WTF just happened... need ruling

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The original river card, after the burn as they would have, replaces the 4th street card. That card, the 8, is shuffled back into the deck and the new river is dealt without a burn card[ QUOTE ]

I'm a little confused LL, are you saying (what should've happend):
Take the 8 back into the stub
Shuffle cards
deal no turn (no burn, already done)
burn
deal river


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

No- I read it again and didn't interpret it the way you just did, but since I wrote it, that means squat.

You do as you intend and as the dealers did (almost)- pull aside the 8, burn and turn the river card in place of the now-removed turn card. Shuffle the 8 (but none of the other burn cards) back into the deck so the 8 has a chance to come out again.

Deal the river without burning, since you already did that by accident when dealing the 8.

Better, Cody?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, but I think both solutions get to the same end. My disagreement is the order of things. It doesn't really matter, I think our issue is that you're keeping the river card as it would've been, while I'd just reshuffle the stub starting with the turn and then burn, deal river, push pot.

Don't think it matters either way really.

Cody

[Small Fry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rottersod... I was 100% with you in my line of thinking as this all unfolded. I was obviously biased in my thinking (and a little psd off) but does his call after the 8 hit make a difference? I guess I would like to assume they did it correctly, and according to L.L. it sounds like they did, but do you have a different opinion? The hand in question wasn't really a big deal, but I could see it happening in my own home game someday, and I'd like to know exactly what to do. Thanks all.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that hand had played out like it did in my home game I would have spoken up and asked that it be ruled that the 8 plays. The guys I play with probably would have agreed and we would have gone on and had an enjoyable evening. My reasoning for doing it this way is that the villain clearly thought he was ahead when he called your all in so you shouldn't be penalized for the dealers mistake. The fact that the villain did make the call before it was straightened out means that the 8 should have played.

In fact, the more I think about it the more I realize that you could have made a good case in a casino that the 8 should have played since the villain made the call after seeing the card and your action was already finished for the rest of the hand. I'm going to ask a couple of local floors in LA next weekend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I like the logic here. The villian gets additional knowledge and you're okay with allowing him to use that to make a decision. I think your argument for the 8 to stay is also based on the belief that you feel you're still in the lead. I would remove the 8 and the villians action would be nullified. I would then give him the option to act again based on just the flop. Rest of the deal, if required, would be just as LL said.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rottersod... I was 100% with you in my line of thinking as this all unfolded. I was obviously biased in my thinking (and a little psd off) but does his call after the 8 hit make a difference? I guess I would like to assume they did it correctly, and according to L.L. it sounds like they did, but do you have a different opinion? The hand in question wasn't really a big deal, but I could see it happening in my own home game someday, and I'd like to know exactly what to do. Thanks all.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that hand had played out like it did in my home game I would have spoken up and asked that it be ruled that the 8 plays. The guys I play with probably would have agreed and we would have gone on and had an enjoyable evening. My reasoning for doing it this way is that the villain clearly thought he was ahead when he called your all in so you shouldn't be penalized for the dealers mistake. The fact that the villain did make the call before it was straightened out means that the 8 should have played.

In fact, the more I think about it the more I realize that you could have made a good case in a casino that the 8 should have played since the villain made the call after seeing the card and your action was already finished for the rest of the hand. I'm going to ask a couple of local floors in LA next weekend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I like the logic here. The villian gets additional knowledge and you're okay with allowing him to use that to make a decision. I think your argument for the 8 to stay is also based on the belief that you feel you're still in the lead. I would remove the 8 and the villians action would be nullified. I would then give him the option to act again based on just the flop. Rest of the deal, if required, would be just as LL said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I'm OK with it because villain didn't have to announce call. He could have waited and then the dealer would have been forced to burn the turn. Hero had no action left for the remainder of the hand so everything was on villain. Why should villains all in call stand and he also gets to be dealt a new card?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Even though technically the rules state that the 8 would be taken off lets examine what happened here:

Hero goes AI with a set of Queens. Dealer doesn't hear and turns over the 8 and then villain says I call.

Why should Hero be penalized since all his action was complete? Villian didn't have to announce call. The fact that he did when he saw the 8 means that he still felt his AA was good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't sure it was clear that the villan called after verifying the 8 on the turn. If so, that would push for the 8 to stand.

However, what if the 8 HELPED the villan and hurt the hero? Should the hero have an option when the card plays and when it doesn't?

If the villan didn't say anything after the 8 came, does it stay or go on hero's discretion?

THAT is why the card should always be removed and reshuffled for the new river deal.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree, but I think both solutions get to the same end. My disagreement is the order of things. It doesn't really matter, I think our issue is that you're keeping the river card as it would've been, while I'd just reshuffle the stub starting with the turn and then burn, deal river, push pot.
Don't think it matters either way really.



[/ QUOTE ]

It DEFINATELY matters- you don't want to let one dealer error compound into a second (changing the river card that should have appeared on the board).

Changing the ORDER of the river card is a few magnitudes LESS damaging than reshuffling both the turn AND river card.

Do you see why?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should villains all in call stand and he also gets to be dealt a new card?

[/ QUOTE ]

As in my other reply- what if the turn card HELPED villan? Does your decision change?

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why should villains all in call stand and he also gets to be dealt a new card?

[/ QUOTE ]

As in my other reply- what if the turn card HELPED villan? Does your decision change?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you're right. I just would make sure that his all in call also remains so that the hand plays out with him getting no reads from Hero.

[pfapfap]

It's a crappy situation regardless.

PROTECT YOUR INTEREST AT ALL TIMES.

You may think "all in" was clear, and maybe it was to you, but for a dealer who hears "call" and "callin'" all the time and lives eight hours a day of repetitive sequences, it's an easy one to misunderstand, especially if you didn't move any chips. Not saying dealer didn't err, but if you'd protected your interest, it wouldn't have happened. Lesson learned is change the way you say "all-in" if you don't want to push your chips. Perhaps, "I go all in"? That way there's a verb in there and everything.

Protecting your interest includes leaving as little room for mistakes from others as possible. Sure, this situation was unfair, but that's what protecting means.

That said... hoo boy howdy does that suck.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I just would make sure that his all in call also remains so that the hand plays out with him getting no reads from Hero.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree completely- both are all-in, waiting for the hand to be dealt out.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree, but I think both solutions get to the same end. My disagreement is the order of things. It doesn't really matter, I think our issue is that you're keeping the river card as it would've been, while I'd just reshuffle the stub starting with the turn and then burn, deal river, push pot.
Don't think it matters either way really.



[/ QUOTE ]

It DEFINATELY matters- you don't want to let one dealer error compound into a second (changing the river card that should have appeared on the board).

Changing the ORDER of the river card is a few magnitudes LESS damaging than reshuffling both the turn AND river card.

Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, random is random. The hand is already FUBARed and the River that was "supposed" to come might still happen, it has the same chance as everything else (save the burns and flop that don't get put back in the stub).

At this point I think it's just for superstitious nits. The hand is messed up, let's just get it over with.

Cody