Dealer exposed the whole deck

[Addicted]

After a lot of pre-flop betting and with three players still in the hand, the dealer picked up the deck and began to deal the flop.  As she placed the first card on the felt, she had some bizarre muscle spasm that caused her to drop nearly the entire deck face-up on the table so that less than 10 cards remained unexposed. We just gave everybody their money back and played the next hand.  Anything else we could have done?

For what it's worth, the muscle spasm was completely accidental.  The dealer was my sister who is 7 months pregnant. She claimed the baby gave her a strong suprise kick.

[Martini]

Interesting. Mostly because there was a lot of preflop betting. Not sure what the proper procedure is for THAT many cards being exposed but off the top of my head I would consider the following remedies:

* Leave all exposed cards face up for everyone to see and run the board with the remaining unknown cards in the stub. Messy since everyone would be trying to deduce hands from all of the exposed cards.

* Stop all betting and treat the pot as though everyone were already all in. Run the board with what is left in the stub and award the pot accordingly.

* Stop all betting. Take the entire deck and shuffle thoroughly. Run the board and award the pot accordingly.

* Stop all betting. Shuffle the deck, run the board three times (since there were three players), and award the portions of the pot accordingly.

* If agreed upon by everyone, return bets as was done. Button remains in the same place.

Under no circumstances would I suggest that the cards be shuffled together and allow betting after the Flop. That is just too much of an advantage to someone who could remember the exposed cards.

Personally I think I am leaning toward freezing the betting and running the board three times. I think that would be the best compromise of a workable solution which most accurately reflects everyone's pot equity in the hand.

[demon604]

Because so much of the deck was compromised, I think I'd just re-do the hand.

How do you run a board three times with less than 10 unseen cards in the deck? 

[pauld22]

Stop serving black pepper at the table?

[Martini]

Because so much of the deck was compromised, I think I'd just re-do the hand.

How do you run a board three times with less than 10 unseen cards in the deck? 

The options included either running *one* board with the existing stub OR reshuffling the stub and running the board three times, not running the board three times with ten cards.

I also found the following rule snippet from RRoP: "17. If the deck stub gets fouled for some reason, such as the dealer believing the deal is over and dropping the deck, the deal must still be played out, and the deck reconstituted in as fair a way as possible." so I now think the last option I had previously listed (returning bets) is not a good option anymore.

[Don't Miss Me While I'm On My Cruise]

I'd go with shuffling the deck and proceeding from there, but Martini raises a good point about people who could remember the exposed cards.

Gobbs

[Martini]

I'd go with shuffling the deck and proceeding from there, but Martini raises a good point about people who could remember the exposed cards.

Gobbs

Since there are enough remaining hidden cards to run the board, would you consider leaving all exposed cards open for viewing through the rest of the hand so that the playing field is level for all players? Normally an exposed card (or cards) would be announced and put face down again but under the circumstances would you make an adjustment to that procedure? I'm just thinking the someone on a Flush draw could quickly scan for their suit or that players might look for how many Aces or Kings they could see if they were dealt AK.

And would the ruling be any different if *all* cards in the stub were exposed?

I am pretty sure that this issue came up before in a different thread but with fewer cards exposed but is there an amount of cards exposed where the procedure would change? Or is having one card exposed treated the same way as having 20 cards exposed?

[Don't Miss Me While I'm On My Cruise]

I'd go with shuffling the deck and proceeding from there, but Martini raises a good point about people who could remember the exposed cards.

Gobbs

Since there are enough remaining hidden cards to run the board, would you consider leaving all exposed cards open for viewing through the rest of the hand so that the playing field is level for all players? Normally an exposed card (or cards) would be announced and put face down again but under the circumstances would you make an adjustment to that procedure? I'm just thinking the someone on a Flush draw could quickly scan for their suit or that players might look for how many Aces or Kings they could see if they were dealt AK.

And would the ruling be any different if *all* cards in the stub were exposed?

I am pretty sure that this issue came up before in a different thread but with fewer cards exposed but is there an amount of cards exposed where the procedure would change? Or is having one card exposed treated the same way as having 20 cards exposed?

