SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card...
 

This was at Casino Niagara, so I don't know why I wouldn't expect something ridiculous like this to happen.

The small blind is accidentally dealt three cards; for some reason, he looks at them all and (after a few EP folds) tells the dealer he has three cards. The dealer asks for them and I assume he's going to kill the hand, while the SB assumes there will be a misdeal. The dealer, however, has other plans. And as the cards are being tossed in, the SB makes some comment about how he has a three-card straight.

The dealer lays them on the felt and scrambles the three cards in front of the SB. Then he picks one of them and flips it over, announcing "Nine of clubs is the burn card," and hands the other two cards back to the SB and let's the hand continue.

The SB is really confused at this point, but still decides to call a raise so he can see a heads-up flop out of position...and we all know he either has JT, T8, or 87. Then he check-folds a AK7 flop and I laugh.

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

And yet no one at this table decided to stop the dealer and call the floor to fix it? They deserve the results.

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

SB's hand is dead on top of the burn 3 card monte. Do NOT announce the burn card.

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

WTF...guess I won't be posting about whether or not I should make a trip there.

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

[ QUOTE ]
And yet no one at this table decided to stop the dealer and call the floor to fix it? They deserve the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the truth.

It's amazing how much people will let stuff slide until they feel they need and excuse for losing. THEN they take it to the mat.(not necesarily referring to OP, but people in general)

b

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

[ QUOTE ]
SB's hand is dead on top of the burn 3 card monte. Do NOT announce the burn card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously the way the dealer fixed it was horrible, but do you really think this is the best way to handle the situation? I think it should have been a misdeal if SB mentions the problem at least by the time action is to him. Why should he be punished by not having a hand because of the dealer's mistake?

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SB's hand is dead on top of the burn 3 card monte. Do NOT announce the burn card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously the way the dealer fixed it was horrible, but do you really think this is the best way to handle the situation? I think it should have been a misdeal if SB mentions the problem at least by the time action is to him. Why should he be punished by not having a hand because of the dealer's mistake?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a misdeal, his hand is just dead. If he'd seen the 3rd card and said something before looking, the dealer could have just pulled the card back and put it back on top of the deck, but as soon as he ruined the identifiability of the card (or looked at it) his hand was dead and he's out his SB money.

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

Dead hand, no burn.

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SB's hand is dead on top of the burn 3 card monte. Do NOT announce the burn card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously the way the dealer fixed it was horrible, but do you really think this is the best way to handle the situation? I think it should have been a misdeal if SB mentions the problem at least by the time action is to him. Why should he be punished by not having a hand because of the dealer's mistake?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a misdeal, his hand is just dead. If he'd seen the 3rd card and said something before looking, the dealer could have just pulled the card back and put it back on top of the deck, but as soon as he ruined the identifiability of the card (or looked at it) his hand was dead and he's out his SB money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this is the general rule, but it certainly sounds like a ridiculous one to me. Can't imagine any reason to punish a player for a mistake of a dealer. Can't see how it should matter if he has looked at the cards yet or not. Even if he hadn't looked yet, it would be impossible to know exactly which one he shouldn't get.

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SB's hand is dead on top of the burn 3 card monte. Do NOT announce the burn card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously the way the dealer fixed it was horrible, but do you really think this is the best way to handle the situation? I think it should have been a misdeal if SB mentions the problem at least by the time action is to him. Why should he be punished by not having a hand because of the dealer's mistake?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a misdeal, his hand is just dead. If he'd seen the 3rd card and said something before looking, the dealer could have just pulled the card back and put it back on top of the deck, but as soon as he ruined the identifiability of the card (or looked at it) his hand was dead and he's out his SB money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this is the general rule, but it certainly sounds like a ridiculous one to me. Can't imagine any reason to punish a player for a mistake of a dealer. Can't see how it should matter if he has looked at the cards yet or not. Even if he hadn't looked yet, it would be impossible to know exactly which one he shouldn't get.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is another case where he can protect his hand. He accepts the first card, then he accepts the second card, then he can say "hey I have two cards right here, I don't want this third one" and the dealer take the third card back.

