[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question: technically speaking, doesn't this procedure give his opponent a slight advantage? For example, suppose there is a 2 flush on board and the "fake" turn card completes it? He now knows that the odds of the flush completing on the turn are actually a little lower than usual because one of the flush cards is not eligible to come out on the turn. Or even worse, suppose his opponent holds an UI pocket pair, and the fake turn would have spiked him a set? Now he knows that card is not coming on the turn....

[/ QUOTE ]

but it is shuffled back in for the river.

[/ QUOTE ]


But it can ONLY come on the river. "1 out twice" is better then "1 out once".

The card room's procedure is what is retarded, if I read it correctly. There should be a chance for the mis dealt turn to be the same card, by dealing the would be river as the turn and THEN re-shuffling is beyond retarded. If you are going to enforce killing an exposed board card (also dumb) then you darn well better shuffle it back in before re-dealing the turn.

Wow, what an awful procedure.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this analysis is wrong. The all-in decision was made with three cards showing and two to come, just as would be the case had no error occurred. The original river card (the same actual physical card) has been moved to the turn - so obviously, no change there. The random turn card becomes a random river card. No change there, despite the fact that a random card was flashed.

I think your error is the fallacy that "it can only come on the river", so that somehow it's different. Not so, as the order doesn't matter. The reality is that there are two slots, and one is already filled - by the exact same physical card that would have filled a slot no matter what. And the other slot is filled by a random card. The order doesn't matter. That's the accurate analysis.

The procedure is 100% fair, and there really is no legitimate basis for complaint.