[godofgamblers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually he should not care one way or the other. While if a player folded an Ace that benefits him by increasing his outs, he has no way of know ing that a player folded an ace. If no player folded an ace then it is to his disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]


It doesn't matter what he knows, it matters what is probable. And it's more probable that the deck was more ace-rich without those disgards dealt back in.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to make the assumption that people don't fold aces. perhaps that is your experience in your games, and if I was playing in a game like that where no player ever folded an ace, I would have to agree with you.

Unfortunately I haven't found such a game. I'm sure they exist somewhere, but I haven't been so lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure how you are going to argue that the folded hands are less likely to contain aces than average. Yes, people do fold aces, but they are much more likely to play a hand that contains an ace. Putting the cards back puts the A7 player at a disadvantage.

Not sure what can be done about it though because I agree that the hand can't be a misdeal now and needs to be dealt out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. Over a million scenarios of this I'm fairly certain if the original scenario happened, A7 would win more than if cards were redealt back in and shuffled etc. However there's no real fair way to do it since it's more unfair to the QQ than it would be for the small disadvantage A7 gets in this scenario.