I have to admit, I don't know the answer to this one.

Gobbs

[demon604]

I'd go with shuffling the deck and proceeding from there, but Martini raises a good point about people who could remember the exposed cards.

Gobbs

Since there are enough remaining hidden cards to run the board, would you consider leaving all exposed cards open for viewing through the rest of the hand so that the playing field is level for all players? Normally an exposed card (or cards) would be announced and put face down again but under the circumstances would you make an adjustment to that procedure? I'm just thinking the someone on a Flush draw could quickly scan for their suit or that players might look for how many Aces or Kings they could see if they were dealt AK.

And would the ruling be any different if *all* cards in the stub were exposed?

I am pretty sure that this issue came up before in a different thread but with fewer cards exposed but is there an amount of cards exposed where the procedure would change? Or is having one card exposed treated the same way as having 20 cards exposed?

My vote for just re-doing the hand comes from the fact that the deck was pretty much obliterated, if it was just a few cards, you would just treat it as 'exposed cards', but we're talking almost the entire deck.  Your pretty much just turning the hand into a lottery with the few remaining cards by running it. The odds are ruined.

[Shmegma]

I'd go with shuffling the deck and proceeding from there, but Martini raises a good point about people who could remember the exposed cards.

Gobbs

17. If the deck stub gets fouled for some reason, such as the dealer believing the deal is over and dropping the deck, the deal must still be played out, and the deck reconstituted in as fair a way as possible.

I wouldn't worry about people remembering exposed cards.  If you reconsitute the deck as fairly as possible then all those cards mingle in the deck and nobody is going to know what's coming up anyways.  I would suggest leaving the burn card on the table, collect all cards exposed from the 'drop', put them with the remaining stub in her hand, reshuffle and cut with all remaining cards and deal the flop again.  

Robert's Rules - Hold Em section #7

7. If the flop needs to be redealt for any reason, 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.

I should include that it also said that a board card will only stay if action has already been taken on that card.  Since the stub was dropped after dealing just the first flop card then it too should be replaced into the deck and shuffled in with all the rest.  If this situation happened in my league it's exactly what I would do.

I think this would have been the fairest way to handle the situation seeing as players had some pretty monster hands preflop.

[Shmegma]

My vote for just re-doing the hand comes from the fact that the deck was pretty much obliterated, if it was just a few cards, you would just treat it as 'exposed cards', but we're talking almost the entire deck.  Your pretty much just turning the hand into a lottery with the few remaining cards by running it. The odds are ruined.

you're saying re-doing the hand from the flop on right?  I can't see re-dealing the whole hand to the players as well since the fairest way would be to let them keep the hands they were dealt and deal the board over after the deck has been re-shuffled.

[Ghaleon]

I think this would have been the fairest way to handle the situation seeing as players had some pretty monster hands preflop.

Why does the fact that there was alot of pre-flop action influence the decision?  Shouldn't this situation be handled the exact same way every time regardless of the number or quality of hands in play?

Looks the rule book is pretty vague on this one.  The "fairest" resolution isn't really defined.  But I think that the running the board with the remaining unexposed cards is grossly unfair.  15-20 exposed cards completely changes the game. 

Reshuffling the deck is an incredibly better option IMO.

Since this happened before the flop, I would consider chopping the pot between the remaining players and moving on to a new hand.  But I still think that reshuffling the deck is a better option.

[Martini]

I think this would have been the fairest way to handle the situation seeing as players had some pretty monster hands preflop.

Why does the fact that there was alot of pre-flop action influence the decision?  Shouldn't this situation be handled the exact same way every time regardless of the number or quality of hands in play?

Looks the rule book is pretty vague on this one.  The "fairest" resolution isn't really defined.  But I think that the running the board with the remaining unexposed cards is grossly unfair.  15-20 exposed cards completely changes the game. 

Reshuffling the deck is an incredibly better option IMO.

Since this happened before the flop, I would consider chopping the pot between the remaining players and moving on to a new hand.  But I still think that reshuffling the deck is a better option.

