A floor call I had never seen

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
It is pretty rare that something happens in a poker room I have never seen. I was called to an Omaha game tonight because the dealer had flashed a player's card (no big deal it would become the burn), dealt around and instead of giving the button his fourth card he dealt it to replace the exposed card. I got to the table and there had been a raise and a call and the button pointed out he only had 3 cards. I won't mention what I ruled because that would alter the discussion, but I am interested in what others think should happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've avoided reading other responses and wonder if we come close.

Normally the button is the one player who can and should get his final card (when the dealer makes a mistake) even after action has taken place. In other words forgetting to deal the button is a very common mistake and correcting it is easy; simply deal him the card (rarely does this involve a floor call). Doing this doesn't "change the order" or affect anything and is seen as fair by most players. Also in a fast game with experienced players action often starts before the button gets the final card so the button would be at a disadvantage if he had the burden of identifying his short hand before we have "action" in two spots.

This case is different. In the real world we deal with superstitious players who believe that "keeping the right order of cards" (even if the "right order" is random and unforeseeable) is important and sacred. In this case the button had plenty of time to notify the dealer of his short hand. Since he didn't and the other player had "his card" I'd rule the button's hand dead. That way you only have one hand "out of order" rather than two and less potential chaos/arguments. (You can't rule the other player's hand dead even though he has "the wrong card" because he did absolutely nothing wrong).

That said, I don't feel that strongly about this and wouldn't argue with someone who felt that simply giving the button a fourth card is right.

~ Rick

PS My guess is you made the killed the button's hand based on something similar to my logic above.

[RR]

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. I am still not completely sure what resolution is best. I know that just killing the button's hand leads to the least amount of chaos (only one player is upset), but that seems grossly unfair. I don't like setting a precedent of allowing someone to get a card out of order, but at the same time this was the first time I had ever seen this sequence of events so I am not too worried about being consistent in this spot.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do understand that if the button had raised the issue immediately it would have bene a misdeal,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in a lot of rooms. He would just get the next card.

[/ QUOTE ]

In twenty years of playing (and a few years flooring) flop games I've never seen this declared a misdeal or even become a dispute no matter what the action. The button simply gets another card which is of course on top the deck (and the one he should have gotten).

~ Rick

[pfapfap]

[ QUOTE ]
I know that just killing the button's hand leads to the least amount of chaos (only one player is upset), but that seems grossly unfair.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the sort of person who would flip out at the button getting another card, wouldn't the fact that the flop would be 'wrong' also upset that person? I really don't understand why anybody would have a problem with him receiving another card.

And to respond to psandman from earlier... yes, there are plenty of rooms who would give a middle position skipped player a card at the end. Hell, in my room, if a player is skipped entirely, s/he can be given two off the top. I think this is a regional thing.

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the thoughts everyone. I am still not completely sure what resolution is best. I know that just killing the button's hand leads to the least amount of chaos (only one player is upset), but that seems grossly unfair. I don't like setting a precedent of allowing someone to get a card out of order, but at the same time this was the first time I had ever seen this sequence of events so I am not too worried about being consistent in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not ruining the integrity of the flop by giving the button his fourth card. In fact you are actually protecting the integrity of the flop, turn and river that would come up thru the random shuffle - which should make everybody happy.

I don't know how you can justify a dealer mistake and penalize the button by killing his hand(who actually gets the short end of the stick of this whole thing - and judging by your responses to earlier posts, it sounds like he told the dealer once he realized he didn't have his fourth card) Killing his hand just sounds like a very bad decision regarding the integrity of the game.

How can you be setting a precedent for a card being presented out of order. Sounds to me like you need to train your dealers better.

If anything you might want to question the dealer and the player who flipped their cards over to see if they are cheating as the dealer gave him the button's card "by mistake"- I realize that may sound dumb but thats exactly how killing the button's hand sounds.

Also, you are a floorman, you should embrace chaos - if its the right decision. Just because you want to keep the least amount of chaos doesn't mean you should break the integrity of the game. This is how different floorpeople aren't consistent in similar situations - because they don't want people yelling at them, berating them etc.

It also sounds like you might be using "killing his hand" as a scapegoat because you wanted to get off work (not justifiable but understandable). Just a few thoughts.

[chillrob]

OK, I am just curious as to why all the casinos were closing at 1:40 am.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I am just curious as to why all the casinos were closing at 1:40 am.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gaming regulation that all players must be physically out of the casino by 2 am.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do understand that if the button had raised the issue immediately it would have bene a misdeal,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in a lot of rooms. He would just get the next card.

[/ QUOTE ]

In twenty years of playing (and a few years flooring) flop games I've never seen this declared a misdeal or even become a dispute no matter what the action. The button simply gets another card which is of course on top the deck (and the one he should have gotten).

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Rick,

I have never seen this exact situation come up, but I have no idea why you would not treat it exactly the same as if a middle position player was skipped and raised the issue immediately (but after its too late to just slide the cards back because you no longer no which card was which or a player looked ta his cards).


How many rooms have you played in where the middle position player gets the top card?his is generally a misdeal.

Now why would treat this situation any different, because its the button? Usuually the button gets the lats card so it makes no difference if you just give him the top card, but in this case the button wasn't supposed to get the last card, its just as if he was the cutoff ro in middle position or early position.
In how many rooms have you seen t

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do understand that if the button had raised the issue immediately it would have bene a misdeal,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in a lot of rooms. He would just get the next card.

[/ QUOTE ]

In twenty years of playing (and a few years flooring) flop games I've never seen this declared a misdeal or even become a dispute no matter what the action. The button simply gets another card which is of course on top the deck (and the one he should have gotten).

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the exposed card is the only reason this is complicated at all.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I don't think sandman's quite that paraniod. But keep in mind, the person standing next to you may not be who they appear to be. Sandman just likes to do the lawyerly thing and argue the opposite side of virtually any point, no matter what that point may be.


That being said, he does have a theoretical point. But I've been reading the posts and I'd still go with my original impression - just give the button a card and be done with it already. If anyone's really that worried about it, give them sandman's number and he'll argue the opposite point.


Al