[psandman]

[ 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.