A floor call I had never seen

[psandman]

While I wouldn't terribly object to giving the Button the next nonexposed card from the top of the deck, I think I would be inclined here towards calling the buttons hand dead -- Here is why.

1) Do to the fact that a card was exposed the button was no longer the player who was supposed to receive the last card, so now this situation is more along the lines of a regular deal in which the cutoff only received three cards even though the button receiveed four.

2) Though I agree the cards are still "random" if you give the button the next card, there is value to regularity inm the dealing procedure so as to avoid the possibility of cheating by varying the order in which cards are dealt.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
While I wouldn't terribly object to giving the Button the next nonexposed card from the top of the deck, I think I would be inclined here towards calling the buttons hand dead -- Here is why.

1) Do to the fact that a card was exposed the button was no longer the player who was supposed to receive the last card, so now this situation is more along the lines of a regular deal in which the cutoff only received three cards even though the button receiveed four.

2) Though I agree the cards are still "random" if you give the button the next card, there is value to regularity inm the dealing procedure so as to avoid the possibility of cheating by varying the order in which cards are dealt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really good. Dealer messes up, so you kill the Button's hand. To be fair, you should kill the hand of the player with the exposed card. He could just as easily been a partner to the 'cheating'. Then fire the dealer for being a 'possible cheat'.

If you are that paranoid, turn any dealer mistake into a misdeal. Exposed cards too. You never know what the dealer might be doing.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While I wouldn't terribly object to giving the Button the next nonexposed card from the top of the deck, I think I would be inclined here towards calling the buttons hand dead -- Here is why.

1) Do to the fact that a card was exposed the button was no longer the player who was supposed to receive the last card, so now this situation is more along the lines of a regular deal in which the cutoff only received three cards even though the button receiveed four.

2) Though I agree the cards are still "random" if you give the button the next card, there is value to regularity inm the dealing procedure so as to avoid the possibility of cheating by varying the order in which cards are dealt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really good. Dealer messes up, so you kill the Button's hand. To be fair, you should kill the hand of the player with the exposed card. He could just as easily been a partner to the 'cheating'. Then fire the dealer for being a 'possible cheat'.

If you are that paranoid, turn any dealer mistake into a misdeal. Exposed cards too. You never know what the dealer might be doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a question for you.

In an ordinary deal without an exposed card, if a player in middle position only is dealt 3 cards in an omaha game. And then doesn't say something before there is a raise and a call should that player now receive the top card? If not why is this any different.

You do understand that if the button had raised the issue immediately it would have bene a misdeal, the problem was that once the dealer made the error, the button waited until there was substantial action before speaking up.

[AngusThermopyle]

Do you understand that a lot of players do not look at their cards until it is their turn?

I guess your view is that all players must check their cards before any action begins. And that would also mean that UTG cannot act before the button gets his last card.

Actually, you seem to imply that the button knew all the time he only had 3 cards and only spoke up when there was action. Which makes zero sense.

[ 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.

[Mr Rick]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the fault of the dealer, player should not be penalized into not being able to play the hand.
Assuming the replacement burn has already been returned to the top of the stub...
Remove the burn(exposed card) deal the next card to the button, return burn to stub, play on.

Only two cards are "out of order", flop , turn , river will remain the same...not enough harm done to warrant punishing button player by not allowing him to play a hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.

However, at Foxwoods they don't care if there is dealer error. If a player has too few cards after there has been any significant action (a call, raise, or two folds) the hand is declared dead because the player failed to protect their hand immediately. That is unless you happen to get a different Floor who rules to just give the player a card. Really. Different rulings depending on who is the Floor at the time.

I was told they are working on being consistent at Foxwoods re Floor decisions.

Three incidents that happened this weekend at Foxwoods 10/20 LHE.
1) Player in MP looks for his 2nd card when its his turn to act. It isn't there. His hand is declared dead by the Floor. There is only one burn card - so flop, turn, and river are different than if all hands had been dealt properly.
2) Player is thinking about flop decision. Dealer burns a card preparing for the turn. Player yells "Stop" very very loudly. All action stops at at least 7 tables. Floor comes over and asks what happened and stays for a couple of hands. Player deliberates and then calls. The odd thing was Floor started to chastise the player for being too dramatic. Several other players jumped in to defend him - because he was trying to stop a dealer error - successfully it turned out. Score one for 2+2, player is a poster here.
3) I am UTG and I stand up for a second and tell dealer I am in the hand. He acknowledges me. When I sit down and look at my card there is only one. Hand is declared a misdeal. Guy with KK next to me tries to look put out. I tell him I want my K.

[hyde]

[ QUOTE ]
The sane thing to do would be just give the button another card but there is no way I can see that flying because poker players are superstitious retards and they couldn't live with giving two people different cards than what they were "supposed" to have.

So kill button's hand is what I would guess happens in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand that a lot of players do not look at their cards until it is their turn?

I guess your view is that all players must check their cards before any action begins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its my view that if a player chooses to to not pay any attention to the deal (remember he doesn't have to look at the face of the cards he just has to know thathe was dealt a valid hand) he does so at his own peril.

[ QUOTE ]
And that would also mean that UTG cannot act before the button gets his last card.

[/ QUOTE ]

When action occurs before the last player gets his last card that action will not bar players from raising an irregularity that casuses a misdeal.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, you seem to imply that the button knew all the time he only had 3 cards and only spoke up when there was action. Which makes zero sense.


[/ QUOTE ]I charge the button with constructive knowledge if not actual knowledge, by that I mean that if he didn't know he had only three cards he should have known it. I know you believe that players have no obligation to protect themselves, but this is part of protecting your hand.
[ 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 ]

I'm not going to say that there are no rooms that deal players cards in this scenario, but i challenge your claim that a lot of rooms would do so. Just to make it clear you are saying that in a lot of rooms if it is realized that a player was skipped in the deal (before the deal is complete or before there is substantial action) that rather than declare a misdeal they just deal off the top to that player.

[PantsOnFire]

I am not fully sure what you mean by the dealer "...instead of giving the button his fourth card he dealt it to replace the exposed card."

In any event, if a player has the wrong number of cards and there are two actions after the blinds, the hand is dead in most places I have played in.

However, if the action is still pf and the floor ruled that the player can get the burn card and the exposed card becomes the burn for the flop, I wouldn't complain.

[budblown]

[ 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 ]

Part of me says misdeal. Part of me says give the button his fourth card because the flop will then be the original flop had the dealer dealt correctly, as opposed to killing his hand (with three cards) which would then theoretically make the door card on the flop the original burn card and the flop will be one card off.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I charge the button with constructive knowledge if not actual knowledge, by that I mean that if he didn't know he had only three cards he should have known it. I know you believe that players have no obligation to protect themselves, but this is part of protecting your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something you are overlooking here. The button does not have the dealer deal to his left after his last card, so he doesn't get an opportunity to protect himself in this case because the dealer doesn't "pass him by." The other problem with this is the players up front often start playing before the dealer is done dealing so the existence of a bet and raise does not mean he wasn't on top of it to speak up the moment he didn't get get his fourth card. On the other hand everything you have said about consistent dealing procedures is correct.