Cash Game RULING - Double Board with Extra Burn & Lots of Action? (1 Viewer)

justsomedude

justsomedude

Straight Flush
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
9,868
Reaction score
17,617
Location
The Black Hills
Literally the FINAL hand of our game tonight is a $2 bomb pot. @Kyle @pokerplayingpisces and another local are involved in the hand.

Before I know it, chips are flying all over the place and there's $100 in the pot as we go to the river.

Just as action is about to start on the river, I look at the board and happen to notice 4 burn cards when there should be 3. I point it out and the game pauses. We realized the dealer accidentally double-burned the turn the flop or the turn. And the turn is where most of the betting action occurred... I think there was a $23 bet on the turn with the other two players calling. The next burn and river cards were then dealt before anyone noticed the extra burn card.

I had no idea what to do here, and kind of let the players figure it out. This probably wasn't the best approach as host (I offered no official ruling), and told the three players that since it was their money in the pot it was up to them as to how they wanted to resolve it (either cancel the hand and refund all monies - or play it out as dealt). After some conversation and frustration, it was decided that there was no way to go back and "undo" prior action... the hand and betting had to finish with the cards already on the board.

Was this the correct decision?
Could it have been handled differently?
Better?
As host, how is this type of situation best resolved?

Input is appreciated.

1600585286012.png


1600585333896.png
 
Last edited:
Action and board stays as is IMO. You are long past the point of fixing such an error.

Additionally, the deck is still random whether you burn an extra card or not. You have no way of knowing what any card dealt will be until you see it. Deck order is an illusion unless you are talented enough to track face down cards as they are shuffled.
 
First, as host, you should be making the ruling.

The 4th burn would have been the turn. I agree that you can't undo the betting and the turn card has to stand, but the 4th burn card (that should have been the turn) becomes the river, so at least 4 of the intended board cards are actually on the board.

From RRoP:

If the dealer fails to burn a card or burns more than one card, the error should be corrected if discovered before betting action has started for that round. Once action has been taken on a boardcard, the card must stand. Whether the error is able to be corrected or not, subsequent cards dealt should be those that would have come if no error had occurred.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WedgeRock said:
First, as host, you should be making the ruling.

The 4th burn would have been the turn. I agree that you can't undo the betting and the turn card has to stand, but the 4th burn card (that should have been the turn) becomes the river, so at least 4 of the intended board cards are actually on the board.

From RRoP:
Click to expand...
I interpret that rule to mean that the river should be what the river would have otherwise been without the error. So the river would not be the 4th burn card. The river would be the next card off the deck.
 
Wait.

He burned the turn twice?

So the second burn card was correct, the third burn card should have been the turn, the turn should have been the third burn card, and the fourth burn card should have been river.

Hornet said:
The river would be the next card off the deck.
Click to expand...
That can never be correct, because there will never be 4 burn cards.

You are either making the third burn card (which would have been the turn) or the fourth burn card (which should have been the river) as the river.

In that case, my ruling would be to keep the correct river intact.
 
WedgeRock said:
Wait.

He burned the turn twice?

So the second burn card was correct, the third burn card should have been the turn, the turn should have been the third burn card, and the fourth burn card should have been river.


That can never be correct, because there will never be 4 burn cards.

You are either making the third burn card (which would have been the turn) or the fourth burn card (which should have been the river) as the river.

In that case, my ruling would be to keep the correct river intact.
Click to expand...
This is very confusing lol. So burn before the flop. Second burn before the turn, but in this case there was a third burn. That should have been the turn, but that card won’t be used. So burn again and the “true” river will stay the same as the next card.

Edit: this is double board, so for every burn after the flop, there are two cards dealt.
 
I missed double board, lol.

Second burn was correct.

Third burn should have been Board 1 turn card.

Board 1 turn card should have been Board 2 turn card.

Board 2 turn card should have been third (pre river) burn card.

4th burn card should have been board 1 river.

Next card off the stub should have been Board 2 river.

Tying to keep the board as true as possible, I make the 4th burn card the Board 1 river and the first card off the stub as the board 2 river.
 
Yeah, if you didn't figure this out until after the rivers are dealt and there was action on those rivers, then I think the cards stand as they are, even if you arrived at the conclusion that it happened on the turn (somehow) there is no undoing the action.

