A floor call I had never seen
 

It is pretty rare that something happens in a poker room I have never seen. I was called to an Omaha game tonight because the dealer had flashed a player's card (no big deal it would become the burn), dealt around and instead of giving the button his fourth card he dealt it to replace the exposed card. I got to the table and there had been a raise and a call and the button pointed out he only had 3 cards. I won't mention what I ruled because that would alter the discussion, but I am interested in what others think should happen.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

This is the fault of the dealer, player should not be penalized into not being able to play the hand.
Assuming the replacement burn has already been returned to the top of the stub...
Remove the burn(exposed card) deal the next card to the button, return burn to stub, play on.

Only two cards are "out of order", flop , turn , river will remain the same...not enough harm done to warrant punishing button player by not allowing him to play a hand.

But at CAZ, most likely call...no flop, misdeal.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

W/O thinking too much I would call the hand dead and deal over since there wasn't any action. (NM, I saw there was action)

I swear I've seen something that makes no sense like I'm about to suggest but how about decalring the persons hand dead who only had 3 cards? Unless there was a BBj or the person was in the blinds it wouldn't change much, right?

Ok, I'm tired, back to NVG I go.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

The sane thing to do would be just give the button another card but there is no way I can see that flying because poker players are superstitious retards and they couldn't live with giving two people different cards than what they were "supposed" to have.

So kill button's hand is what I would guess happens in this situation.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

2 dead hands?

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

Because everyone else got what they were "supposed" to get, I would probably treat this like a turn card that gets dealt too early. Reshuffle the remainder of the deck, then give the button his fourth card, and play the hand out. I think the button needs to wake up if he managed to make it to the flop with only three cards, but the fact that there has been action pooches the deal.

I dunno...maybe I'm not understanding what happened.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

I'd give the button the top card on the deck, but I don't care about the folks who care about the cards that were "supposed" to be on the board.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

Button's hand is dead.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

Give the Button his 4th card and carry on.
No misdeal. No dead hands.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

Yeah, this seems fairly straightforward. You need to give the button another card to keep the integrity of the flop (if you're one who believes in such things). Least harm to least people with as much as 'should' have been as possible. If you kill the button's hand, do you also burn an extra card to get back to the 'proper' flop?

FWIW, I think I did something very similar to this once. Can't remember what the floor ruled.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

While I wouldn't terribly object to giving the Button the next nonexposed card from the top of the deck, I think I would be inclined here towards calling the buttons hand dead -- Here is why.

1) Do to the fact that a card was exposed the button was no longer the player who was supposed to receive the last card, so now this situation is more along the lines of a regular deal in which the cutoff only received three cards even though the button receiveed four.

2) Though I agree the cards are still "random" if you give the button the next card, there is value to regularity inm the dealing procedure so as to avoid the possibility of cheating by varying the order in which cards are dealt.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
While I wouldn't terribly object to giving the Button the next nonexposed card from the top of the deck, I think I would be inclined here towards calling the buttons hand dead -- Here is why.

1) Do to the fact that a card was exposed the button was no longer the player who was supposed to receive the last card, so now this situation is more along the lines of a regular deal in which the cutoff only received three cards even though the button receiveed four.

2) Though I agree the cards are still "random" if you give the button the next card, there is value to regularity inm the dealing procedure so as to avoid the possibility of cheating by varying the order in which cards are dealt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really good. Dealer messes up, so you kill the Button's hand. To be fair, you should kill the hand of the player with the exposed card. He could just as easily been a partner to the 'cheating'. Then fire the dealer for being a 'possible cheat'.

If you are that paranoid, turn any dealer mistake into a misdeal. Exposed cards too. You never know what the dealer might be doing.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While I wouldn't terribly object to giving the Button the next nonexposed card from the top of the deck, I think I would be inclined here towards calling the buttons hand dead -- Here is why.

1) Do to the fact that a card was exposed the button was no longer the player who was supposed to receive the last card, so now this situation is more along the lines of a regular deal in which the cutoff only received three cards even though the button receiveed four.

2) Though I agree the cards are still "random" if you give the button the next card, there is value to regularity inm the dealing procedure so as to avoid the possibility of cheating by varying the order in which cards are dealt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really good. Dealer messes up, so you kill the Button's hand. To be fair, you should kill the hand of the player with the exposed card. He could just as easily been a partner to the 'cheating'. Then fire the dealer for being a 'possible cheat'.

