River exposed early...

zoneblitz · #1 08-19-2007, 11:14 AM

Hello All, this is a 1/2NL home game. Heads up at the river, I check my gut-shot draw to the nuts (need a J for Ace high straight). Before the other player acts the dealer burns and turns the river (a 3). We agree to just burn and turn another river (after the other player has a chance to act). He goes ahead and checks, the "new" river is a Jack. I bet, he calls with a pair of K's, I win. So I have 2 questions:

1) I'm sure we did this wrong (but we agreed to burn and turn a new river), so what is the "correct" way to handle this mis-deal situation?

2) Was I an ahole for betting out and taking the pot? The more I think about it, I wonder if I should have just checked it down and even chopped the pot. The dealer felt bad and kept flipping my opponent chips to "make up for it"....but I wonder if I should have just chopped. Of course if I missed, I would have had no problem with the guy taking the pot with K's

Thanks for any responses.

PantsOnFire · #2 08-19-2007, 11:33 AM

1) No, you keep the burn out, shuffle the early river card back into the deck, cut and deal the top card. The early river card needs a chance to come up again. Statistically, since that one card that didn't help you is now out of the deck, your chance of catching that jack went up slightly.

2) There is no need to feel bad or play differently. The real answer to this depends on the feel of your home game. As a player, I would not expect you to play differently or compensate me any chips. That's poker. Some may not feel the say way so it's really up to you here since you are among friends.

zoneblitz · #3 08-19-2007, 11:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
1) No, you keep the burn out, shuffle the early river card back into the deck, cut and deal the top card. The early river card needs a chance to come up again. Statistically, since that one card that didn't help you was of the deck, your chance of catching that jack went up slightly.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP? Not being picky, just want to make sure I understand. Statistically, if we put the exposed card back in the deck I have the same chance of hitting the jack? Unless you are considering the chances of the same "3" being dealt 2 times in a row.

[ QUOTE ]
2) There is no need to feel bad or play differently. The real answer to this depends on the feel of your home game. As a player, I would not expect you to play differently or compensate me any chips. That's poker. Some may not feel the say way so it's really up to you here since you are among friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, a freindly game...basically 5 hours of crotch kicking.
Thanks.

Lottery Larry · #4 08-19-2007, 12:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

2) Was I an ahole for betting out and taking the pot? The more I think about it, I wonder if I should have just checked it down

[/ QUOTE ]

I might have checked it down, since I got a river that I wasn't supposed to necessarily.

But, no chopping since you made an agreement to just burn/turn again for the river card.

Lottery Larry · #5 08-19-2007, 12:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Statistically, since that one card that didn't help you was of the deck, your chance of catching that jack went up slightly.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP? Not being picky, just want to make sure I understand. Statistically, if we put the exposed card back in the deck I have the same chance of hitting the jack? Unless you are considering the chances of the same "3" being dealt 2 times in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you have a GREATER chance of hitting the deck, slightly. Since the river burn card isn't in the stub, but the Jack was put back in, you have a slightly better chance of catching any Jacks in the stub.

Example: 6 players to start = 12 hole cards. 3 burn cards, 4 exposed board cards = 33 cards left in the stub.

Before the exposed river was dealt (meaning, the burn card hasn't been burned yet either), there were 34 cards left in the deck.

I know it seems as if it should be the same, since the burn card was already "set", just not touched.... but statistically, you don't look at it that way. The jack that you KNOW is in the stub, had a 1/34 chance of being the river burn card... now it doesn't.

Make sense?

BTW- "Unless you are considering the chances of the same "3" being dealt 2 times in a row. "

Same thing- the 3 had a 1/34 chance of being dealt before, now it has 1/33... since you know it CAN'T be the burn card that's already been put aside. There is no "chance of being dealt two times in a row" since the second deal is no longer dependent on the first deal.

zoneblitz · #6 08-19-2007, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Statistically, since that one card that didn't help you was of the deck, your chance of catching that jack went up slightly.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP? Not being picky, just want to make sure I understand. Statistically, if we put the exposed card back in the deck I have the same chance of hitting the jack? Unless you are considering the chances of the same "3" being dealt 2 times in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you have a GREATER chance of hitting the deck, slightly. Since the river burn card isn't in the stub, but the Jack was put back in, you have a slightly better chance of catching any Jacks in the stub.