I would agree that so many exposed cards would change the game but I think shuffling that many cards back the stub changes the game even more.

As for where to start running the board from, the OP said that the dealer had dealt the first card of the Flop. Whether that was face up or face down I think it should stay as part of the Flop and that neither the burn card nor mucked cards should be shuffled back in.

[Addicted]

For what it's worth dealer placed the first card face down on the felt, but had not yet turned it over.

Thanks for all the suggestions.  From the comments posted, I guess the lesser evil is to reshuffle the stub and exposed cards and play it out.  I don't like this option because the exposed cards could certainly give a player an unfair advantage, especially because there is no guarantee that all of th players noticed all of the same exposed cards.  For instance, what if one player notices that the ace of clubs was exposed.  Now, he knows that his king of clubs could yield the nut flush, but there is no guarantee that the other players noticed that the ace of clubs was exposed.  Still, it seems to be the best of many bad options.

[72]

IMO, it would fall under the "too many cards for the flop" rule. leave the burn, reshuffle the stub, and put the flop out without burning a card.

[Ghaleon]

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward declaring the hand dead and distributing the pot equally amongst the remaining players.

Whether the exposed cards are reshuffled into the deck, or the are left as exposed cards and the remaining unexposed cards are used for the board, you still run the risk of one or more players having an unfair advantage.

The ace of clubs situation mentioned above is a good example.  Someone with a pocket pair would be able to see if there are one or two cards remaining to make a set.

Reshuffling all the cards still presents a problem since there is still a level of unfairness when players know which cards are not in the muck.  And leaving the exposed cards exposed changes the game way too much.

I know the rules say "as fair a way as possible" but plainly there is no "fair" way.  The observant and astute players have an IMMENSE advantage.  And the oblivious players are overwhelmingly under-informed about the hand.  There is absolutely no way that the hand can be completed in a fair and equitable manner.

The only other option that is even close to fair is to declare all the betting over, reshuffle the deck, deal the flop, turn, and river, then award the pot to the best hand.  However, I really don't like this option either, since all of the hole cards must be turned face up and exposed to the other players.  It also gives better odds to the drawing hands since all five cards will be seen.

It really dosn't matter that there was alot of betting pre-flop, it doesn't matter how many players were in the hand, and it doesn't matter how good their hands are.  There is absolutely no way to handle this that is fair and equitable to all players.  Just call the thing done and get on to the next hand.

[Hands_of_Fate]

Before I got to the bottom of this thread, I immediately considered a situation where I had the K to complete a flush, saw the Ace and immediately felt relieved.  I would play that hand differently.

Additionally, if the board had paired and I had trips, but my kicker was terrible, I would play it differently if I noticed the 4th card exposed in the deck.

I'll categorize these cards as 'critical cards'.

So, how is this different than a possible single 'critical card' being prematurely exposed, say on the turn before flop betting is complete?  What's good for one exposed card is good for 20?

That single prematurely exposed card is in plain view for everyone to see.  Everyone has had ample time to absorb the identity of that one card. This is absolutely not the case when that many cards are exposed.  Now my ability to see the cards depends on where I'm sitting at the table.  Remember, in the 'single card exposed situation', that card is placed in the center of the table, neatly. in either the Turn or River spot.   I believe this is the crucial difference, and the remedy for handling a single exposed card cannot be used.

The only place in RROP that I can find for too many card exposed is on the flop.

Because I can't find anything in writing to quote here, my vote is to declare the hand dead and return the bets. 

Either that or treat each of the exposed cards as an exposed card.  What happens when a card is exposed? It's flashed to the entire table and announced.  What an absurdity that would be for half the deck!

[Martini]

The RROP rule #17 as already posted in this thread clearly states that the hand is to be played out. With that being the case I could not rule that the bets be taken back.

[Hands_of_Fate]

The RROP rule #17 as already posted in this thread clearly states that the hand is to be played out. With that being the case I could not rule that the bets be taken back.

oops, missed that

[Ghaleon]

RROP #17 also says that the deck must be rebuilt in a "fair" manner.  IMO it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to play this hand out fairly.  Also rule #17 just talks about the deck stub getting fouled.  I think the intention of this rule is for situations where the dealer believes the hand is over either drops the deck onto the muck pile, or begins the wash/riffle/shuffle, or something like that.

