rules.

My thoughts were to discard the exposed turn card. Finish the flop betting. Turn what would have been the river card. Proceed as normal with a new river card. Is this correct? Is anyone familiar with a situational book that applies the rules, so we can rule correctly? Thanks.

 

[Shaggy]

I believe the Robert's Rules of Poker (RRoP) states something similar to the following...

Set the exposed turn card aside. Burn and expose the next card as the new turn. This would have been the river. Round of betting. Now shuffle the previously exposed card back into the stub. Deal the river with no burn.

What this accomplishes:
1. The actual card that would have been the river still is a board card.
2. The card that would have been the turn still has the opportunity to be the river card.

What I would likely do... because I am not a "sacred order of the cards" kinda person... is immediately shuffle the exposed turn (but not the burn) back in to the stub and deal a new turn. The rationale is that no one knows the next cards to come anyway... who cares if the card that was previously in the "river slot" becomes the new river.

 

[WedgeRock]

The correct river becomes the turn, the correct river burn is still used as the river burn, the exposed card is shuffled into the stub and a new river is dealt.

EDIT: What @Shaggy said.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Almost. Pull the early turn card and set it aside. Complete the flop betting round. Then, burn and put up a new turn card. After turn betting round is complete, put the early exposed turn card back in the stub. Shuffle the stub. Cut the the deck. The first card off the top is the river with no burn.

 

[BGinGA]

all agreed that everyone would pull there money back. I knew this was wrong,

Yeah, this is a pretty awful solution. Any time significant action has occurred, the hand must be played out to completion. That means that any hand that reaches the flop must be played out (since significant action already occurred pre-flop). The outcome in your case would likely have been a lot different, had one of those still in the hand flopped a monster (or if several had hit the flop hard, and just one totally missed). Always requiring that the hand be completed protects everybody still in the hand equally, regardless of holdings.

Pull the early turn card and set it aside. Complete the flop betting round. Then, burn and put up a new turn card. After turn betting round is complete, put the early exposed turn card back in the stub. Shuffle the stub. Cut the the deck. The first card off the top is the river with no burn.

^ This. It preserves four of the five intended community board cards, and still allows the possibility of all five to appear.



BTW, the random-is-random argument is total BS. The intended card order created by shuffling is important, otherwise there is no reason to shuffle the deck between hands at all. Or no reason to not burn twice, whenever one feels like it. Hey, if random-is-random, then a little extra randomness won't hurt, eh?

 

[DoubleEagle]

BTW, the random-is-random argument is total BS. The intended card order created by shuffling is important, otherwise there is no reason to shuffle the deck between hands at all. Or no reason to not burn twice, whenever one feels like it. Hey, if random-is-random, then a little extra randomness won't hurt, eh?

^^That!

 

[DoubleEagle]

The situation was discussed and all agreed that everyone would pull there money back. I knew this was wrong, but I had no solutions. I am not familiar enough with

Like getting a participation trophy so no ones feelings got hurt.

 

[Taghkanic]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the chronology—but isn’t there another component to discuss besides how to handle the turn and river? Namely, the 4th player who was about to raise?

He hasn’t had to opportunity to act on the flop, but he still needs to decide whether to go through with a raise (or fold or call).

The sticky part is he has the benefit of seeing one of the cards the other three didn’t know about when they acted.

Depending on what he’s holding and what’s on the board, that data point may not be terribly useful... or it might be very useful indeed. (Say, if there are three hearts on the board, and he has the Kh, and the exposed card was the Ah... Now he knows he’s drawing to the nuts, not the second nuts, and that may change how the rest of the betting on the flop and the other streets goes down.)

I agree the hand has to proceed one way or another. It’s unfortunate, yet still preferable to how the group decided to pull everything back. But I just wanted to highlight/raise that aspect—the fourth player yet to act on the flop.

 

[moose]

BTW, the random-is-random argument is total BS. The intended card order created by shuffling is important, otherwise there is no reason to shuffle the deck between hands at all. Or no reason to not burn twice, whenever one feels like it. Hey, if random-is-random, then a little extra randomness won't hurt, eh?

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.

If random is random is bullshit then changing the order of cards, ie putting the original river card up in place of the turn also severely affects the hand. It is obvious that the hand is severely affected if the card that makes one player's flush now shows up on the turn instead of the river. Since this card is unseen, again it minimizes the effect on the hand if all the cards are shuffled - especially since all players in the hand can directly see the result of moving the original river card to the turn AND which is the ONLY way that there would be a possibility of the original turn card appearing back on the turn and the original river card (whatever that card was) hitting the river.

