This is a discussion on New user to CardsChat with a question about a tournament ruling within the online poker forums, in the Tournament Poker section; i was recently participating in a low stakes poker tournament and there was a ruling that I had a question about. Iíve played poker competitively
New user to CardsChat with a question about a tournament ruling
Join Date: Jun 2019
New user to CardsChat with a question about a tournament ruling
i was recently participating in a low stakes poker tournament and there was a ruling that I had a question about. Iíve played poker competitively since i was a child but Iíve never seen anything like this occur.
I wasnít involved in this particular hand, but the pre-flop action had one player all in and another player thinking about calling. The player who was thinking was last to act and everyone else had already folded.
While the player was thinking the dealer accidentally knocked the top 2 cards off the deck and a 10 and an Ace were exposed off the top. The 10 would be the burn card and Ace was first street.
The ruling was made by the owner of the tournament that the cards would be put back into the deck and reshuffled. I know this is the standard for most games. The player who had yet to call, made the call and ended up hitting an Ace on 4th street on the redeal to bust the original all in.
I understand that reshuffling is customary but did this not give an advantage to the caller since he knew that there was at least one ace left in the deck?
You've already acknowledged that placing the cards in the deck and reshuffling is customary so let's move on to your concern about a potential unfair advantage. When you calculate odds using 'outs' you are assuming that the cards are equally likely to be in the deck as in the hole cards. Said another way, you are assuming that all of your outs are available to you, in a sense. While it's true that the calculation changes if you know with certainty that one of your outs is no longer available in the deck, the fact that it is known to be in the deck doesn't actually change your original calculation since your original number of outs has not increased. So, I would argue that it would impact that calculation and decision more if you knew that a card was no longer available than it does knowing that one of your outs is indeed available with certainty. So, there is this.
The PRNG categorically refuses to align itself with my poker hopes and aspirations.
This was a dealer mistake, but with the right decision, I think it is better to return the cards to the deck and replay the hand again in the game, but it’s very bad for a player who could win this hand and double in the tournament, but this is a game and each game has its own rules and decisions that may change according to decisions of creators and others, for me in the game it would be correct to return the cards to the deck and replay the distribution on the table again
re: Poker & New user to CardsChat with a question about a tournament ruling
Im pretty sure the caller was going to call Regardless. I don't think he was making his calculation on 1 Bold out. Yeah it sucks when cards are shown because it adds a little bit of an advantage to a player who is thinking it. In reality though with seeing a card and it being reshuffled you have less of a chance of actually hitting that card. Minor % but the variables are still there. So in the end , yeah it sucked but I feel the guy was going to call Shown Ace or no Shown ace
I was playing an MTT of $ 2.20, blinds 500/1000 I with AA mp2 satck 23,800, bet of 1,250 and villain of TJs on BB, call, stack 41,200, flop 3d 6d 6c, villain donkbet 3,000, I raised to 9,000 and villain All in, I paid turn Kc Qd, and was eliminated from the tournament, this situation has been repeating itself with a high frequency of villain going all in for flush, what did I do wrong? Should not it have increased as you avoid being eliminated from tournaments in similar situations?
Thank you very much in advance!
A dealing error for the fourth boardcard is rectified in a manner to least influence the identity of the boardcards that would have been used without the error. The dealer burns and deals 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 deals 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. [See “Section 16 – Explanations,” discussion #4, for more information on this rule.]
Here is the aforementioned Section 16 "Explanations", Discussion #4 (bolding mine):
The rules given for rectifying a holdem situation where the dealer has dealt the flop or another boardcard before all the betting action on a round are inferior, because the dealer is told to not burn a card on a redeal. Since the “no burn” rule is so common, there was no choice but to use it here. It would be better for poker if the rule were changed to always burning a card. Here are these rules (the third rule and fourth rule in “Section 5 – Holdem”).“If the cards are flopped before the betting is complete, or if the flop contains too many cards, the boardcards are mixed with the remainder of the deck. The burncard remains on the table. After shuffling, the dealer cuts the deck and deals a new flop without burning a card.”
“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 up the final card without burning a card.
The portion of this rule saying the dealer does not burn a card on the redeal is inferior. It is harder for the dealer to control the card to be dealt if a burn is required. The sentence in the rule should read, “The dealer then cuts the deck, burns a card, and turns the final card.”
The present method for handling a premature dealing on the turn is used to have what would have been the last board-card used on the turn, and not reshuffling the deck until just before the last card is dealt. This method has four-fifths of the boardcards remaining the same, albeit in a different order. It would be better to reshuffle before the turn, preserving the chance of receiving the prematurely dealt card on either of the last two cards, as opposed to cutting that chance in half. The superiority of reshuffling right away is illustrated if the prematurely dealt card makes a gutshot straight-flush for a player.
So "Discussion" disagrees with the actual procedure. Either way, the burns are not reshuffled into the stub. Perhaps a newer version of the rules settles this matter.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength - and here you thought this was so "37 Years Ago"