[Rick Nebiolo]

These comments are directed towards all who have already posted or those that may read this thread.


Most poker rules use techniques, in the case of SNAFUs, that give the player (or put on the board) the card that "would have come anyway" whenever possible. The rule that in the case of a prematurely exposed turn card the action is completed and we have a new burn and turn (giving the players the card they "would have got" on the river as the turn card) is an example.

Now someone who understands odds and randomness and so on would say "Why does it matter, why not just reshuffle including the premature burn and start again?" and of course in this sense they are correct. But when a rule can be written so that it does no harm and satisfies the superstitious, i.e., the people that believe keeping hidden cards in order matters (in other words typical losing, non analytical gambloors) then it's best to do it that way to keep the gambloors happy.

----

Below PantsOnFire wrote:

"Perhaps a burn card would reduce the chance of somebody getting a glimpse of the top card thereby knowing what the river will be."

I was in favor of reburning for that reason until another poster pointed out to me that this is unnecessary since the action is completed before the reshuffle. Although it may still be best to burn for the reason Bob C. mentions, given the required parlay (i.e. dealer needs to make an embarrassing mistake in order to put himself in a situation where he can aid a confederate player by not burning), I wouldn't make it a rule change priority.

~ Rick