I don't think that Rule #17 applies here.

As was stated earlier, it is possible, and overwhelmingly likely that each player saw different cards.  When a single card is exposed, it is clearly shown to all players and announced out loud by the dealer.  Then the hand continues when ALL players have the SAME information.

In this case, not all players would continue the hand with the same information.  The betting cannot continue in anything that even closely resembles fair poker.

IMO, the options are:

1) Distribute the pot equally among the remaining players and continue on to the next hand
2) Declare the betting over, reshuffle the deck, deal the board, and award the pot to the winning hand
3) Leave all 20+ exposed cards face up for everyone to see throughout the hand, and play out the hand (betting and all) with the remaining stub.  I think this option sucks, but at least all players would be betting with the same information.

[demon604]

My vote for just re-doing the hand comes from the fact that the deck was pretty much obliterated, if it was just a few cards, you would just treat it as 'exposed cards', but we're talking almost the entire deck.  Your pretty much just turning the hand into a lottery with the few remaining cards by running it. The odds are ruined.

you're saying re-doing the hand from the flop on right?  I can't see re-dealing the whole hand to the players as well since the fairest way would be to let them keep the hands they were dealt and deal the board over after the deck has been re-shuffled.

I based it not shuffling the exposed cards back into the stub, IE 10 or less cards.  If the stub will be re-constructed completely then yes I would completely agree to finishing out the hand.

I'm actually leaning towards just playing out the hand by rebuilding the stub.  Even if a player could feasibly memorize every single exposed card, every player will have access to the information, which does make it fair.

[Ghaleon]

I'm actually leaning towards just playing out the hand by rebuilding the stub.  Even if a player could feasibly memorize every single exposed card, every player will have access to the information, which does make it fair.

Of course it's unlikely that any one player would memorize every single card.  However, it is extremely likely that he would see and memorize a few.  And since there is absolutely no way to ensure that those few cards are the same ones seen and memorized by ALL players, the hand cannot continue fairly.  Each player is likely to have some information related to exposed cards and it is likely that each player has DIFFERENT information.

I'll reiterate, I dont think RROP #17 applies here.  I think that rule was designed in the case of a dealer dropping the deck before the completion of a hand.  In that case, he could pick up the deck, though it may be somewhat spilled, but still have a complete deck of unexposed, randomized cards.  That at least is fair to all players.

Look, you wouldn't reshuffle one exposed card into the deck, why would you do it with 20?  And if one card were exposed, it would be placed face up on the table for all to see.  Again, why does that change with 20+ cards?

The hand cannot be played out fairly.  Just return the bets and move on.  And, if you insist on playing the hand out, either freeze the betting and use the remaining stub to deal the board and award the pot.  Or play the hand normally but leave the exposed cards exposed for all to see.

[72]

I'm actually leaning towards just playing out the hand by rebuilding the stub.  Even if a player could feasibly memorize every single exposed card, every player will have access to the information, which does make it fair.

Look, you wouldn't reshuffle one exposed card into the deck, why would you do it with 20?  And if one card were exposed, it would be placed face up on the table for all to see.  Again, why does that change with 20+ cards?

yes you would reshuffle one exposed card into the deck.
 one example of when you would is when dealer prematurely deals the turn card before the betting round is over.
the river becomes the new turn card and then the old turn is shuffled back in and the river is dealt.

[Ghaleon]

I apologize, I was thinking of an exposed card during the deal.  That would not be reshuffled into the deck.

But the point remains - Can you really say that the hand could go forward with all players having the same information?  There is just no plausible scenario that results in a fair hand.

This one isn't in the rulebooks (I don't think RROP #17 applies), so I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here.

Reshuffling all of the cards isn't a terrible resolution, but I will add that if I were playing in that hand, I would insist that the dealer at least leave the exposed cards exposed for a moment so I and the other players could study them a bit.  That way every one at least has a chance to glean the same information.

