Misdeal ruling regarding the button

[jalsing]

Cross-posted from Home Games as recommended:
=====

Regarding misdeals preflop, I've read and understand that exposing the first or second hole cards results in a misdeal. Exposing other hole cards requires that dealing continues and the exposed card is replaced after the remaining cards are passed out and the exposed card is used as the burn card. I also understand that two or more exposed cards during the deal results in a misdeal.

A rule of which I haven't seen printed nor understand, but have on multiple occasions heard stated, is that an exposed card to the button is also a misdeal. The rational is because then using standard exposed card procedures, the button would receive two consecutive cards dealt. I guess this would technically only apply to the first hole card dealt to the button, because then he would get the last card plus immediately another to replace the exposed card.

Has anyone else heard this ruling, anyone else use this procedure, and better yet, any referrence to this in any ruleset?

thanks

[RR]

That is a very common rule. I would say it is in use in roughly 30-40% of casinos. And it does apply to only the first card.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
A rule of which I haven't seen printed nor understand, but have on multiple occasions heard stated, is that an exposed card to the button is also a misdeal. The rational is because then using standard exposed card procedures, the button would receive two consecutive cards dealt. I guess this would technically only apply to the first hole card dealt to the button, because then he would get the last card plus immediately another to replace the exposed card.


[/ QUOTE ]
Colroado gaming rules dictate that if the first hole card to the Button is exposed, that card gets replaced by a random card from the middle of the deck. This avoids the "two cards in a row" problem. The exposed card is now "dead" and not used as the burn.

[bav]

I've played at places that an exposed card dealt to either blind or the button is an automatic misdeal. Others only the button. Anymore it seems like most places I play are not calling a misdeal ever for a single exposed card (which I like...let's just get on with the hand).

For a home game, pick a rule and stick with it. Consistency is important, the specifics are not.

As for a reference... Robert's rules says exposing either of the first two cards results in a misdeal. Look at MISDEALS here: http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/chapter3.php

[Sooner]

The place I play at changed the rule recently on a exposed card on the button.

At first the card would have been replaced by the 4th card from the bottom. They later changed it (the was it is now) to treating it as any burned card. The player gets the next ccard off the top of the deck and the exposed card is made the burn card.

[Peter]

[ QUOTE ]
This avoids the "two cards in a row" problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why exactly is this a problem?

[Dromar]

[ QUOTE ]
Why exactly is this a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because donators are superstitious.

I'm not actually sure on that, but that's the only answer I could ever think of. Oh, and I suppose it botches some super complex fake-deal scheme.

[jonny drama]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This avoids the "two cards in a row" problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why exactly is this a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

easier to stack the deck

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This avoids the "two cards in a row" problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why exactly is this a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I understand it, it's easier for a mechanic to set up a single contiguous stock (for dealing to a partner) than it is to create a stock that's interleaved with other cards. So the goal is to make it as difficult as possible for a cheat to work the deck.


q/q

[pfapfap]

Right, because putting two cards together with exactly nineteen on top is so easy to do.