Whats the ruleing on this?

[steelcmg]

Im kinda new to playing home tourneys and this past weekend i was at a 20 player 30$ buy in tourney and with like 6 people left there was a guy that had KK and bet before the flop and another guy with A8s (BB) called (the amount of chips really doesnt matter.) The flop came and the guy with A8s checked since its was a bunch of rags. The KK guy went all in and the dealer wasnt paying attention and thought he just checked and showed the next card. The card was an A so needless to say The A8 guy who was goin fold called.

what is the ruleing on this burn the A and throw the next card? Beat the hell out the dealer if ur the guy with KK or split the pot? Or what else could have been done?

[tubalkain]

Shuffle the A back into the stub. Don't shuffle the burn card in. When the time comes to actually put up the turn card, don't burn, just turn. Complete the hand as normal, then beat the hell out of the dealer.

[MickeyHoldem]

[ QUOTE ]
Complete the hand as normal, then beat the hell out of the dealer.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is not neccesary to wait until the hand is complete... get one player who has folded to complete the dealing duties, while the remaining players beat the hell out of the idiot.

Since implementing this system, my home game has considerably reduced the down time between hands! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Eric H]

As per Robert's Rules of Poker http://www.diamondcs.net/~thecoach/RobsPkrRulesHome.htm,

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.

[Richter]

I like Annorax's rule better.

[CaptLego]

With either rule, the players have learned something --- there is definitely an A in the stub. (They couldn't be sure of this before.) With Annorax's rule, there are are two chances this A will hit the board. With Robert's rule, only one. Either way, it is an unfortunate occurance, so beating the sh*t out of the dealer seems like a good investment.

I think Robert's rule is more balanced.

[Eric H]

[ QUOTE ]
I like Annorax's rule better.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem doing it that way is that both the turn and the river cards will be wrong. If you set aside the early turn card and then burn and turn the river card, then you have only one wrong card since the card that would have been the river becomes the turn card.

Makes sense to me.

[Mojo Tooth]

I don't buy the whole "the card WOULD have been the river card" thing. We randomize (shuffle) the cards not so that fate can make its mystical decree on where the cards will be placed, but so that the players can't know the order of the cards in the deck. As long as the players don't know where the cards are, it doesn't matter which card WOULD have been the turn or WOULD have been the river.

I say annorax's rule makes just as much sense as Robert's, but I use Robert's rules as my default ruleset for consistency's sake.

[jackblack73]

[ QUOTE ]
As per Robert's Rules of Poker http://www.diamondcs.net/~thecoach/RobsPkrRulesHome.htm,

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.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the way I've seen it done in casinos.

[Eric H]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy the whole "the card WOULD have been the river card" thing. We randomize (shuffle) the cards not so that fate can make its mystical decree on where the cards will be placed, but so that the players can't know the order of the cards in the deck. As long as the players don't know where the cards are, it doesn't matter which card WOULD have been the turn or WOULD have been the river.

I say annorax's rule makes just as much sense as Robert's, but I use Robert's rules as my default ruleset for consistency's sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

The outcome is random only until the suffle and cut have been made, at which point the outcome has become fixed. If you shuffle again, the outcome has been changed.

[Mojo Tooth]

[ QUOTE ]
If you shuffle again, the outcome has been changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? It's still an unknown outcome. This is exactly my point. ANY unknown outcome is just as legitimate as any other. I wouldn't mind if, instead of burning a card, the dealer shuffled the deck before dealing the flop, turn and river. Of course that's impractical for reasons of speed, but completely equivalent.

What if you found out that an online site didn't bother to actually shuffle the deck before dealing a card off of it? It would be exactly mathematically equivalent to simply choose a random number between 0 and 51, deal that card, then eliminate it from the deck. Then for your next card, pick another random number between 0 and 50, deal that card, so on and so forth.

By your line of thinking there would be no pre-determined outcome, so it would be somehow undesirable, yes? But you would never know the difference because it's EXACTLY THE SAME.

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
The outcome is random only until the suffle and cut have been made, at which point the outcome has become fixed. If you shuffle again, the outcome has been changed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I gotta say, I agree with Mojo here. If the outcome is only random until the shuffle and cut, and it's changed afterwards, what do you call it? Mojo and I would call it "random".
-Sam

[varoadstter]

[ QUOTE ]

The outcome is random only until the suffle and cut have been made, at which point the outcome has become fixed. If you shuffle again, the outcome has been changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since that outcome is as yet unknown, it's no different from another unknown outcome. It is even "possible" that the reshuffling will produce the exact same result as before.

You remind me of those guys at the blackjack tables that get pissed off when someone "plays wrong" and you get different cards after him. I think that's silly too, but it's actually more defensible than being upset about the stub getting "rerandomized".

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The outcome is random only until the suffle and cut have been made, at which point the outcome has become fixed. If you shuffle again, the outcome has been changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since that outcome is as yet unknown, it's no different from another unknown outcome. It is even "possible" that the reshuffling will produce the exact same result as before.

You remind me of those guys at the blackjack tables that get pissed off when someone "plays wrong" and you get different cards after him. I think that's silly too, but it's actually more defensible than being upset about the stub getting "rerandomized".

[/ QUOTE ]


This whole "you messed up the hand!" concept is a long-held belief/curse of the typical home game player. Probability isn't something that people consider, because they're only thinking in a results-oriented, short-term manner.

As for the BJ comment- it isn't any worse or better. The doofus playing badly is just as likely to help you as to hurt you, unless you know what the count is and it's a pretty large gap. While it is aggravating to have happen on a short-term session, it isn't ANY different in my mind from the poker fallacy. Random chance is random chance and it will all eventually even out properly "in the long run"

[Mojo Tooth]

It actually does have one effect that legitimately pisses off blackjack players.

If you split tens, you're obviously looking for high cards, nines or tens or aces, to go with each. In their eyes, you're looking to trash the count, which may be good at the moment.

I'm not defending that behavior because it's still BS, but there is a different (and perhaps arguably more legitimate) reason other than "affecting the outcome."

[Lottery Larry]

"In their eyes, you're looking to trash the count, which may be good at the moment."

I'm looking to make the most I can in a good situation- what they think about it means about this much to me.. unless we have pieces of each other, they can go blow smoke.

[Mojo Tooth]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm just saying, unlike the previously discussed poker situations, playing BJ "the wrong way" can potentially affect a card counter's profitability, depending on when you choose to do it.