[Martini]

Agreed. If the exposed cards are going to be reshuffled then I think it should be only after all players have been given adequate time. Some players may be better at remembering than others but that is no different than Stud players remembering dead cards. Granted it is a different game but different players will always have different skill sets than others and there isn't anything that can be done about that.

[demon604]

But the point remains - Can you really say that the hand could go forward with all players having the same information?  There is just no plausible scenario that results in a fair hand.

This one isn't in the rulebooks (I don't think RROP #17 applies), so I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here.

This is the kicker, it is not about being fair, its about resolving the issue in the 'fairest' way possible.  Robert's Rules does apply but it is too vague.  This is one of those that will ultimately come down to the TD's discretion in as much accordance with the governing rules as possible.  Your going to have people who will hate seeing the hand re-done and you will have those who hate playing the hand out.

This is personally why I love these forums.  I always wonder what would I have done if I didn't have access to these discussions on particular situations.  I've made mistakes, but I know I've made far less than I would thanks to HPT.

[R-Ho]

But the point remains - Can you really say that the hand could go forward with all players having the same information?  There is just no plausible scenario that results in a fair hand.

This one isn't in the rulebooks (I don't think RROP #17 applies), so I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here.

This is the kicker, it is not about being fair, its about resolving the issue in the 'fairest' way possible.

I don't understand; how do you approach this in the fairest way possible without being fair?

[demon604]

But the point remains - Can you really say that the hand could go forward with all players having the same information?  There is just no plausible scenario that results in a fair hand.

This one isn't in the rulebooks (I don't think RROP #17 applies), so I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here.

This is the kicker, it is not about being fair, its about resolving the issue in the 'fairest' way possible.

I don't understand; how do you approach this in the fairest way possible without being fair?

Because to be to fair, it has to affect every player equally and I don't see a solution that does this.  So by fairest, I guess I would mean least amount of damage.

[Ghaleon]

But the point remains - Can you really say that the hand could go forward with all players having the same information?  There is just no plausible scenario that results in a fair hand.

This one isn't in the rulebooks (I don't think RROP #17 applies), so I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here.

This is the kicker, it is not about being fair, its about resolving the issue in the 'fairest' way possible.

I don't understand; how do you approach this in the fairest way possible without being fair?

Because to be to fair, it has to affect every player equally and I don't see a solution that does this.  So by fairest, I guess I would mean least amount of damage.

IMO declaring the hand over, chopping the pot, and moving on to the next hand causes the least amount of damage

[Martini]

But the point remains - Can you really say that the hand could go forward with all players having the same information?  There is just no plausible scenario that results in a fair hand.

This one isn't in the rulebooks (I don't think RROP #17 applies), so I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here.

This is the kicker, it is not about being fair, its about resolving the issue in the 'fairest' way possible.

I don't understand; how do you approach this in the fairest way possible without being fair?

Because to be to fair, it has to affect every player equally and I don't see a solution that does this.  So by fairest, I guess I would mean least amount of damage.

IMO declaring the hand over, chopping the pot, and moving on to the next hand causes the least amount of damage

What about the person who raised with AA and got two callers who was a huge favorite in the hand? I would say that giving him a third of the pot when he had maybe twice that amount in pot equity based on hole cards would be damaging.

[Ghaleon]

The quantity and/or quality of the hands in play should have absolutely no impact on the ruling. 

[Martini]

The quantity and/or quality of the hands in play should have absolutely no impact on the ruling. 

Not saying that it should. I'm just saying that dividing something in three equal shares is not fair to someone whose hole cards warrant a larger share of the pot. Getting less then their fair share is "damaging" to them IMO.

[Ghaleon]

I don't really think that it's a consideration.  This could have happened just as easily in a hand with 2 players or 6.  It could have happened if the hands were AA vs 72 or AK vs 55.  There could have been a lot of betting, or just a little.  We really can't consider those things when deciding what to do in this situation.  All we can say is that it sucks for the guy who had AA.  But there's always the next hand.

[Martini]

I think the principle of playing the hand through as stated in the RRoP rule (which may or may not apply here) is to ensure that everything goes as close to how it would have gone as possible.