If you are that paranoid, turn any dealer mistake into a misdeal. Exposed cards too. You never know what the dealer might be doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a question for you.

In an ordinary deal without an exposed card, if a player in middle position only is dealt 3 cards in an omaha game. And then doesn't say something before there is a raise and a call should that player now receive the top card? If not why is this any different.

You do understand that if the button had raised the issue immediately it would have bene a misdeal, the problem was that once the dealer made the error, the button waited until there was substantial action before speaking up.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

Do you understand that a lot of players do not look at their cards until it is their turn?

I guess your view is that all players must check their cards before any action begins. And that would also mean that UTG cannot act before the button gets his last card.

Actually, you seem to imply that the button knew all the time he only had 3 cards and only spoke up when there was action. Which makes zero sense.

[ QUOTE ]
You do understand that if the button had raised the issue immediately it would have bene a misdeal,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in a lot of rooms. He would just get the next card.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is the fault of the dealer, player should not be penalized into not being able to play the hand.
Assuming the replacement burn has already been returned to the top of the stub...
Remove the burn(exposed card) deal the next card to the button, return burn to stub, play on.

Only two cards are "out of order", flop , turn , river will remain the same...not enough harm done to warrant punishing button player by not allowing him to play a hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.

However, at Foxwoods they don't care if there is dealer error. If a player has too few cards after there has been any significant action (a call, raise, or two folds) the hand is declared dead because the player failed to protect their hand immediately. That is unless you happen to get a different Floor who rules to just give the player a card. Really. Different rulings depending on who is the Floor at the time.

I was told they are working on being consistent at Foxwoods re Floor decisions.

Three incidents that happened this weekend at Foxwoods 10/20 LHE.
1) Player in MP looks for his 2nd card when its his turn to act. It isn't there. His hand is declared dead by the Floor. There is only one burn card - so flop, turn, and river are different than if all hands had been dealt properly.
2) Player is thinking about flop decision. Dealer burns a card preparing for the turn. Player yells "Stop" very very loudly. All action stops at at least 7 tables. Floor comes over and asks what happened and stays for a couple of hands. Player deliberates and then calls. The odd thing was Floor started to chastise the player for being too dramatic. Several other players jumped in to defend him - because he was trying to stop a dealer error - successfully it turned out. Score one for 2+2, player is a poster here.
3) I am UTG and I stand up for a second and tell dealer I am in the hand. He acknowledges me. When I sit down and look at my card there is only one. Hand is declared a misdeal. Guy with KK next to me tries to look put out. I tell him I want my K.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
The sane thing to do would be just give the button another card but there is no way I can see that flying because poker players are superstitious retards and they couldn't live with giving two people different cards than what they were "supposed" to have.

So kill button's hand is what I would guess happens in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand that a lot of players do not look at their cards until it is their turn?

I guess your view is that all players must check their cards before any action begins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its my view that if a player chooses to to not pay any attention to the deal (remember he doesn't have to look at the face of the cards he just has to know thathe was dealt a valid hand) he does so at his own peril.

[ QUOTE ]
And that would also mean that UTG cannot act before the button gets his last card.

[/ QUOTE ]

When action occurs before the last player gets his last card that action will not bar players from raising an irregularity that casuses a misdeal.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, you seem to imply that the button knew all the time he only had 3 cards and only spoke up when there was action. Which makes zero sense.


[/ QUOTE ]I charge the button with constructive knowledge if not actual knowledge, by that I mean that if he didn't know he had only three cards he should have known it. I know you believe that players have no obligation to protect themselves, but this is part of protecting your hand.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You do understand that if the button had raised the issue immediately it would have bene a misdeal,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in a lot of rooms. He would just get the next card.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to say that there are no rooms that deal players cards in this scenario, but i challenge your claim that a lot of rooms would do so. Just to make it clear you are saying that in a lot of rooms if it is realized that a player was skipped in the deal (before the deal is complete or before there is substantial action) that rather than declare a misdeal they just deal off the top to that player.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

I am not fully sure what you mean by the dealer "...instead of giving the button his fourth card he dealt it to replace the exposed card."