If you spotted this before the river action, you could have adjusted best you can (meaning what @WedgeRock just posted above as I was typing), otherwise given the level of uncertainty, you arrived at the right ruling. Well apparently the players did.
 
justsomedude said:
Just as action is about to start on the river, I look at the board and happen to notice 4 burn cards when there should be 3. I point it out and the game pauses.
Click to expand...

Rivers are out, but no action yet. I think you correct it, then allow betting to occur.

Board 2 river is treated as an exposed card. Board 1 river becomes Board 2 river and 4th burn card becomes Board 1 river. Action starts.
 
As it was said, the host should be making the ruling, not the players, imo. Giving players that ability can create all sorts of issues. Not that relevant in your case, Andrew as all of you guys are good friends. It is good to establish precedent though.

Good call on not changing the turn after action was taken.

Changing the river cards is a bit more subtle of an issue imo. It seems you guys only 'think' there was one more burnt card because of the number of cards on the bunt pile. There could have been other possible sources for that card. People mucking their hand close to that pile, a card sliding out of the deck after the river is deal, etc. So to me, since no one really saw the fourth burn (correct me if I'm wrong) correcting the river can be dicey.

In other words: if it is certain there was a fourth burnt card, I would correct the river cards. If it is just a 'it is possible' that happened, I think I'd maintain the river cards.
 
One more point. And it is my own personal take on replacing board cards:

Although I understand some of the more popular rule books call for it, I'm not a big fan. For casinos and professional games, sure, as there is more of a likelihood of some shenanigans going on.

For home games, I don't like it. We discussed this issue a few times here. I think the harm in changing the cards can do to the game is far greater than just letting a random order (albeit wrong) do her thing. Changing cards, whether the card is going back to the deck or not, being on the board or not, is additional information. That information can greatly benefit one or more players and hurt others. Having the information that a non-nut hand is now the nuts because the cards changed (cards were exposed) is not good. In many cases, I rather leave the board as is.

That is not to say it is never appropriate to change the board but I always try to maintain the game as fair as possible to all player. The river card being the x or x+1 or x-1 card on the deck doesn't change the fairness of the game and when possible, I try to keep it that way.

Once again, that is only my take on it.
 
Last edited:
I would rule the board stands as is. The error happened on the turn and too much action happened to fix it now. I’m not picking up 2 river cards and exposing more to try to correct the “true“ river cards either. The cards are all random unless you have a mechanic dealing. Proceed with the river action with the board as is.

Also, are 100% certain the extra burn card is from the turn? You said you noticed the 4 burn cards after the river was dealt. So there is a chance he burned in between dealing the river cards.
 
ChaosRock said:
As it was said, the host should be making the ruling, not the players, imo. Giving players that ability can create all sorts of issues.
Click to expand...

Yes - this was very poor form on my part. And I think it was the result of a combination of quite a few things happening at once... the last hand, people starting to stand up, my mind shifting to clean-up mode and thinking about getting to bed, etc.

How does the saying go... most car accidents happen a few blocks away from your home? This is kind of a similar example; I got lazy and took my eyes off the road.

I already reached out to one player and apologized directly for not handling the situation better by issuing a firm/direct ruling.

Definitely not a proud host moment, and if I could do it all over again I would’ve handled it very differently.

A valuable lesson learned.

Rhodeman77 said:
Also, are 100% certain the extra burn card is from the turn? You said you noticed the 4 burn cards after the river was dealt. So there is a chance he burned in between dealing the river cards.
Click to expand...

This is a good point, and one I hadn’t thought about... yes, it’s possible the extra burn occurred on the river. I am not 100% certain it happened on the turn.
 
Whether the error is able to be corrected or not, subsequent cards dealt should be those that would have come if no error had occurred.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure exactly what this specific part of the rule means, but I don't think I agree with it. The purpose of burning a card is to ensure that if someone recognizes the top card on the deck due to it being marked, that card will be one of the many cards not dealt to the board rather than one of the few cards that are dealt to the board. If the wrong number of burn cards are dealt, and action is taken so that the board cards must stand as dealt, then subsequent cards should be dealt as usual - burn the top card in case it was recognized, then deal the following card(s) to the board. Whether there were zero or two or seven cards burnt on the previous round has no effect on the ability of the players to predict which cards will be dealt in the current round, which is what matters. Burning the wrong number of cards simply indicates that the dealer didn't follow correct protocol, which could be an indication that the dealer is cheating but in almost any circumstance is most likely just a mistake. Mistakes happen. This particular type of mistake is no big deal.
 
