|
|
#1
07-21-2007, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card...
This was at Casino Niagara, so I don't know why I wouldn't expect something ridiculous like this to happen.
The small blind is accidentally dealt three cards; for some reason, he looks at them all and (after a few EP folds) tells the dealer he has three cards. The dealer asks for them and I assume he's going to kill the hand, while the SB assumes there will be a misdeal. The dealer, however, has other plans. And as the cards are being tossed in, the SB makes some comment about how he has a three-card straight. The dealer lays them on the felt and scrambles the three cards in front of the SB. Then he picks one of them and flips it over, announcing "Nine of clubs is the burn card," and hands the other two cards back to the SB and let's the hand continue. The SB is really confused at this point, but still decides to call a raise so he can see a heads-up flop out of position...and we all know he either has JT, T8, or 87. Then he check-folds a AK7 flop and I laugh. 
|
|
#4
07-21-2007, 01:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
WTF...guess I won't be posting about whether or not I should make a trip there.
|
|
#5
07-21-2007, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
[ QUOTE ]
And yet no one at this table decided to stop the dealer and call the floor to fix it? They deserve the results. [/ QUOTE ] Isn't that the truth. It's amazing how much people will let stuff slide until they feel they need and excuse for losing. THEN they take it to the mat.(not necesarily referring to OP, but people in general) b
|
|
#6
07-21-2007, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
[ QUOTE ]
SB's hand is dead on top of the burn 3 card monte. Do NOT announce the burn card. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously the way the dealer fixed it was horrible, but do you really think this is the best way to handle the situation? I think it should have been a misdeal if SB mentions the problem at least by the time action is to him. Why should he be punished by not having a hand because of the dealer's mistake?
|
|
#7
07-21-2007, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] SB's hand is dead on top of the burn 3 card monte. Do NOT announce the burn card. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously the way the dealer fixed it was horrible, but do you really think this is the best way to handle the situation? I think it should have been a misdeal if SB mentions the problem at least by the time action is to him. Why should he be punished by not having a hand because of the dealer's mistake? [/ QUOTE ] It's not a misdeal, his hand is just dead. If he'd seen the 3rd card and said something before looking, the dealer could have just pulled the card back and put it back on top of the deck, but as soon as he ruined the identifiability of the card (or looked at it) his hand was dead and he's out his SB money.
|
|
#9
07-21-2007, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] SB's hand is dead on top of the burn 3 card monte. Do NOT announce the burn card. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously the way the dealer fixed it was horrible, but do you really think this is the best way to handle the situation? I think it should have been a misdeal if SB mentions the problem at least by the time action is to him. Why should he be punished by not having a hand because of the dealer's mistake? [/ QUOTE ] It's not a misdeal, his hand is just dead. If he'd seen the 3rd card and said something before looking, the dealer could have just pulled the card back and put it back on top of the deck, but as soon as he ruined the identifiability of the card (or looked at it) his hand was dead and he's out his SB money. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe this is the general rule, but it certainly sounds like a ridiculous one to me. Can't imagine any reason to punish a player for a mistake of a dealer. Can't see how it should matter if he has looked at the cards yet or not. Even if he hadn't looked yet, it would be impossible to know exactly which one he shouldn't get.
|
|
#10
07-21-2007, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SB dealt 3 cards; dealer plays 3-card monte to determine burn card
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] SB's hand is dead on top of the burn 3 card monte. Do NOT announce the burn card. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously the way the dealer fixed it was horrible, but do you really think this is the best way to handle the situation? I think it should have been a misdeal if SB mentions the problem at least by the time action is to him. Why should he be punished by not having a hand because of the dealer's mistake? [/ QUOTE ] It's not a misdeal, his hand is just dead. If he'd seen the 3rd card and said something before looking, the dealer could have just pulled the card back and put it back on top of the deck, but as soon as he ruined the identifiability of the card (or looked at it) his hand was dead and he's out his SB money. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe this is the general rule, but it certainly sounds like a ridiculous one to me. Can't imagine any reason to punish a player for a mistake of a dealer. Can't see how it should matter if he has looked at the cards yet or not. Even if he hadn't looked yet, it would be impossible to know exactly which one he shouldn't get. [/ QUOTE ] This is another case where he can protect his hand. He accepts the first card, then he accepts the second card, then he can say "hey I have two cards right here, I don't want this third one" and the dealer take the third card back.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