In any event, if a player has the wrong number of cards and there are two actions after the blinds, the hand is dead in most places I have played in.

However, if the action is still pf and the floor ruled that the player can get the burn card and the exposed card becomes the burn for the flop, I wouldn't complain.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is pretty rare that something happens in a poker room I have never seen. I was called to an Omaha game tonight because the dealer had flashed a player's card (no big deal it would become the burn), dealt around and instead of giving the button his fourth card he dealt it to replace the exposed card. I got to the table and there had been a raise and a call and the button pointed out he only had 3 cards. I won't mention what I ruled because that would alter the discussion, but I am interested in what others think should happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of me says misdeal. Part of me says give the button his fourth card because the flop will then be the original flop had the dealer dealt correctly, as opposed to killing his hand (with three cards) which would then theoretically make the door card on the flop the original burn card and the flop will be one card off.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
I charge the button with constructive knowledge if not actual knowledge, by that I mean that if he didn't know he had only three cards he should have known it. I know you believe that players have no obligation to protect themselves, but this is part of protecting your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something you are overlooking here. The button does not have the dealer deal to his left after his last card, so he doesn't get an opportunity to protect himself in this case because the dealer doesn't "pass him by." The other problem with this is the players up front often start playing before the dealer is done dealing so the existence of a bet and raise does not mean he wasn't on top of it to speak up the moment he didn't get get his fourth card. On the other hand everything you have said about consistent dealing procedures is correct.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
The other problem with this is the players up front often start playing before the dealer is done dealing so the existence of a bet and raise does not mean he wasn't on top of it to speak up the moment he didn't get get his fourth card.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is the case, then I would say give button the burn card if he stopped action in a reasonable amount of time after he realized dealer wasn't going to give him his fourth card.

Usually two actions is sufficient time to call a stop in play. Early actions by UTG and UTG+1 should not count as actions for this type of ruling.

If this is the case, I hope you gave button the flop burn card.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

I would think the floor might do one of 3 decisions. 1. declare a misdeal. 2. give button final card. 3. Declare the buttons hand only a dead hand. Any of these decisions would be acceptable to myself as a player and i would forgive the dealer as an honest mistake and accept the floor decision as your a busy guy and have other things to attend to so get a final word out as quickly as possible and move to the next hand. HOWEVER That dealer better not continue on stupidity or a tip could be null invoid in the future due to lack of paying attention.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

Action has occured, in spite of our button not getting his wrong last card. We all know the button's not going to get the right one; concentrate next time, dealer. The correct flop/turn/river will come out if you give the button a fourth card ... so let's get it done and move on. If the player doesn't like the ruling, they can always fold their perfectly good hand.

Misdeal feels like the wrong ruling in spite of the fact that two players received the wrong cards. And a dead hand (because of dealer error) because the dealer didn't finish dealing cards out feels wrong as well ... but I can see the floor peeling off the top card to the button AND killing one/both hands to restore the flop/turn/river to its proper state and preserve the integrity of the "eight" good hands that were dealt.

Interesting example.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

I've never called a misdeal after this much action, but I think you have to in this case. All the action occurred before the cards were distributed, and when the distribution of cards becomes this messed up, you've got to "no action" this hand.

Eager to see what RR ruled.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've never called a misdeal after this much action, but I think you have to in this case. All the action occurred before the cards were distributed, and when the distribution of cards becomes this messed up, you've got to "no action" this hand.

Eager to see what RR ruled.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something else I forgot to include. This hand took place at about 1:38 and at 1:34 I had announced "last three hands" so everyone is playing as fast as they possibly can because they want to get out of there to beat the traffic as the casinos are about to close (by law). It appeared the button did not have time to protect his hand as the dealer had not yet returned the exposed burn card to the top of the deck, so I had the dealer give him the top card off the deck. A number of people suggested I should have killed his hand. Later (after I made the OP here) I looked up what the local gaming regulation says and found this.


