[whitepotatoe]

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_mag...5087&m_id=65576


It appears that the cardroom maanger of the 2nd largest poker establishment in the world agrees with us.

Oh, now I see, you guys were all playing on the internet, so that's why it doesn't matter as long as the cards are random.

[jojobinks]

well, no. lee jones, most of that article, is talking about b and m play.

vindication! nice find, W.

i'll be keeping up with the thread. so if anyone wants to back off, i'll be here to gloat.

[ky70]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

well, no. lee jones, most of that article, is talking about b and m play.

vindication! nice find, W.

i'll be keeping up with the thread. so if anyone wants to back off, i'll be here to gloat.

Re-visit Robert Rules:
"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."

The dissenting opinion reminds me of litigation where the side that’s losing the case can always find an expert witness in attempts to counter some of the damaging testimony. Good fight gents, but the correct outcome is still clear.

[Pavel6969]

Just because you found an article from someone who happens to agree with you still does not make you right The Majority of people and rules will state the opposite of what you did and that article says

[JM]

Interesting article, but it does not apply to this case and here's why. In the article, they were dealing with either someone who was shorted 1 card or given an extra card. In the first case, he says give them the next one off the top and it was implied its pre-flop, so that would seem to be right since the guy missing the card was on the button and should have gotten the next card off the top anyway. Similarly, in the situation where the guy got 3 cards, it again was pre-flop and could be resolved by making one of his extra cards the burn card. In NONE of these scenarios are they going deeper into the deck then they ordinarily would if there was no misdeal.

In this thread's case, you are going deeper into the deck than you would have if there was no misdeal and therefore changing the outcome of the hand.

The blackjack analogy is really apples to oranges because the players have the option of taking as many cards as they want to until they bust or stop drawing. No such option in this game, nothing I do with my cards will change your final hand since the flop, turn, and river are predetermined once you start to deal.

That being said, if everyone is ok with the resolution, that's great and I'm glad that was the case. It doesn't mean its right though.

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by JM

Interesting article, but it does not apply to this case and here's why. In the article, they were dealing with either someone who was shorted 1 card or given an extra card. In the first case, he says give them the next one off the top and it was implied its pre-flop, so that would seem to be right since the guy missing the card was on the button and should have gotten the next card off the top anyway. Similarly, in the situation where the guy got 3 cards, it again was pre-flop and could be resolved by making one of his extra cards the burn card. In NONE of these scenarios are they going deeper into the deck then they ordinarily would if there was no misdeal.

In this thread's case, you are going deeper into the deck than you would have if there was no misdeal and therefore changing the outcome of the hand.

The blackjack analogy is really apples to oranges because the players have the option of taking as many cards as they want to until they bust or stop drawing. No such option in this game, nothing I do with my cards will change your final hand since the flop, turn, and river are predetermined once you start to deal.

That being said, if everyone is ok with the resolution, that's great and I'm glad that was the case. It doesn't mean its right though.

nah, he really does agree with me. here're some quotes that show where:

1. There is no “right” or “wrong” shuffle. The intent of shuffling the deck is to make the cards come out randomly. A particular shuffle is no different than any other shuffle, as long as they are both random.

2. The cards are all the same on the back. As long as you haven’t seen the front of two cards, there is no difference between them.

Now, I understand poker players having theories about “right” and “wrong” shuffles. In fact, I’m delighted that they have them — as long as they also maintain their theories about lucky seats, deck changes, and other voodoo. But I expect better from the people running poker rooms.

If you must have a motivation beyond, “It’s the right thing to do,” how about: “It makes more money.” After all, when you’re going through the whole shuffling rigmarole twice, you’re wasting time and costing yourself rake.

So, streamline your misdeal procedures: If you can recover a random deal about which nobody knows any more than anybody else, you’ve got a poker game — so get on with it. Leave the randomness myths and voodoo to the players.

[PhilTheThrill14]

All dealing for this hand was done - I don't care if the dealer eats the cards and sh1ts out 2 black aces - it doesn't change a thing. The cards have all been dealt. Period. There's nothing to fix - no misdeal - no exposed card. No action to be taken except pick up the card, put it back in the deck and say "oops - that card doesn't mean anything".

The cards were predealt - Lee Jones doesn't talk about that.

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by PhilTheThrill14

All dealing for this hand was done - I don't care if the dealer eats the cards and sh1ts out 2 black aces - it doesn't change a thing. The cards have all been dealt. Period. There's nothing to fix - no misdeal - no exposed card. No action to be taken except pick up the card, put it back in the deck and say "oops - that card doesn't mean anything".

The cards were predealt - Lee Jones doesn't talk about that.

he doesn't have to talk about every specific way things can go wrong to understand that the principals he discusses remain true.

1. There is no “right” or “wrong” shuffle. The intent of shuffling the deck is to make the cards come out randomly. A particular shuffle is no different than any other shuffle, as long as they are both random.

2. The cards are all the same on the back. As long as you haven’t seen the front of two cards, there is no difference between them.

the prelaid cards on the table were done for expediency. but we might imagine a situation where instead of doing it that way, i just spread the cards out across the table. when a turn card is dealt, the two players play 3/5 rock scissors paper. then the winner chooses a from the pile to be the turn.

it wouldn't matter. it doesn't matter that the cards were pre-dealt. it doesn't matter. any card is the same as any other.

ran·dom
adj.

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

i like rules. i respect rules. but more importantly, you need to do what makes sense.

[PhilTheThrill14]

Of course what you say is correct JoJo - I can;t really argue with it. But you have to look at it with some common sense. The turn and river have been dealt - they should be used. Why use a card that falls out of the deck, or is mistakenly turned over from the deck? Do what makes sense (to quote you) and use the cards that were already dealt for the specific purpose of being the turn and the river.

I think one can get into more trouble than it's worth to try too hard to apply rules that were meant to keep things fair and reasonable. Calling on a rule that would even suggest that the overturned card come into play is going too far. The reasonable thing to do is realize you already have dealt the crads for the turn and the river - I am still not convinced that just because you haven't seen them or turned them over somehow invalidates there existence as the turn and river cards. A reasonable and sensible person would see that they are there - realize why they are there - and use them for their intended purpose. Not call up some rule that states the card that just fell out of the deck or was dealt mistakenly should be used over the cards ALREADY DEALT for this purpose. I thnk common sense rules here. Heck - if you wanna get critical, the whole hand is a misdeal (of sorts) as the cards were predealt....:0)

[ky70]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

i like rules. i respect rules. but more importantly, you need to do what makes sense.

I respect the difference of opinion but if you we're going to break this down to "what makes sense", your position becomes weaker.