It also prevents angle shooting. Let's say it is self dealing and I'm on the button. I make a huge raise with 72os trying to buy the pot. I get a call from the BB. Then, "Oooops, I fumble the deck. Let's pull our money back and play on with the next hand." I really feel that chopping up the pre-flop pot is not the best solution for this situation.

[Ghaleon]

I think the idea of angle-shooting is a minimal consideration at best.

Are we really going to play out a hand with so much unfair information available among active players just to prevent a self-deal, foiled steal, deck fumble situation? 

I think that particular angle shoot is weak and would be terribly obvious to anyone with more than three brain cells.  And on the off chance it did work, it would only work once.

[Martini]

I think the idea of angle-shooting is a minimal consideration at best.

Are we really going to play out a hand with so much unfair information available among active players just to prevent a self-deal, foiled steal, deck fumble situation? 

I think that particular angle shoot is weak and would be terribly obvious to anyone with more than three brain cells.  And on the off chance it did work, it would only work once.

Terribly obvious and work only once? Same thing could be said about string raises, or intentionally betting out of turn, etc.

I'm not trying to change your opinion about how so many exposed cards should be handled. I haven't really even settled on what I think I would do in the same situation. But based even on the *possibility* of someone using this for an angle shoot I'm going to have to eliminate returning bets as an option that I would consider.

Just my opinion. Everyone is free to run their games however they feel is right.

[Ghaleon]

No you can't say the same thing for string bets, or intentially acting out of turn.  There are clearly defined and written rules regarding those things.  There are also remedies such as warnings, penalties, etc if the problem becomes excessive.

Think about it, you're sitting at a small table, with a bunch of people around it, all looking at the cards coming out of YOUR hands, are you really going to be able to fake a deck fumble in any kind of convincing or believable way?  If so, could you do it more than once?

I just think if a player did this as an angle shoot, it would be obvious.  And if it weren't obvious the first time, it would be obvious the second time.  And after I knew that player was so petty to try and retrieve his botched steal attempts, I would never invite him to my game again.  Nor would I play at any table with him period.

Of course there are exceptions.  And if someone at the table had a violently kicking fetus inside of them, or had parkinsons disease, I would gladly offer my assistance by dealing for them.  Problem solved.

I just think that this type of angle shoot is so far out there that its impact is smaller than the impact of playing a hand with 20+ exposed cards.

Seriously, what is wrong with just declaring a "do-over"

[Martini]

No you can't say the same thing for string bets, or intentially acting out of turn.  There are clearly defined and written rules regarding those things.  There are also remedies such as warnings, penalties, etc if the problem becomes excessive.

Think about it, you're sitting at a small table, with a bunch of people around it, all looking at the cards coming out of YOUR hands, are you really going to be able to fake a deck fumble in any kind of convincing or believable way?  If so, could you do it more than once?

I just think if a player did this as an angle shoot, it would be obvious.  And if it weren't obvious the first time, it would be obvious the second time.  And after I knew that player was so petty to try and retrieve his botched steal attempts, I would never invite him to my game again.  Nor would I play at any table with him period.

Of course there are exceptions.  And if someone at the table had a violently kicking fetus inside of them, or had parkinsons disease, I would gladly offer my assistance by dealing for them.  Problem solved.

I just think that this type of angle shoot is so far out there that its impact is smaller than the impact of playing a hand with 20+ exposed cards.

Seriously, what is wrong with just declaring a "do-over"

Let's say that it is four handed late in a tournament. Top three pay. You are chip leader in the SB. Button is second stack. Other two players are way short stacked. Button shoves all in with JJ and you insta-call with AA. Button flubs the Flop and slips half the deck face up. Do you really think that a "do-over" of the hand is the best course of action?

RRoP covers "do-overs" in their misdeal section and in it the rules state: "1. Once action begins, a misdeal cannot be called." So in the example in the OP, action certainly has begun since they are at the Flop. That rule would further lead me to decide not to return bets.

Now let's say that the dealer had a muscle spasm and only one card were exposed. Should there be a "do-over"? Another reason I would rule to continue the hand is to be consistent with other dealer error rules where there are exposed cards.