[ QUOTE ]
47.1-1021 Dealing. A card dealt must be the top card of the deck. After the first card of the hand has been dealt to a player, the deal continues in a clockwise direction. The order of cards may not be disturbed during the deal of a round, except in the remedy of too few cards or for the purposes of error correction in the event of an exposed card.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the part that I bolded it appears that the Division of Gaming recognizes that a player is entitled to the correct number of cards and might even permit going back and giving a player a card if they are skipped during the initial deal.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I charge the button with constructive knowledge if not actual knowledge, by that I mean that if he didn't know he had only three cards he should have known it. I know you believe that players have no obligation to protect themselves, but this is part of protecting your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something you are overlooking here. The button does not have the dealer deal to his left after his last card, so he doesn't get an opportunity to protect himself in this case because the dealer doesn't "pass him by." The other problem with this is the players up front often start playing before the dealer is done dealing so the existence of a bet and raise does not mean he wasn't on top of it to speak up the moment he didn't get get his fourth card. On the other hand everything you have said about consistent dealing procedures is correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

There may not have been a deal to the left, but the dealer now stopped brought in an exposed card and dealt an additional card to another player (maybe not the player on the immediate left of the button but still a very overt action which should have alerted the button).

As to the action before the the deal is complete, I took for granted that if there was an issue about the action happening early you would have mentioned it. While its not uncommon for a player to call or muck befor ethe dealing is complete, its a little less common for a raise and call to occur.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
As to the action before the the deal is complete, I took for granted that if there was an issue about the action happening early you would have mentioned it. While its not uncommon for a player to call or muck befor ethe dealing is complete, its a little less common for a raise and call to occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot to mention in the OP that the room was about to close so everyone was plying at a frantic pace. Also the last couple of hands of the night are often cappped before the cards are out so it is impossible to determine when this action took place. It was late and I had worked a long shift when I got home and made the OP so I did leave out a couple more details.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

If the action took place before the deal, meaning they bet blind, then it's a misdeal.

If the action took place after the players received their cards then the button's hand is dead.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the action took place before the deal, meaning they bet blind, then it's a misdeal.

If the action took place after the players received their cards then the button's hand is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that doesn't help if the UTG acts before the deal ends. In that case the button never has a chance to let the dealer know of the mistake before action takes place.

Now I never look at my cards before it's my turn to act, but I do count them.

In this case, if the button spoke up as soon as it was clear the dealer wasn't going to give him a forth card, then I'd rule that he should get the current top card. If he waited and then noticed his hand was short, it's dead.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

With that information I would think a misdeal is an appropriate decision (still curious why your dealer has no idea whether the action occurred before or after the deal was completed). I don't like just giving another card because your probably not going to do that everytime a player is shorted a card. It wouldn't be terrible to give him the next card, but I just think its a bad precedent.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is pretty rare that something happens in a poker room I have never seen. I was called to an Omaha game tonight because the dealer had flashed a player's card (no big deal it would become the burn), dealt around and instead of giving the button his fourth card he dealt it to replace the exposed card. I got to the table and there had been a raise and a call and the button pointed out he only had 3 cards. I won't mention what I ruled because that would alter the discussion, but I am interested in what others think should happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've avoided reading other responses and wonder if we come close.

Normally the button is the one player who can and should get his final card (when the dealer makes a mistake) even after action has taken place. In other words forgetting to deal the button is a very common mistake and correcting it is easy; simply deal him the card (rarely does this involve a floor call). Doing this doesn't "change the order" or affect anything and is seen as fair by most players. Also in a fast game with experienced players action often starts before the button gets the final card so the button would be at a disadvantage if he had the burden of identifying his short hand before we have "action" in two spots.

This case is different. In the real world we deal with superstitious players who believe that "keeping the right order of cards" (even if the "right order" is random and unforeseeable) is important and sacred. In this case the button had plenty of time to notify the dealer of his short hand. Since he didn't and the other player had "his card" I'd rule the button's hand dead. That way you only have one hand "out of order" rather than two and less potential chaos/arguments. (You can't rule the other player's hand dead even though he has "the wrong card" because he did absolutely nothing wrong).

That said, I don't feel that strongly about this and wouldn't argue with someone who felt that simply giving the button a fourth card is right.

~ Rick

PS My guess is you made the killed the button's hand based on something similar to my logic above.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. I am still not completely sure what resolution is best. I know that just killing the button's hand leads to the least amount of chaos (only one player is upset), but that seems grossly unfair. I don't like setting a precedent of allowing someone to get a card out of order, but at the same time this was the first time I had ever seen this sequence of events so I am not too worried about being consistent in this spot.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do understand that if the button had raised the issue immediately it would have bene a misdeal,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in a lot of rooms. He would just get the next card.