Corrective action -- if any -- all depends on a) when the extra burn card was discovered relative to the action on that street, and b) if the point in time when it was incorrectly dealt is absolutely known or not.

If 'b' is unknown, then all prior action stands and play continues as normal, regardless.

Sounds like that was the case here -- the extra burn card could have been dealt on the flop, turn, OR river before somebody finally noticed an incorrect number of burn cards on the river. And the extra card might not even be an extra burn card at all, but rather just somebody's errant discard.
 
ChaosRock said:
One more point. And it is my own personal take on replacing board cards:

For home games, I don't like it. We discussed this issue a few times here. I think the harm in changing the cards can do to the game is far greater than just letting a random order (albeit wrong) do her thing.
Click to expand...

I agree. Regardless of Robert's or Casinos' rules - in my view, in a home game, a card dealt to a particular position, whether to a player or the board or the burn pile, should stand as dealt even if dealt out of the correct sequence. The possibilities for angle shooting in calling out or failing to call out an improper sequence are greater, IMHO, than the liklihood of the dealer cheating by dealing a chosen card to the wrong spot. A dealer who frequently deals improperly should be barred from dealing.

Exceptions: If the cards are dealt out of sequence at the beginning of the hand and there has been no action, then it's a misdeal; the hand is voided and the cards redealt. If a card that should have been dealt down is dealt up, it's set aside, and when the rest of the dealing is complete the card is replaced with the next card in the deck, then the deck is reshuffled with the exposed card.

Just to be absolutely clear - I don't believe this is what anyone's rules currently say, but I think they probably should.
 
WedgeRock said:
@justsomedude said:

Why are we adding variables that don't exist, like it could have been an extra flop or river burn, or it could have been an errant discard?
Click to expand...

It was just what we concluded after discussing it at the table, so I thought I'd share it.

It definitely was not an errant discard. Only 6 players were in the game at this point. 3 were in the hand. The other 6 folded cards were accounted for.

It was 100% an extra burn. But I can't tell you with certainty when it happened.
 
Yeah I was there. What happened was the player dealing out the river burned one card and put out the river and was about to burn another card and I stopped him. I told him the next card is the second river, then he dealt the second river. At that time, we all looked at the burn and it was then noticed that there was 4 burn cards. I don’t think anyone knows if it was flop burned twice or turn burned twice.

Unfortunately I wasn’t paying attention, as it was late, it was the last hand, and I had already folded - and thus was organizing my chips to be paid out.

I agree- too much action on the turn to correct (though no one knows for certain where the extra burn card was, we were assuming since everyone was in the hand (bomb pot) to the flop, someone would have noticed that being burned incorrectly.) and in fact both rivers were already dealt out before the burn pile was noticed.

Plus, random is random.
 
Significant action. Play it out. Correct ruling.
That being said... sounds like a friendly game. Handled it in a friendly game way.
 
Emitsu said:
Amazing, wish I was that talented
Click to expand...

You can probably do it! I did it with a modicum of woodworking skills and a bunch of help from the people on this forum.

I just used suede from Joann’s instead of Whisper vinyl.

Here’s a popular video that a lot of people base their builds off:

 
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!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

karsus
Tourney Rules Question -- Player with 3 hole cards at showdown (Hold'em)
Replies
20
Views
509
karsus
karsus
Jimulacrum
Cash Game Scarney Variant Dead Hand Messes
2
Replies
56
Views
1K
detroitdad
detroitdad
Headhunter13
Ruling in NLHE cash game
Replies
19
Views
484
CraigT78
CraigT78
CraigT78
How do you rule?
2 3
Replies
81
Views
3K
CraigT78
CraigT78
Mike Wells
Cash Game Weird situation in cash game
2
Replies
51
Views
1K
CraigT78
CraigT78
Back
Top Bottom