Cash Game Ruling Assistance (2 Viewers)

[CraigT78]

Here is a scenario for the home game hosts:

Pre-flop action is complete. Dealer turns three cards, but forgets to burn. There is no action, as the players immediately call for the floor to make a judgement.

What is the ruling?

 

[RocAFella1]

Do they know the order the cards were turned over? If so, the first card is the burn card, made known to everyone, and the other 2 cards are the flop along with the next card off the deck.

 

[CraigT78]

Do they know the order the cards were turned over? If so, the first card is the burn card, made known to everyone, and the other 2 cards are the flop along with the next card off the deck.

Yes, the flop is out. 9x, 9x, Ax.

 

[RocAFella1]

Yes, the flop is out. 9x, 9x, Ax.

Which card was turned over first? The first 9? If so, that becomes the burn and the other 9 and A are the first two cards of the flop, along with one more card off the deck.

 

[CraigT78]

Which card was turned over first? The first 9? If so, that becomes the burn and the other O and A are the first two cards of the flop.

Yes - the flop was dealt correctly, so the the first 9x would have been the burn.

 

[RocAFella1]

Yes - the flop was dealt correctly, so the the first 9x would have been the burn.

So it would be announced that the first 9 is the burn card for the flop, and you deal one more card off the deck for the actual flop.

 

[BGinGA]

Correct ruling per TDA/RRoP:

TD/Floor shuffles all three cards and randomly selects one to become the burn card. The other two cards are then exposed and the 3rd flop card is dealt (with no burn). Same thing happens if the flop contains four cards (one becomes the flop burn card if it was omitted, or becomes the turn burn card if the flop burn was dealt).

Realistically, if the order of cards is absolutely known, the intended burn card could be treated as such. But the actual rules always treat a flop dealing error the same way -- known or unknown order of cards is irrelevant.

 

[WedgeRock]

I read a thread about a guy who hosts a regular home game, so you can AMA.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Correct ruling per TDA/RRoP:

TD/Floor shuffles all three cards and randomly selects one to become the burn card. The other two cards are then exposed and the 3rd flop card is dealt (with no burn). Same thing happens if the flop contains four cards (one becomes the flop burn card if it was omitted, or becomes the turn burn card if the flop burn was dealt).

Realistically, if the order of cards is absolutely known, the intended burn card could be treated as such. But the actual rules always treat a flop dealing error the same way -- known or unknown order of cards is irrelevant.

The only issue I see with the correct ruling in a self-dealt game, is that the dealer could see* that the burn card is a card he would like and "forget" to burn to make it probable to appear.

* see, as in noticing a blemish/mark on the top card of the deck - which is why we burn cards in the first place.

 

[Mr Winberg]

The only issue I see with the correct ruling in a self-dealt game, is that the dealer could see* that the burn card is a card he would like and "forget" to burn to make it probable to appear.

* see, as in noticing a blemish/mark on the top card of the deck - which is why we burn cards in the first place.

An issue I see is that the flop will likely be different compared to if the error hadn't occurred, which doesn't have to be the case if you know which card was supposed to be burned. Except for "it's TDA/RRoP compliant", are there any real reasons for not just removing the burn card and adding a third card to the flop?
Edit: Paging @BGinGA

 

[Polochris]

So as other have discussed, it determine the order the card were flipped over. It could be the 1 card to the left, or the 3rd card on the right that needs to be the burn card, Then would display a 4th card to complete the flop.

 

[Frogzilla]

Not a fan of the RRoP rule for this one. I think it will make sense to more people to just treat the first card as a exposed burn, and “correct” the flop to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th cards of a stud. That’s probably what I do at my game, as well as chide the dealer incessantly

 

[BGinGA]

An issue I see is that the flop will likely be different compared to if the error hadn't occurred, which doesn't have to be the case if you know which card was supposed to be burned. Except for "it's TDA/RRoP compliant", are there any real reasons for not just removing the burn card and adding a third card to the flop?
Edit: Paging @BGinGA

I suspect it's written that way for the sake of consistency, rather than have an ambiguous rule that requires real-time definition and may not even result in a consensus on which cards are which.

KISS concept, one rule/application for all circumstances.

The non-TDA rule is actually easier in a casino environment, where repeatable dealer actions and procedures make it easier to identify the order of dealt cards. But it's asking for trouble to try to identify card order in a pass-the-deal game, where a dozen different flop procedures could be utilized (and most of them incorrect or ill-advised).

