Help -- I have NEVER seen this happen before.

[epdaws]

[ QUOTE ]
3. If the burn cards really are in the muck (you sound new, and may not realize that not all facedown cards are mucked), accept nothing less than the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the problem was that players who had mucked had tossed their cards into what appeared to be the same pile that the dealer was pulling the "new" turn and river from. However, I can give the dealer credit for knowing which was which, but I can not give him any credit for properly explaining which cards were burn cards, and why he chose the cards he did to replace the turn and river.

At the very least, a full explanation before he replaced the turn and river would have helped.

[goofball]

holy hell. I'm an extremely mellow/passive guy and I'm pretty sure I would ahve been 86ed after this hand.

Here's a tip for everyone. If you have a dealer disagree with you and it's something that matters (like the awarding of a pot) don't engage them further just yell for the floor. Yell, don't stand up and look around, don't walk over to the floor, yell. "FLOOR!" is all you need to do, the dealer will stop the action and the floor will come. If they ruled against me here then I would probably have been 86ed thouhg.

[mblax10]

Obviously, the dealer handled this horribly. My question is if somebody points out the dealer did burn one too many cards and the floor is called, what should the decision be? The players we're all-in, so the dealer putting out the incorrect turn and river did not affect action.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is if somebody points out the dealer did burn one too many cards and the floor is called, what should the decision be? The players we're all-in, so the dealer putting out the incorrect turn and river did not affect action.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone points it out as it happening the "correct" card should be dealt. If the cards are dealt and then it is noticed it is too late to correct it for 2 reasons. (1) There existance of an extra burn card does not tell us when the extra burn was made, only that it was made (might have burned twice before the flop, noway to know). (2)Allowing a playing to point out the wrong card is dealt after the card is dealt allows that player too much leverage; if it was a card they liked they could overlook the error, but point it out if they wanted a different card.

[epdaws]

[ QUOTE ]
Allowing a playing to point out the wrong card is dealt after the card is dealt allows that player too much leverage; if it was a card they liked they could overlook the error, but point it out if they wanted a different card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this an actual rule or are you making an assumption. It makes sense to me. The purpose of the burn cards is to protect the integrity of the game, and burning an extra card does not change the random nature of the cards on board. Of course, I'm obviously biased here.

In this case, it was only the dealer who decided to go back and change something; no one asked him to do so. After he dealt the turn and river, he made the decision on his own.

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
"I want to call the floor," I tell the dealer. "Even if you did burn one too many, you finished dealing the hand and declared a winner. And you didn't even explain how you picked out the two cards you ended replacing the turn and river with!"

"We don't need the floor," the dealer responds. "I made a mistake and I fixed it."

"I want to talk to the floor," I say.

"Then go get the floor," the dealer responds.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only part of the story that really and truly amazes me.

[pokerfloor]

Only thing to do is notify the dealers next of kin

[tom10167]

[ QUOTE ]
Only thing to do is capture and torture the dealer's next of kin.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mr_Donktastic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. That. Sucks.

I cant believe that they made such a horrible decision.. not sure if I want to play there anymore..

[/ QUOTE ]

really the horrible decision was from the OP, not holding on to his cards and yelling for the floor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely true. I have never had to call for the floor before, and this was a nice experience for me. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

In your defense, players really shouldn't have to call the floor - dealers should! And good ones won't hesitate to call them for even minor stuff, let alone something absurd like what happened to you.

I would have flipped the f*ck out if I were you...

Not sure if anyone answered your Q yet, but I don't think there is a rule for this. But, I always thought that once the community cards come out, they are out. I'm guessing most floor people would have at least given you your chips back, if not the whole pot.

[QuadsOverQuads]

That's ridiculous conduct by the dealer.

First off, as another poster has pointed out, the burn cards are kept separate from the muck for a reason. If a dispute arises (such as this), they are identifiable and any necessary corrections can be made without resorting to guesswork. If the dealer didn't keep the burn separate from the muck, that's error #1.

Second, if an error like this occurs it's DEFINITELY a floor call, so that the integrity of both the dealer and the establishment will not be called into question. You want a supervisor to oversee any correction of the board to make sure there is no lingering issue after the hand is over.

Third, when a player asks for a floor decision here you call the floor. As a dealer, I can't imagine telling a player to leave the table and find the floor for himself when a $300+ pot is at stake. That's just plain nuts.

Fourth, when a dispute is ongoing over a pot, you DO NOT muck the cards and start dealing the next hand (effectively destroying the evidence that the floor would need in order to correctly make any further call).

I have no idea if this was just a very inexperienced dealer in a moment of panic ("oh god, don't let the floor know I screwed up!") or if this was a shadier thing, but the handling of this as you described was just plain awful.

At minimum, I'd have made a formal complaint to the management about this, and I'd have asked them to review the surveillance tapes if possible.


q/q