[Ghaleon]

It's not the same situation.  In your example the player with JJ is all-in, and I've "insta-called".  You also mentioned that we're ready to deal the flop.  You didn't mentioned what the other two players did, but since they are the short stacks, if they are in this hand, then they would have to be all-in as well.  Regardless, at this point, all of the betting is closed.

The problem with exposed cards, is that it gives players information that could influence future betting.  In this case, there is no future betting.  Therefore picking up all the cards, and reshuffling the deck still ensures a fair result.

In the OP, the future betting rounds are completely blown.  Whatever happens after that can not be considered fair poker.

[pathand]

It's not the same situation.  In your example the player with JJ is all-in, and I've "insta-called".  You also mentioned that we're ready to deal the flop.  You didn't mentioned what the other two players did, but since they are the short stacks, if they are in this hand, then they would have to be all-in as well.  Regardless, at this point, all of the betting is closed.

The problem with exposed cards, is that it gives players information that could influence future betting.  In this case, there is no future betting.  Therefore picking up all the cards, and reshuffling the deck still ensures a fair result.

In the OP, the future betting rounds are completely blown.  Whatever happens after that can not be considered fair poker.

Martini, your time starts now.                         

[Martini]

It's not the same situation.  In your example the player with JJ is all-in, and I've "insta-called".  You also mentioned that we're ready to deal the flop.  You didn't mentioned what the other two players did, but since they are the short stacks, if they are in this hand, then they would have to be all-in as well.  Regardless, at this point, all of the betting is closed.

The problem with exposed cards, is that it gives players information that could influence future betting.  In this case, there is no future betting.  Therefore picking up all the cards, and reshuffling the deck still ensures a fair result.

In the OP, the future betting rounds are completely blown.  Whatever happens after that can not be considered fair poker.

You're right. Bad example since it is apples to oranges. I could modify it such that they only got half the money in pre-flop but I won't bother. The point is that the rules specifically call for the hand to continue after action has started. The situation that came up in the OP does not qualify as any of the conditions for a re-deal. Therefore I would not rule that the players take their bets back. I used a crappy example but tried to show how re-dealing hole cards could have a significant effect.

Maybe the angle shot of fumbling the deck would be obvious and could only be done once but allowing it even once in my game would be one time too many.

[Ghaleon]

Take a look at the other hot thread of the day related to an inadvertently mucked hand.  I'm trying to blame the player for not protecting his hand.  However, the consensus seems to be that most of the fault is on the dealer.  And in that case, the result of an agregious dealer error was that the pot is split between the remaining players and we move on to the next hand.

I only mention this to prove that its not unheard of to just call it over, chop the pot, and move on.

I think we can apply the same logic here.  The dealer screwed the hand so badly, that it cannot be salvaged.  Any subsequent action is not a fair poker game.

My vote is to just chop the pot and go on to the next hand.

But I also think that leaving all the cards face up and dealing the board with the remaining stub is a viable action.  I also think that reshuffling the cards into the deck after all players have had adequate time to study the exposed cards is something that sort of works.

RROP #17 says if the deck is "fouled".  I think we need to define what that is before we decide if it applies.  To me it means that if the deck is somehow dropped onto the muck pile, or if it is inadvertently shuffled, or dropped by the dealer as if the hand were over.  I really don't think that Robert was thinking about 20+ exposed cards when he wrote this rule.

And let's be realistic.  Even if you were holding pocket aces, would you still want to continue playing this hand?  I know I wouldn't.  There are too many variables.  Someone with a pocket pair could see if one or both of their set cards were left in the deck.  Someoen with suited cards coudl see how many of their suit were left in the deck.  An example was already given with a suited King.  If I see the ace in the deck, I know I'm drawing to what is effectively the nut flush.

I can't see continuing the hand based on a vague rule that probably wasn't intended to apply to this situation anyway.

I'm not saying that you re-deal the hand.  I'm saying award the pot evenly, move the button, post new blinds and go on to the NEXT hand.