 

[Prenders17]

Yeah, imagine now a casino dealer that, rather than flipping the flop cards one at a time, deals them off the deck face down into a 3 card pile 1, 2, 3, then turns them over and spreads them in one motion. Now the “burn card” appears to be the last card in the spread. Seems like for those not watching closely, it’d be easy to create a point of dispute where there shouldn’t be one. Or for an angle shooter to argue for the card he likes, rather than the what’s right.

 

[WedgeRock]

Do you use printed rules at your home game?

We treat a missed flop burn like any other exposed card. Show it to the table, then burn it.

I'm wondering if this is posted here because our way of doing things is different from what @BGinGA answered and one of your players wanted RRoP/TDA followed (tho how TDA has any application in a cash game is beyond me).

 

[CraigT78]

Do you use printed rules at your home game?

Yep - but this one isn't covered. I ruled incorrectly, I had them shuffle all three back into the deck and re-flop. I did't think to have one of them as an exposed burn. Oh well.

I asked because this is how I remember these things. Dealing errors are not common, but posts like this one help me remember various mistakes.

 

[WedgeRock]

I'm amazed that you've been running a regular, self-dealt game for 5 years and don't have this come up more often.

Do you use dedicated dealers? I've been mentioning that to @detroitdad... If I'm gonna sit in a rake-free, 25¢/50¢ game, he should be furnishing dedicated dealers. He doesn't agree.

 

[CraigT78]

I'm amazed that you've been running a regular, self-dealt game for 5 years and don't have this come up more often.

Do you dedicated dealers? I've been mentioning that to @detroitdad... If I'm gonna sit in a rake-free, 25¢/50¢ game, he should be furnishing dedicated dealers. He doesn't agree.

We have an error once in every 4 or 5 games, but it's the first time in memory someone forgot to burn the flop. Self Dealt. I considered dedicated dealers, but I don't want the players that will attract.

 

[WedgeRock]

I considered dedicated dealers, but I don't want the players that will attract.

 

[BGinGA]

imagine now a casino dealer that, rather than flipping the flop cards one at a time, deals them off the deck face down into a 3 card pile 1, 2, 3, then turns them over and spreads them in one motion. Now the “burn card” appears to be the last card in the spread.

Yeah, I'd argue that for most accomplished right-handed dealers, the missed burn card (first card dealt down) is the last of the three cards spread.... it should be the first card dealt down, and the top card in the overturned three-card pile prior to the spread (i.e., the door card). But lefties often do it differently, spreading left-to-right. It's still the top-card/last-card spread, but now sometimes in the #1 position.

B

 

[Moxie Mike]

I'm amazed that you've been running a regular, self-dealt game for 5 years and don't have this come up more often.

Do you dedicated dealers? I've been mentioning that to @detroitdad... If I'm gonna sit in a rake-free, 25¢/50¢ game, he should be furnishing dedicated dealers. He doesn't agree.

I asked him about this too in November... suggesting that dedicated dealers would make his games more enjoyable by creating a smoother, professional experience. His response? 'but I don't want a smooth, professional experience'. Hard to argue with that

Seriously though, we have dedicated dealers in tourneys and cash games that deal for a flat rate plus tips, or they just rake around .50-1.00 per hand plus tips. Makes things so much easier.

 

[Poker Zombie]

'but I don't want a smooth, professional experience'

Sounds like he's deciding to sell everything and go back to dice chips.

 

[Rhodeman77]

I asked him about this too in November... suggesting that dedicated dealers would make his games more enjoyable by creating a smoother, professional experience. His response? 'but I don't want a smooth, professional experience'. Hard to argue with that

Seriously though, we have dedicated dealers in tourneys and cash games that deal for a flat rate plus tips, or they just rake around .50-1.00 per hand plus tips. Makes things so much easier.

So in a 25/50c game with $100 max buy you suggest spending $150 to $200 on a dealer? There may only be $2k (sometimes even less) total on the table in play. Taking 10-15% off the table is not feasible for that size game.

The dealer will make more money than just about any player in the game other than perhaps the biggest winner. That shouldn’t be the case at all.

 

[detroitdad]

Sounds like he's deciding to sell everything and go back to dice chips.

First off, i don't think that is exactly how i worded it to mike lol. My goal is to deliver a fun, social evening of poker and conversation. If the guys want a professional experience they can choose to go to detroit. Most choose to come to my house. i guess I've been doing something right for the last decade.

