need precision about an hold'em rule

[CazGi]

If the dealer burn and put the turn card before the betting is completed on the flop, what is the rule that is applied about the reshuffle and burn (or not) before the river

I mean, on the Robert's rules of Poker(version PDF page 14, point #8):

8. A dealing error for the fourth boardcard is rectified in a manner to least influence the identity of the boardcards that would have been used without the error. The dealer burns and deals what would have been the fifth card in the fourth card’s place. After this round of betting, the dealer reshuffles the deck , including the card that was taken out of play, but not including the burncards or discards. The dealer then cuts the deck <u> and deals the final card without burning a card </u> . If the fifth card is turned up prematurely, the deck is reshuffled and dealt in the same manner. [See “Section 16 – Explanations,” discussion #2, for more information on this rule.]

so section 16 - explanations #2:

2. The rules given for rectifying a hold’em situation where the dealer has dealt the flop or another boardcard before all the betting action on a round are inferior, because the dealer is told to not burn a card on a redeal. Since the “no burn” rule is so common, there was no choice but to use it here. But at some point it would be good for poker for some major cardrooms to get together and agree to use the better rule, or a gaming commission to require the better rule be used. Here are the rules in question (the third rule and fourth rule in “Section 5 – Hold’em”).
...............
“If the dealer turns the fourth card on the board before the betting round is complete, the card is taken out of play for that round, even if subsequent players elect to fold. The betting is then completed. The dealer burns and turns what would have been the fifth card in the fourth card’s place. After this round of betting, the dealer reshuffles the deck, including the card that was taken out of play, but not including the burncards or discards. The dealer then cuts the deck and turns the final card without burning a card. (If the fifth card is turned up prematurely, the deck is reshuffled and dealt in the same manner.)”

The portion of this rule saying the dealer does not burn a card on the redeal is misguided. It is much harder for the dealer to control the card to be dealt if a burn is required. The applicable sentence in the rule should read, “The dealer then cuts the deck, <u>burns a card</u> , and turns the final card.”


The question is :

does the dealer burn a card or not after reshuffling the deck (before putting the river on the board) ???

thanks in advance
I apologize for my poor english
Caz

[phish]

It really doesn't matter, does it?

[pfapfap]

It absolutely does not matter. But as the rules are, there's no additional burn. The second bit is from a discussion, not the rules. But really, doesn't matter. I'd say it's an extremely rare dealer who would be able to control the card either way. You are unlikely to run into such a dealer who also produces that situation. So don't sweat it, play your hand.

[juanez]

The theory is that there is no burn so that the original turn card that was brought early can have a chance to come out again. If you burn here, that card might actually get burned.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
The theory is that there is no burn so that the original turn card that was brought early can have a chance to come out again. If you burn here, that card might actually get burned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?
Odds of "original" card ending on top == Odds of "original" card ending up 2nd

[PantsOnFire]

The real question here, as proposed in the discussion, is whether it if more fair for the dealer to reshuffle, cut and burn and then expose the river card or having the deck contain all the cards it should have and not burning one.

By burning a card after a cut, I suppose it would be much more difficult for a dealer to cheat and put a desired card in place. That is, it would be easier to get a desired card on top rather than as the second card. However, couldn't a dealer burn the second card?

This has to be weighed against the fair chance of that mucked turn card going back into the deck and coming up again. As Angus stated, I can't see how the odds of this card being the first or second card are any different.

I would tend to agree with burning in this circumstance although I don't believe that is the current rule in Robert's. However, I don't believe fairness is an issue and I suspect that a dealer could cheat equally easily with a burn or no burn. Perhaps a burn card would reduce the chance of somebody getting a glimpse of the top card thereby knowing what the river will be.

[pfapfap]

Why are people so paranoid about dealer cheating? Does it really happen that much any more in B&amp;M? In a home game, if you suspect this going on, I doubt it's just in this situation, so you shouldn't play anything.

In the end, it doesn't matter if you burn zero, one, or ten cards.

[Rick Nebiolo]

These comments are directed towards all who have already posted or those that may read this thread.


Most poker rules use techniques, in the case of SNAFUs, that give the player (or put on the board) the card that "would have come anyway" whenever possible. The rule that in the case of a prematurely exposed turn card the action is completed and we have a new burn and turn (giving the players the card they "would have got" on the river as the turn card) is an example.

Now someone who understands odds and randomness and so on would say "Why does it matter, why not just reshuffle including the premature burn and start again?" and of course in this sense they are correct. But when a rule can be written so that it does no harm and satisfies the superstitious, i.e., the people that believe keeping hidden cards in order matters (in other words typical losing, non analytical gambloors) then it's best to do it that way to keep the gambloors happy.

----

Below PantsOnFire wrote:

"Perhaps a burn card would reduce the chance of somebody getting a glimpse of the top card thereby knowing what the river will be."

I was in favor of reburning for that reason until another poster pointed out to me that this is unnecessary since the action is completed before the reshuffle. Although it may still be best to burn for the reason Bob C. mentions, given the required parlay (i.e. dealer needs to make an embarrassing mistake in order to put himself in a situation where he can aid a confederate player by not burning), I wouldn't make it a rule change priority.

~ Rick

[pfapfap]

Good point about keeping the gamboolers happy. And yeah, around here, not only does the deck get reshuffled after action, the floor stands at the table and watches it happen.

There are at least two active threads with high suspicion of complex dealer cheating at low limit games, and I see others all the time. To me, this is akin to people blaming the dealer for never hitting their hands, etc... ie, ridiculous. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Maybe in the olden days it was more of a concern (I wasn't there so I don't know), but with Poker as Big Business these days, I can't imagine it's much of an issue any more.

[CazGi]

thanks all

I read all your answer and I agree with most of them

I mean, does it matter or not that the dealer burn or not ?

not really, but I think that, like juanez said, by not burning, that the original turn card that was brought early can have a chance to come out again

However, I always want to follow the rule tightly and it's for that reason that I wanna know the exact rule

Also, I wanna say that the cheating wasn't really in my mind when I asked this question, because when I was refering to the dealer, it was in home tourney and regional tourney, where each player act as the dealer when they have the button

With the weak field we have these day, the odds of a player able to reshuffle a deck in order to cheat the river after putting the turn to fast (not as an error, but as a "toy") are pretty slim, so I don't really mind this

I just want to follow the exact precise rule because when an error occured, it's more easy if the same rule is always always applied then when in some tourney we do this and in some other tourney we do that and so on....

for all my query on ruling precision, when I have a clear answer, I print it and put it in annexe of my robert's rules (which I brought with me in each tourney), so if an error occured, like last sathurday, I'll next time have the complete answer

when big money is in play, a precise ruling is always the best way to ensure a clear and cut decision