WSOP League Ruling on Exposed Cards

trutan · Tweet this Post! #1 04-05-2010, 03:59 PM

I play in a WSOP league and our finale is this coming Sunday. I got an email today from the guy who runs the league ( a friend of mine) saying that he wants to change the way we deal with exposed cards for the finale.

For the entire season, we have been “unofficially” using Robert’s Rules of Poker’s ruling on exposed cards which is……

If the initial holecard dealt to the first or second player is exposed, a misdeal results. The dealer will retrieve the card, reshuffle, and recut the cards. If any other holecard is exposed due to a dealer error, the deal continues. The exposed card may NOT be kept. After completing the deal, the dealer replaces the card with the top card on the deck, and the exposed card is then used for the burn card. If more than one holecard is exposed, this is a misdeal and there must be a redeal.

I say “unofficially” because nowhere in the league rules is it specifically mentioned. I have suggested several times that we reference Robert’s Rules of Poker in our official league rules but he felt that it wasn’t needed.

So, he wants to change from the above to make it that if ANY card is exposed prior to betting action, it is a misdeal. Cards are collected and reshuffled and dealt again. His argument is that while everyone gets the knowledge of knowing what the exposed card was, that knowledge doesn’t hold the same value for everyone.

So, I ask you…...does anyone know the argument behind the Robert’s Rules’ ruling versus making ANY exposed card a misdeal?

NOTE: I understand that his decision to change the rules right before the finale is wrong and I have told him that. What I am interested in is the reason’s for or against using Robert’s Rules of Poker on exposed cards versus just making it always a misdeal.

squiggly · Tweet this Post! #2 04-05-2010, 04:19 PM

For what reason does he want this changed? I wouldn't change it for the finale simply because it's not right, it's not how you played the rest of the season. I see no benefit whatsoever.

I have a blanket statement in my tournament guidelines stating that we abide by Robert's Rules of Poker V11, unless otherwise noted in our house rules. That would clear up any "official/unofficial" issues.

pokerking949 · Tweet this Post! #3 04-05-2010, 05:04 PM

So here is how I understand its Origin.

This isn't so much a Robert's rule as it was put in place by the casinos. Why? purely to keep things going, speed up the game, not lose a lost hand of dealing and a rake into the drop box.

I was once told by a floorman at Commerce, it's purely put into place to keep things going. If the first card was flipped they called it a mis-deal, first card out, no time lost, stick it in the shuffler and start a new deck.

But once the deal got going, and he had out a round of cards, if he flipped one at that point and they started over It's a rake drop lost and a lost hands per hour. so they came up with the rule to just keep going after the first 2 players if a card flips.

Sounds reasonble to me.

Whether this is true or not is, like asking if Chuck Norris really fought off 19 guys in an alley. sounds neat but nobody will ever really know.

As for him changing the rules for the last game, doesn't sound right or fair when it is how you played all along and how you thought you would play the final tournament. But it's such an insugnifican rule, why do you or he, for that matter really care? What's his reasoning behind it? What's your for keeping it other than it's they way it was?

BigKyle · Tweet this Post! #4 04-05-2010, 05:11 PM

^this. If they didnt, there would be way too many misdeals. That is what I understood the origin to be also.

trutan · Tweet this Post! #5 04-06-2010, 07:08 AM

Thanks for the comments pokerking and Kyle. Squiggly - see OP for answers to your questions.

As mentioned in the OP, I explained to him that he should not make the change specifically because it had been done a certain way all season.

He feels that while everyone has the same information when a card is exposed, that information has more value to certain players than others.

I was just interested to see if there was any argument for the ruling due to strategy. Sounds like it is primarily a casino rule to keep up speed of play.

Thanks again guys.

schullerjason · Tweet this Post! #6 04-06-2010, 07:58 AM

We have a WSOP league as well, and if the first OR second cards are flipped, it's a misdeal. If more than 2 cards are flipped at any point during the deal, it's a misdeal. Other than that, it keeps rolling, there is no option to keep the card. If you're in a WSOP league, play it as they do in the WSOP. Don't change it for the last tournament.

trutan · Tweet this Post! #7 04-06-2010, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schullerjason

We have a WSOP league as well, and if the first OR second cards are flipped, it's a misdeal. If more than 2 cards are flipped at any point during the deal, it's a misdeal. Other than that, it keeps rolling, there is no option to keep the card. If you're in a WSOP league, play it as they do in the WSOP. Don't change it for the last tournament.

Thanks for the input. But again, I am not looking to debate whether the ruling should be changed or not. I have expressed my belief to him that it should NOT be changed.

What I am looking for is reasons/arguments behind the rule in the first place (which pokerking and Kyle commented on).

Other than saving time.......is there any other reason for the rule being as it is?

mac40k · Tweet this Post! #8 04-06-2010, 02:11 PM

I can't offer any additional rationale for why Robert's Rules states it the way it does, but for a home game tournament it makes sense. Misdeals eat clock time.

FSU88 · Tweet this Post! #9 04-06-2010, 03:11 PM

Why would that knowledge mean more to one person over another?? If that is his reasoning, he needs to explain it. I may be dense, but I don't see how this would benefit any one player more than another. I can't see strategy coming into this at all. It's merely a means for keeping the game going.

I still would not change now, no matter what his argument was.

Krafticus · Tweet this Post! #10 04-06-2010, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSU88

Why would that knowledge mean more to one person over another?? If that is his reasoning, he needs to explain it. I may be dense, but I don't see how this would benefit any one player more than another. I can't see strategy coming into this at all. It's merely a means for keeping the game going.

I still would not change now, no matter what his argument was.

I would assume he would mean that seeing an exposed card could cause someone to play their hand different than had they not seen the card. In essence, it benefits the players the same, but could potentially IMPACT one player more than another. For instance, the deal comes around and a A gets flipped up. Now I look down at pocket kings. well, I know one of my over cards is out, so I might play my hand more aggressive.. (So, I think the wording is off. I have heard this same exact thing before though "benefits one player more than another", so not saying your words are wrong Trutan. Again, I think everyone that says this means "Impacts", not benefits)

I mean, that is my translation. It provides the same benefits, same information, but could potentially change the play. Sometimes it is great though, as it can get you to fold that small pocket pair seeing one of the cards come up.

As for the rule, I always thought that it is to keep the play moving. In tournament play, with home dealers, those reshuffles and deals can take up a good 30-45 seconds.. maybe a minute. That happens 2-3 times, and you have to redeal.. there go a few hands.

Mark