|
|
#1
08-13-2005, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Another home game controversy..
Ok what would you do here?
Player A is dealing. On the turn, player A and player B are all-in with an Ace on the board. Player B flips over AK, player A flips over A8. Player A then deals a blank river card, but he forgets to burn a card first. Noticing this error, Player C reaches over to the deck and flips over the next card, which is an 8. What do you do?? 
|
|
#2
08-13-2005, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another home game controversy..
Player A wins. If the burn card was a 8 player C would burn that card and see what the river was. A dealing mistake like that is easily corrected and did not affect the betting. The best hand wins.
|
|
#3
08-13-2005, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another home game controversy..
Player A wins.
|
|
#4
08-13-2005, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another home game controversy..
[ QUOTE ]
Player A wins. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#7
08-14-2005, 12:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another home game controversy..
cool. interesting to see there's a total concensus. We actually ended up splitting the pot after a long discussion, because we couldnt come to an agreement.
|
|
#8
08-14-2005, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another home game controversy..
lawl noob roffle omg total newb lawl
|
|
#9
08-15-2005, 03:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another home game controversy..
[ QUOTE ]
cool. interesting to see there's a total concensus. We actually ended up splitting the pot after a long discussion, because we couldnt come to an agreement. [/ QUOTE ] Ok.. that's ok that you had a long discussion about it, but I can't see how a split pot would do it. But whatever is good as long as the table agrees. The only other possible ruling I could see you coming up with would be to reshuffle the burn and river and deal a new river.
|
|
#10
08-15-2005, 07:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another home game controversy..
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] cool. interesting to see there's a total concensus. We actually ended up splitting the pot after a long discussion, because we couldnt come to an agreement. [/ QUOTE ] Ok.. that's ok that you had a long discussion about it, but I can't see how a split pot would do it. But whatever is good as long as the table agrees. The only other possible ruling I could see you coming up with would be to reshuffle the burn and river and deal a new river. [/ QUOTE ] As I read Robert's rule's the only other alternative is when the pot has been awarded in which case the original exposed card plays. "5. If the dealer fails to burn a card or burns more than one card, the error should be corrected if discovered before betting action has started for that round. Once action has been taken on a boardcard, the card must stand. Whether the error is able to be corrected or not, subsequent cards dealt should be those that would have come if no error had occurred. For example, if two cards were burned, one of the cards should be put back on the deck and used for the burncard on the next round. If there was no betting on a round because a player was all-in, the error should be corrected if discovered before the pot has been awarded."
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