Anything else is bullshit and affects the hand. Unseen cards are exactly that and preserving the original river card as though it is somehow a magic card and putting it up on the turn is stupid and can only create anger amongst the players as they can directly see how the hand has been affected.

 

[Labrat]

If everybody was happy with the solution and there were no hard feelings, even though it goes against RRoP, the decision was fine.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying it's fine and I wouldn't beat myself up over it. Friendly games are supposed to be just that....friendly.

But now you know.

 

[pltrgyst]

The intended card order created by shuffling is important, otherwise there is no reason to shuffle the deck between hands at all.

Sorry, Dave, but I have to disagree here. The reason for shuffling between hands is to prevent players from remembering the order of small groups of cards discarded or mucked together.

Or no reason to not burn twice, whenever one feels like it. Hey, if random-is-random, then a little extra randomness won't hurt, eh?

And here as well. The number of burns is arbitrary and significant only if the stub is in danger of running out of cards before the hand is complete.

 

[Gobbs]

The number of burns is arbitrary and significant only if the stub is in danger of running out of cards before the hand is complete.

I propose an experiment. The next time you play, arbitrarily burn different amounts of cards when you deal. Then, after you hit a three-outer on the river, see how many people buy the “random is random” argument after they accuse you of cheating.

The number of burn cards is not arbitrary. It is an important control. It is important to follow procedures and maintain order to protect everybody in the game, especially the dealer.

 

[pltrgyst]

I propose an experiment. The next time you play, arbitrarily burn different amounts of cards when you deal. Then, after you hit a three-outer on the river, see how many people buy the “random is random” argument after they accuse you of cheating.

The number of burn cards is not arbitrary. It is an important control. It is important to follow procedures and maintain order to protect everybody in the game, especially the dealer.

Oh, I agree with all that. But none of that affects the randomness of the cards. If the local procedures required two burn cards between board cards, it would have zero affect on the randomness of the cards dealt.

 

[ChaosRock]

Agree with Rob (@moose ) not to be confused with Parker . Or maybe even RB states the same, can't remember.

IMO, the most important thing is to preserve the integrity of the turn card. Why? To minimize the advantage of the player who hasn't acted yet.

All players now already know the is in play, to pick a card. That cannot be changed. Now, is it fair that only player who will know before his action the will NOT be the turn card (if one follows the advice of making the river card a turn card)? I don't think it is. And the only way to correct that is to re-shuffle the in the deck immediately. After that player acts, the turn card is put on the board without a burn, since one card was burnt already.

That's my house rules.

Is there still a minor advantage to the player who hasn't acted yet knowing the is in the stub before he acts? Yes. But that's impossible to fix.

And I agree with @pltrgyst comments on the random thing.

 

[phaze12]

I would need one more piece of info. Was this a cash game or tourney?

If a tourney then what has been stated covers it.

If a cash game then what happened is fine. It’s the players money in the pot, if they want to chop it after the flop that’s their decision. No one should object.

 

[bigdonkey]

Agree with Rob (@moose ) not to be confused with Parker . Or maybe even RB states the same, can't remember.

IMO, the most important thing is to preserve the integrity of the turn card. Why? To minimize the advantage of the player who hasn't acted yet.

All players now already know the is in play, to pick a card. That cannot be changed. Now, is it fair that only player who will know before his action the will NOT be the turn card (if one follows the advice of making the river card a turn card)? I don't think it is. And the only way to correct that is to re-shuffle the in the deck immediately. After that player acts, the turn card is put on the board without a burn, since one card was burnt already.

That's my house rules.

Is there still a minor advantage to the player who hasn't acted yet knowing the is in the stub before he acts? Yes. But that's impossible to fix.

And I agree with @pltrgyst comments on the random thing.

Agreed.

Player A , Player B , and Player C go to the flop. Flop is . Player A bets, Player B calls and, before Player C can act, the dealer turns up . If we protect the integrity of the stub and now make the "true" river card the new turn card, we've cut Players A's probability of winning the hand in half by giving him only one chance to hit his lone out. If the pre-exposed card is immediately shuffled into the stub and a new turn card is used, Player A maintains his rightful ~4.5% probability of winning the hand.

 

[Gobbs]

Oh, I agree with all that. But none of that affects the randomness of the cards. If the local procedures required two burn cards between board cards, it would have zero affect on the randomness of the cards dealt.

I think you are mixing up randomness and preserving the order of the cards. I can deal from the bottom or middle of the deck and it’s random. The important thing is, after randomizing the cards there is a pre-destined order to how the cards should be dealt and any deviation bring into question the integrity of the outcome.

 

[justsomedude]

This is great info. Expanding on the OP a bit... what's the correct resolution for a pre-exposed river card?