[/ QUOTE ]

In twenty years of playing (and a few years flooring) flop games I've never seen this declared a misdeal or even become a dispute no matter what the action. The button simply gets another card which is of course on top the deck (and the one he should have gotten).

~ Rick

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know that just killing the button's hand leads to the least amount of chaos (only one player is upset), but that seems grossly unfair.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the sort of person who would flip out at the button getting another card, wouldn't the fact that the flop would be 'wrong' also upset that person? I really don't understand why anybody would have a problem with him receiving another card.

And to respond to psandman from earlier... yes, there are plenty of rooms who would give a middle position skipped player a card at the end. Hell, in my room, if a player is skipped entirely, s/he can be given two off the top. I think this is a regional thing.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the thoughts everyone. I am still not completely sure what resolution is best. I know that just killing the button's hand leads to the least amount of chaos (only one player is upset), but that seems grossly unfair. I don't like setting a precedent of allowing someone to get a card out of order, but at the same time this was the first time I had ever seen this sequence of events so I am not too worried about being consistent in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not ruining the integrity of the flop by giving the button his fourth card. In fact you are actually protecting the integrity of the flop, turn and river that would come up thru the random shuffle - which should make everybody happy.

I don't know how you can justify a dealer mistake and penalize the button by killing his hand(who actually gets the short end of the stick of this whole thing - and judging by your responses to earlier posts, it sounds like he told the dealer once he realized he didn't have his fourth card) Killing his hand just sounds like a very bad decision regarding the integrity of the game.

How can you be setting a precedent for a card being presented out of order. Sounds to me like you need to train your dealers better.

If anything you might want to question the dealer and the player who flipped their cards over to see if they are cheating as the dealer gave him the button's card "by mistake"- I realize that may sound dumb but thats exactly how killing the button's hand sounds.

Also, you are a floorman, you should embrace chaos - if its the right decision. Just because you want to keep the least amount of chaos doesn't mean you should break the integrity of the game. This is how different floorpeople aren't consistent in similar situations - because they don't want people yelling at them, berating them etc.

It also sounds like you might be using "killing his hand" as a scapegoat because you wanted to get off work (not justifiable but understandable). Just a few thoughts.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

OK, I am just curious as to why all the casinos were closing at 1:40 am.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I am just curious as to why all the casinos were closing at 1:40 am.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gaming regulation that all players must be physically out of the casino by 2 am.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do understand that if the button had raised the issue immediately it would have bene a misdeal,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in a lot of rooms. He would just get the next card.

[/ QUOTE ]

In twenty years of playing (and a few years flooring) flop games I've never seen this declared a misdeal or even become a dispute no matter what the action. The button simply gets another card which is of course on top the deck (and the one he should have gotten).

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Rick,

I have never seen this exact situation come up, but I have no idea why you would not treat it exactly the same as if a middle position player was skipped and raised the issue immediately (but after its too late to just slide the cards back because you no longer no which card was which or a player looked ta his cards).


How many rooms have you played in where the middle position player gets the top card?his is generally a misdeal.

Now why would treat this situation any different, because its the button? Usuually the button gets the lats card so it makes no difference if you just give him the top card, but in this case the button wasn't supposed to get the last card, its just as if he was the cutoff ro in middle position or early position.
In how many rooms have you seen t

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do understand that if the button had raised the issue immediately it would have bene a misdeal,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in a lot of rooms. He would just get the next card.

[/ QUOTE ]

In twenty years of playing (and a few years flooring) flop games I've never seen this declared a misdeal or even become a dispute no matter what the action. The button simply gets another card which is of course on top the deck (and the one he should have gotten).

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the exposed card is the only reason this is complicated at all.

Re: A floor call I had never seen
 

I don't think sandman's quite that paraniod. But keep in mind, the person standing next to you may not be who they appear to be. Sandman just likes to do the lawyerly thing and argue the opposite side of virtually any point, no matter what that point may be.


That being said, he does have a theoretical point. But I've been reading the posts and I'd still go with my original impression - just give the button a card and be done with it already. If anyone's really that worried about it, give them sandman's number and he'll argue the opposite point.


Al