[Martini]

I totally respect your right to rule that the pot should be chopped. As I've said before everyone can run their games as they see best. As you could see in my first post I had even considered the same remedy of returning bets. But as I mulled it over more, numerous factors led me away from that choice.

* If someone came up to me and asked "What rule are you basing your decision on?" I wouldn't have as good an answer for returning bets as I would for playing the hand out. There is always the "in the best interest of the game" catch all to support returning bets but for me I find more support in the the rules to play the hand out.

* If one card were accidentally exposed, I would not return bets. I have no good benchmark for how many cards are "too many" cards to follow the same procedure as when one extra card is exposed.

* The same information is available to everyone. If the Ace of Spades is visible to everyone, someone with the King of Spades knows that he would have the Nut Flush. By the same token the person with the Queen of Spades has access to the same information about the Ace of Spades being in the stub and cannot be sure they have the Nut Flush so they would need to proceed accordingly.

As for being realistic, would you really want to dump your Aces? The stub and board cards are still known to everyone. Your hole cards are still unknown to the other players.

I'm still mulling it over as to how to handle this situation. For instance, if the hand started out heads up and ALL cards were exposed, then it would be possible to know with 100% certainty what the other player's exact hole cards are. Interesting. Like I said, I'm still working on this one.

[72]

well, i asked the opinions of my friends at work tonight, and....

7 casino dealers agree: reshuffle the stub, and redeal the flop.

[Martini]

Yep. Bob Ciaffone says that Rule 17 definitely applies. Shuffle up the stub and play on.

[demon604]

Yep. Bob Ciaffone says that Rule 17 definitely applies. Shuffle up the stub and play on.

I still think it's vague considering it involves a majority portion of the deck, I can see a lot of people just re-doing the hand.

My wife mentioned a good point.. what if it this concerns deciding the final table, or the bubble etc, by ending the hand you could be letting the tournament be decided over a technicality rather than the players.  So I'm convinced for the moment, re-shuffle the stub.

[Martini]

Yep. Bob Ciaffone says that Rule 17 definitely applies. Shuffle up the stub and play on.

I still think it's vague considering it involves a majority portion of the deck, I can see a lot of people just re-doing the hand.

My wife mentioned a good point.. what if it this concerns deciding the final table, or the bubble etc, by ending the hand you could be letting the tournament be decided over a technicality rather than the players.  So I'm convinced for the moment, re-shuffle the stub.

Just to clarify, Bob said via email that in this specific scenario (only ten cards left unexposed) that the stub should be reshuffled and the hand played out. I was not just referring to his rule set.

[demon604]

Yep. Bob Ciaffone says that Rule 17 definitely applies. Shuffle up the stub and play on.

I still think it's vague considering it involves a majority portion of the deck, I can see a lot of people just re-doing the hand.

My wife mentioned a good point.. what if it this concerns deciding the final table, or the bubble etc, by ending the hand you could be letting the tournament be decided over a technicality rather than the players.  So I'm convinced for the moment, re-shuffle the stub.

Just to clarify, Bob said via email that in this specific scenario (only ten cards left unexposed) that the stub should be reshuffled and the hand played out. I was not just referring to his rule set.

aye, I caught that. 

[72]

Yep. Bob Ciaffone says that Rule 17 definitely applies. Shuffle up the stub and play on.

I still think it's vague considering it involves a majority portion of the deck, I can see a lot of people just re-doing the hand.

My wife mentioned a good point.. what if it this concerns deciding the final table, or the bubble etc, by ending the hand you could be letting the tournament be decided over a technicality rather than the players.  So I'm convinced for the moment, re-shuffle the stub.

dude. the guy(Bob Ciaffone) who wrote the rules of poker, RROP, just said what the right thing to do is. it's over. the poker god has spoken.

[Ghaleon]

Well if that's what Bob says, then fine.  I know what I would do if it  happened in my house.

And I still say the rule is vague, and only applies here (if it applies at all) because there is no other applicable rule.

Whoever has Mr Ciaffone's contact info might want to drop him a line and suggest that he add an entry to his Glossary that defines what a "fouled deck" is.