To burn or not to burn...

[joonka]

I was playing in a self dealing bar game last night.  Before the action can get to him preflop, the dealer announces that he has dealt himself three cards.  His hand is declared dead. 

There was some debate as to whether or not there should be a burn card before the flop.  The player who said no argued that it was more important to maintain the natural flop / turn / river than to provide the protection against cheating associated with burning cards before each street.

Should there be a burn card preflop?

[Martini]

I would say that there should not be a burn card so that the original board cards are maintained.

While having the top card of the deck exposed carries some risk of someone knowing the top card the risk is quite low of it actually being a uniquely exploitable situation. If someone can determine what the top card in the stub is then that game has much bigger problems than the dealer giving himself a third card by accident.

[holdemholmes]

I would say that there should not be a burn card so that the original board cards are maintained.

While having the top card of the deck exposed carries some risk of someone knowing the top card the risk is quite low of it actually being a uniquely exploitable situation. If someone can determine what the top card in the stub is then that game has much bigger problems than the dealer giving himself a third card by accident.

I agree with Martini on this one. I never like creating a situation that disturbs the original board cards, and the risk is minimal to me.

[pathand]

"natural" and "original" always cracks me up when referring to shuffled cards that have not been exposed pre-flop. i just don't buy it, but i guess that's just me. since i'm not a math guy, is there some kind of "odds" issue that becomes relevant that i'm too ignorant to figure out? the almighty sacred stub. go figure.


<mini rant over>     

[Jambine]

Got to agree.

Dealers hand is dead.   No burn

[William]

"natural" and "original" always cracks me up when referring to shuffled cards that have not been exposed pre-flop. i just don't buy it, but i guess that's just me. since i'm not a math guy, is there some kind of "odds" issue that becomes relevant that i'm too ignorant to figure out? the almighty sacred stub. go figure.


<mini rant over>      

It's not really about some sacred order, but the notion that the dealer gets to change the order of the deck during the deal. Not being allowed to change the order of the cards after the deal's begun reduces the likelihood of the dealer manipulating the deck.

[Nerre]

BUT, dealing himself an extra card could be seen as manipulating the order...

[Martini]

BUT, dealing himself an extra card could be seen as manipulating the order...

Only if you decide to burn a card before the Flop after the mistake was noticed which is why people have suggested not burning and keeping the original board cards intact.

[joonka]

The argument put forward by the chief advocate for burning was that the cards are random. 

While nobody debated that point, the counter argument against it was, "explain that to the player who gets drawn out on using the wrong 'random' board".  99 times out of 100 it's going to happen to the guy who is going to complain the loudest.  Who needs that aggravation?

[Martini]

The argument put forward by the chief advocate for burning was that the cards are random. 

While nobody debated that point, the counter argument against it was, "explain that to the player who gets drawn out on using the wrong 'random' board".  99 times out of 100 it's going to happen to the guy who is going to complain the loudest.  Who needs that aggravation?

The counter-argument is that if the cards are all random, then why not use the current random order of cards instead of a different random order of cards? As William pointed out, it's more a question of following procedures which minimize the opportunity for foul play.

[joonka]

The procedure for minimizing foul play would be to burn.  However the majority of opinions (yours included) in this thread seem to think that it is a secondary concern to maintaining the original board.

Personally, I'll sign off on either solution.  They both have merit.  The point of my original question was to determine if there is some rule out there that governs this particular occurrence so that I can apply it to the next time the situation presents itself.  I have yet to hear of one that would specifically govern this example.  That's ok.  I didn't know if there was one out there.  

I must say, I am a little disappointed with the responses.  Nobody has offered the standard "first, you should smack the dealer" comment that usually starts off one of my posted questions.    

[William]

I'm against smacking the dealer on the principle that I'm usually the dealer.

[Blaster]

Here's a semi-unrelated, similar related situation:

   When the turn card comes out premature, before all players have acted, we have usually burned & turned the river as the "new" turn,  & then mixed the premature card back into the stub, & then put out the river (without an addtnl burn, since the burn was already done.)
  This of course keeps 4 of the 5 board cards "the same" & the 5th still has the oppertunity to come out.
        I've recently been to games where they, upon seeing a premature turn, instead burn & turn the river Face Down, then mix stub & deal a New Turn.   On the river the pre-dealt face down ("correct") river card is flipped over.  This also keeps 4 correct, & keeps the river "where it should be"...  But I didn't like the pre-dealt face down river.
      Thoughts??

[Martini]

The procedure for minimizing foul play would be to burn.  However the majority of opinions (yours included) in this thread seem to think that it is a secondary concern to maintaining the original board.

Personally, I'll sign off on either solution.  They both have merit.  The point of my original question was to determine if there is some rule out there that governs this particular occurrence so that I can apply it to the next time the situation presents itself.  I have yet to hear of one that would specifically govern this example.  That's ok.  I didn't know if there was one out there.  

I must say, I am a little disappointed with the responses.  Nobody has offered the standard "first, you should smack the dealer" comment that usually starts off one of my posted questions.    

In RRoP there is the rule: "11. Before the first round of betting, if a dealer deals one additional card, it is returned to the deck and used as the burncard."
http://www.homepokertourney.com/roberts-rules-of-poker.htm#IRREGULARITIES

Following this procedure would mean that the Flop would remain the same as it would had there not been an extra card dealt. In this specific scenario since all action had been completed, placing the burn card back on and immediately taking it off again would, in my opinion, be unnecessary and could potentially cause more harm than good so I would just leave the burn card off and deal three cards off the top which correspond to the original Flop cards.

[joonka]

You're trusting the dealer who couldn't deal a f/t/r correctly to keep a face down river card out of the muck.  What could possibly go wrong?

[William]

Liking this:

   When the turn card comes out premature, before all players have acted, we have usually burned & turned the river as the "new" turn,  & then mixed the premature card back into the stub, & then put out the river (without an addtnl burn, since the burn was already done.)
  This of course keeps 4 of the 5 board cards "the same" & the 5th still has the oppertunity to come out.

Not liking this:

        I've recently been to games where they, upon seeing a premature turn, instead burn & turn the river Face Down, then mix stub & deal a New Turn.   On the river the pre-dealt face down ("correct") river card is flipped over.  This also keeps 4 correct, & keeps the river "where it should be"...  But I didn't like the pre-dealt face down river.

[Nerre]

       I've recently been to games where they, upon seeing a premature turn, instead burn & turn the river Face Down, then mix stub & deal a New Turn.   On the river the pre-dealt face down ("correct") river card is flipped over.  This also keeps 4 correct, & keeps the river "where it should be"...  But I didn't like the pre-dealt face down river.

No good... If the river is marked, you just removed the point with burning (everybody will see the back of the river card).

Also the probability of someone getting a peek shouldn't be neglected.