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

I was assuming this was a case in which two cards had stuck together when beaing dealt. Of course the situation that you mention could happen as well, but in my theoretical example the player couldn't do much to help the situation.
I never count my cards face down before I turn them up to look.

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was assuming this was a case in which two cards had stuck together when beaing dealt. Of course the situation that you mention could happen as well, but in my theoretical example the player couldn't do much to help the situation.
I never count my cards face down before I turn them up to look.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it is because I have had to rule on all kinds of craziness, but I do check my cards before looking at them. I have even seen when the dealer pushes up the winning cards on the board it revealed another card underneath (they stuck together when he put up the board).

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

This is a fairly common mistake made worse by a dealer not knowing how to do their job.

nut kickings all around
 

The moron who is willing to announce his hand then play anyway, well, WHAM! Square in the nuts!


Next, the dealer. WHAM! Square in the nuts. No explanation even needed for that foolishness.


Al

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not a misdeal, his hand is just dead. If he'd seen the 3rd card and said something before looking, the dealer could have just pulled the card back and put it back on top of the deck, but as soon as he ruined the identifiability of the card (or looked at it) his hand was dead and he's out his SB money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this is the general rule, but it certainly sounds like a ridiculous one to me. Can't imagine any reason to punish a player for a mistake of a dealer. Can't see how it should matter if he has looked at the cards yet or not. Even if he hadn't looked yet, it would be impossible to know exactly which one he shouldn't get.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once there is significant action, it's unimportant how it came to be. You don't punish the other players who've already started playing because SB has three cards. Sorry--dead hand.

But if you catch it prior to the action, it does kinda matter how it happened. If the guy is turned around talking to the waitress and he looks back and sees three cards... ok, misdeal is fine. But if he looks at his first two cards as they are dealt, then takes the third and mixes it in because he didn't like the first two and then says "oh dear, I seem to have three cards, misdeal" I'm much more inclined to say "dead hand" even if there has been no action. SB doesn't get to force a do-over because he didn't like his original cards.

Did have a real-life example of something like this in one of the Binions tourneys during the WSOP. A few hours in and a commotion arises at the table behind me. It's the showdown and one guy has QJ4 in his hand (and QJxxx on the board). He's throwing a fit, saying "NO MY HAND IS NOT DEAD--I didn't know I had three cards!" Obviously the floor ruled on it correctly, but this poor old guy was just spitting and muttering fire after the ruling. "That's the WORST ruling I've ever seen! I should at least get my bets back! It's not my fault I got three cards--I never saw but two of them." Too bad, so sad.

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

I wouldn't consider it punishing the other players to make them take their bets back. If the cards hadn't stuck together they wouldn't have had the same cards anyway.
I generally don't even look at my hand until the action gets around to me. Of course if the player still doesn't notice he has 3 cards by the time the action passes him then the hand should be dead.

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't consider it punishing the other players to make them take their bets back. If the cards hadn't stuck together they wouldn't have had the same cards anyway.
I generally don't even look at my hand until the action gets around to me. Of course if the player still doesn't notice he has 3 cards by the time the action passes him then the hand should be dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is taht you don't have to actually look at them to know there are three of them. just by grabbing them you can count them with zero risk of giving up any tells.

The problem with letting you wait until there the action gets to you is that we worry that if you like your cards and the action that you will play out the hand and dump off the card you don't need.

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

OK, what if were UTG+1, UTG raised before you even really had much of a chance to pick your cards up, and then you turn them up, see 3, and say so. Is your hand still dead?

I think it would not be that easy to dump off an extra card without someone noticing, and this would be a huge jump from angle shooting to outright cheating that I think very few players would make.

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

I think I just vomitted in my mouth

Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
 

call floor person ASAP.