 

[WedgeRock]

First off, i don't think that is exactly how i worded it to mike lol. My goal is to deliver a fun, social evening of poker and conversation. If the guys want a professional experience they can choose to go to detroit.

So I wasn't serious, but let's be honest: Chanman, multiple nice chip sets (and one that couldn't beat a limit ceramic set), plus nice cards, and good booze, you're aiming for a professional experience. But I tend to agree with @Rhodeman77 that taking 10% or the chips off the table for the dealer just doesn't make sense at these stakes. There's not a revolving player pool either, to replenish the money coming off the table. Thay, and for the most part, the players are competent dealers.

Sure, it'd be nice, but not reasonable and not justifiable... And candidly, not necessary in your game... I'd rather see you invest in Gassers first.

 

[Moxie Mike]

So in a 25/50c game with $100 max buy you suggest spending $150 to $200 on a dealer? There may only be $2k (sometimes even less) total on the table in play. Taking 10-15% off the table is not feasible for that size game.

The dealer will make more money than just about any player in the game other than perhaps the biggest winner. That shouldn’t be the case at all.

No it's a $3-$6 FL dealer's choice game - many games are stud, draw and/or split pot games - which take a bit of time per hand. Our guy is actually very good at dealing and managing the game to the point he should get a job at Gun Lake Casino... he usually knocks down $120-$150 plus tips for dealing 6-7 hours.

Sometimes, as players depart he'll jump into the game toward the end of the night too.

The logic is that a $1 rake per hand is far better than $6+ at the casino for the same level of experience.

First off, i don't think that is exactly how i worded it to mike lol. My goal is to deliver a fun, social evening of poker and conversation. If the guys want a professional experience they can choose to go to detroit. Most choose to come to my house. i guess I've been doing something right for the last decade.

I didn't mean that as a criticism... I'm sure the bourbons might have affected your wording My only point was that a dedicated dealer makes the experience better for everyone. Come to one of my games sometime and see for yourself! That said, I've enjoyed the game, the people and the experience every time you've been gracious enough to invite me - so please don't think your generosity isn't appreciated.

 

[Rhodeman77]

My game plays pretty big for most home games on here, we average $8k or so on the table and we still self dealt most of the time. Mostly because I wasn’t sure if we would have 5 or 9 players 4 hours before game time.

But once I was able to consistently get 8/9 players every game I put it to a vote and the players decided they like having a dedicated dealer. But it isn’t cheap!! The dealers work for tips only and they average $250 to $300 for 8 hours of dealing. That’s pretty much $30/person for a dealer.

@detroitdad has played at my game with a dealer. He isn’t against them, they just don’t make sense for his game in his (or my) opinion.

 

[BGinGA]

No it's a $3-$6 FL dealer's choice game - many games are stud, draw and/or split pot games - which take a bit of time per hand. Our guy is actually very good at dealing and managing the game to the point he should get a job at Gun Lake Casino... he usually knocks down $120-$150 plus tips for dealing 6-7 hours.

Sometimes, as players depart he'll jump into the game toward the end of the night too.

The logic is that a $1 rake per hand is far better than $6+ at the casino for the same level of experience.

I agree with MM here -- I pay dealers a flat rate $15/hr for dealing tournaments plus most winners tip around 10% of their net winnings, which works out to about $120-$150 for a six hour event.

I used to deal a local regular's cash game: it was a ten-player dealer's choice 25c/50c pot limit, 1/2 NLHE, 3/6 limit rotation game. $100 buy-ins ($95 in chips on first buy-in only for food rake), so $950 on the table to start and usually $2000+ total by end of session. I worked for tips only and usually made $120-$150 for six hours work. Nobody complained, and a lot more hands with fewer mistakes got played than ever possible with pass-the-deal.

I'm not rich, but as a player, I do have more money than patience for poorly-dealt games. I think a dedicated dealer is the much better solution for almost every home game, regardless of stakes -- it runs faster, more smoothly, and with fewer disputes. Big wins all around for a minimal cost per player.

 

[Hornet]

I considered dedicated dealers, but I don't want the players that will attract.

What kind of players are you worried about attracting? You control the invite list, right?

 

[Pinesol13]

Thanks for posting this, I learned a new rule today! In my home game I am always the dealer. I've never forgot to burn a card but it will probably happen at some point, happy I know the official rule now.

Does anybody else act as the dedicated dealer at their home games, or am I crazy?