Example: 6 players to start = 12 hole cards. 3 burn cards, 4 exposed board cards = 33 cards left in the stub.

Before the exposed river was dealt (meaning, the burn card hasn't been burned yet either), there were 34 cards left in the deck.

I know it seems as if it should be the same, since the burn card was already "set", just not touched.... but statistically, you don't look at it that way. The jack that you KNOW is in the stub, had a 1/34 chance of being the river burn card... now it doesn't.

Make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmm not really.

Maybe I wasn't clear....I didn't KNOW the Jack was in the stub at the point the river (3d) was dealt early. If we did it as suggested (shuffle the 3d back in the remaining stub and re-deal 1 card), all I would know about the stub is the 3d would be in there (and have a chance to show up again).

But my chances of hitting the Jack would be the same, right? I know that at least 1 card isn't a Jack, but since there's 30+ cards left anyway that isn't any new information. I'm sorry if I'm butchering this...please clarify.

Lottery Larry · #7 08-19-2007, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Example: 6 players to start = 12 hole cards. 3 burn cards, 4 exposed board cards = 33 cards left in the stub.

Before the exposed river was dealt (meaning, the burn card hasn't been burned yet either), there were 34 cards left in the deck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmm not really.

Maybe I wasn't clear....I didn't KNOW the Jack was in the stub at the point the river (3d) was dealt early. If we did it as suggested (shuffle the 3d back in the remaining stub and re-deal 1 card), all I would know about the stub is the 3d would be in there (and have a chance to show up again).

But my chances of hitting the Jack would be the same, right? I know that at least 1 card isn't a Jack, but since there's 30+ cards left anyway that isn't any new information. I'm sorry if I'm butchering this...please clarify.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right... and wrong. You're right in that you didn't know the hook was in there, if you didn't burn/redeal a new river.

It just comes down to the fact that you've removed the burn card for the (original) river, so your chance of getting ANY card (the same Jack or 3, or any of the remaining cards) is greater because there is one less card to "dilute" your chances for the river card.

Maybe this is easier: You're at a 21-player hold'em table and three people said "I fold my Jack-crap" preflop (and they're 100% correct).

a) Before the river burn card is touched, what are your chances of catching the last Jack, given that there are 4 cards left in the stub?

b) The dealer burns and turns the river too early, exposing the 3. He drops the stub in disgust, exposing the Jack and deuce. As per correct procedure, he reshuffles the three cards and prepares to deal the river again.

What are your chances of catching the Jack?

PantsOnFire · #8 08-19-2007, 03:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But my chances of hitting the Jack would be the same, right? I know that at least 1 card isn't a Jack, but since there's 30+ cards left anyway that isn't any new information. I'm sorry if I'm butchering this...please clarify.

[/ QUOTE ]
Knowing there is a 3d in the stub does give you information.

Let's take an identical example. You have a flush draw on the flop. You know your chance of hitting a flush on the turn card is 9/47=19.1%. If the turn card is not a flush card, then your chances of hitting a flush card on the river just went up to 9/46=19.6%.

So if your stub had 30 cards and you want a J and a 3d is removed leaving 29 cards, your chance of J coming up just got a little better. If you keep removing cards that are not Jacks and you have say one card left, there is a very good chance it is a Jack. As a matter of fact, there is a better chance it is a Jack than it isn't.

zoneblitz · #9 08-19-2007, 03:47 PM

a) 25%
b) 33%
Great example. Obviously we always include the burn card in the "unseen" denominator pointed out by a). Makes sense now.

Thanks to all.

Arito · #10 08-19-2007, 04:51 PM

No. The chances of catching that Jack are the same as before because you don't know if the Jack is still in the stub or not.

The dealer burns, deals a 3d, puts the 3d back in the stub, shuffles and deals the top card. The only change in this whole situation comparing it to before the dealer dealt the river prematurely is that now you KNOW there is a 3d in the stub left. However the impact that has on your chance to catch a Jack is negligible.

The problem everybody is making (I think) is that you no longer consider the burn as a possible card you can receive. But that doesn't matter because it was the burn card, and there was no way that was going to be dealt anyway. You didn't see what it was so nothing changes.