Rules Question -- Misdeal?
 

B&M Hold'em ten-handed ring game -- Dealer deals second card to everyone but the CO, to whom he deals a card that flips face up. He calls exposed card, and gives the CO the next card from the deck, which the CO looks at. Meanwhile, I'm on the button with one card. I point this out to the dealer, and call for a misdeal after looking at my one card which is a 3. He gives me a second card and says it's not a misdeal. I don't want to stop play so I let the hand continue.

I believe the card given to the CO was mine, and it should have been a misdeal. Am I right? Would most of you have let it go or call the floor?

Re: Rules Question -- Misdeal?
 

I have had that happen to me and they handled it the same way. They exposed one of my cards, called it dead and took it away, gave me the next card in the deck, and kept going as normal. This was at the Luxor, and the floor saw the whole thing and ok'ed it. The fun part is, my hole card and my exposed card were both KINGS, and I got crap as a replacement card.

Re: Rules Question -- Misdeal?
 

this is not a misdeal. a misdeal only occurs if one of the first three cards dealt out of the deck is face up.

you must obviously realize this has just as much chance to help you recieve a better hand than a worse one.

Re: Rules Question -- Misdeal?
 

I think what he might be asking is shouldn't the dealer have given the next card to the button, then the next card (which would have been the burnt card) to CO, using the exposed card as the burnt card. This is how I've seen it done many places (and it works the same if an EP player's card had been flipped - the dealer would keep going and give the last card to that player).

Maybe he thinks it should be a misdeal because this did not happen and CO saw the card which should have been the button's.

Honestly, I don't know if it should be a misdeal but I think it was handled improperly...I would have let it go however.

Not a misdeal - But Procedure Was Wrong.
 

The dealer should leave the exposed card face up, and continue to deal out all the cards to the other players.

Then, after all the players have their cards, the exposed card is exchanged (with what would have normally been the burn card) and the exposed card is used as the burn card (no card is burned before the flop, the exposed card is placed where the dealer normally puts the burn).

Notice that with this method, all the other players got the cards they would have gotten, and the flop cards are the same as they would have been.

Re: Not a misdeal - But Procedure Was Wrong.
 

Exactly, and this wasn't done so is it a misdeal, and if it is would you have insisted on calling the floor? I know b/4 the two cards are dealt my probability of getting an A for example is the same, but what if this was an instance of cheating with the dealer and CO. Though a real cheater would be much more subtle about it, it seems I should be able to call for a misdeal to protect the integrity of the hand. I know -- I should get a life...

Re: Not a misdeal - But Procedure Was Wrong.
 

now you are suggesting cheating...

what were the stakes of this game? was it back room or casino?

it wasnt a misdeal, and ive seen the procedure done both ways many times. that is.... the correct way, as cardcounter suggested and the way it was done in your case. neither call for a misdeal as its still a random distribution of the cards and all players know the same information.

Re: Not a misdeal - But Procedure Was Wrong.
 

No, just the hypothetical possibility of cheating. This was at the local underground club. Well-organized, five tables, dealers and floorpersons.

Re: Not a misdeal - But Procedure Was Wrong.
 

If the dealer or floor won't declare a misdeal, all you can do is not play the hand. I would let the first time slide.

I would get clarification of the procedures from the floor, and then raise holy hell if proper procedures are ignored again.

True, the card distribution is random, but procedures are procedures and they are there for a reason. There is a proper procedure to follow when shuffling the cards, so I don't think people would approve of a dealer playing "52 card pickup" instead of a shuffle, although both result in a random ordering of the cards.

Re: Rules Question -- Misdeal?
 

There is a random ordering of cards, and how they are dealt is unimportant. There are procedures to avoid cheating or collusion, and this cardroom did not follow the normal procedure, but it really doesn't matter in the long run whether you get the next card or not, it's all random.