 

[Gobbs]

This is great info. Expanding on the OP a bit... what's the correct resolution for a pre-exposed river card?

Return it to the stub, keep burn card as the burn card, shuffle the stub, don’t burn, the top card is the river.

 

[DoubleEagle]

All of these different suggestions on how to handle the early exposed turn card problem is exactly why consistent rules across the poker universe are needed. That is why the Tournament Directors Association was created. Like a rule or not, a well thought out rule applied consistently no matter where you play is of paramount importance. When you have different card rooms applying different rules is when people get upset. I especially hate it when I play in home game and someone thinks their version of rule is somehow better than the rule created by the Tournament Directors Association, a group of the most experienced and qualified tournament directors in the world.

 

[pltrgyst]

I think you are mixing up randomness and preserving the order of the cards. I can deal from the bottom or middle of the deck and it’s random. The important thing is, after randomizing the cards there is a pre-destined order to how the cards should be dealt and any deviation bring into question the integrity of the outcome.

I have been discussing only randomness in my posts.

Preserving the order of the cards is just a sop for minds that don't actually understand randomness -- which, to be fair, is the vast majority of people.

Do you think that there's an order of the cards that is preserved in the software of on-line poker? I don't. I think there's just a one-dimensional database stub of the unused cards to which a random number generator is applied each time a card needs to be selected for burning or to be played. And we're all fine with that, strangely enough.

 

[Gobbs]

I have been discussing only randomness in my posts.

Preserving the order of the cards is just a sop for minds that don't actually understand randomness -- which, to be fair, is the vast majority of people.

Do you think that there's an order of the cards that is preserved in the software of on-line poker? I don't. I think there's just a one-dimensional database stub of the unused cards to which a random number generator is applied each time a card needs to be selected for burning or to be played. And we're all fine with that, strangely enough.

Maybe the majority of people in your world don’t understand randomness, but considering my job responsibilities include creating and analyzing statistically valid random samples for the purposes of projecting the results over a defined population, most people in my world do.

Preserving the order of cards has nothing to do with randomness. They are mutually exclusive events. I can randomize the cards but search them for specific cards. I can order the cards but randomly select which ones to deal. Preserving the order has to do with preserving the integrity of the game and creating a consistent playing environment.

 

[BGinGA]

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.

 

[ChaosRock]

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.

BG FOR PRESIDENT!

Love the elegant solution.

** Edit: as @bigdonkey pointed out, there's still issues with it. I'm back to shuffling everything minus the turn burn right away.

 

[BGinGA]

Fwiw, I've dealt with this situation a total of three or four times in my poker career. And in exactly one of those very few times, the prematurely-exposed turn card actually was re-dealt on the river. Same chances that it would be re-dealt as the new turn, if using the procedure above.

 

[bigdonkey]

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.

Fwiw, I've dealt with this situation a total of three or four times in my poker career. And in exactly one of those very few times, the prematurely-exposed turn card actually was re-dealt on the river. Same chances that it would be re-dealt as the new turn, if using the procedure above.

Right, these are just reversing the order of when the "proper" river card is exposed. As in my example above, however, either solutions reduces the odds of the pre-exposed card coming by half, which could affect how a hand is played. If the is exposed early, and we set the river card aside to used when it should be, reshuffle, and expose a new turn card, Player A knows that his odds are cut in half because the "proper" river card can't possibly be the ,

 

[ChaosRock]

Right, these are just reversing the order of when the "proper" river card is exposed. As in my example above, however, either solutions reduces the odds of the pre-exposed card coming by half, which could affect how a hand is played. If the is exposed early, and we set the river card aside to used when it should be, reshuffle, and expose a new turn card, Player A knows that his odds are cut in half because the "proper" river card can't possibly be the ,

I think you are misinterpreting his new suggestion. What he is suggesting now is that the shuffle happens but without the river burnt and river card. So in your example, Player A would still have two chances on his one-outer, turn and river.

 

[bigdonkey]

I think you are misinterpreting his new suggestion. What he is suggesting now is that the shuffle happens but without the river burnt and river card. So in your example, Player A would still have two chances on his one-outer, turn and river.

If the is exposed, the river burn and river card are set aside, and the is shuffled back into the remaining stub, the river can't possibly be the because it was still exposed when the river burn and river card were set aside. Or I'm completely blanking on this.

 

[ChaosRock]

If the is exposed, the river burn and river card are set aside, and the is shuffled back into the remaining stub, the river can't possibly be the because it was still exposed when the river burn and river card were set aside. Or I'm completely blanking on this.

Nope, you’re not actually. I am the one blanking. It’s a good point.

 

[BGinGA]

But that

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.