Dealer looks at burned cards before calling bet

[yvon]

No-limit TEXAS hold-em home tournament. Players deal in turn. Cards are dealt. I am the small blind. 3 limpers ahead of me. I complete the big blind and the big blind checks. I flop an open-ended straight draw. I check
and all players check. The burn card is placed with the first burn card, below the flop cards, and the turn card is put on the table. I make a pot-sized bet. Everyone folds to the button. He decides to look as his hole cards before making his decision but he picks-up the two burn cards instead of his hole cards and says "those are not my cards" and shows them to all. He then picks his hole cards and then calls my bet. An argument starts. I say his hand is dead - he got illegal information before his call, information I didn't have before my bet. I should win the pot. Opinions of other players at table are divided. The tournament host is puzzled and cannot rule. He suggest that maybe we could stop the hand, I take back my met and we divide the rest of the pot. We do that but I feel that I have been wronged.

[Martini]

I would declare his hand dead whether he was the dealer or not. For obvious reasons it is not fair for someone to view dead cards while involved in a hand.

[Jaxen]

Please don't let Gobbs see this thread. 

If I was TD, here'd be my call ... play the hand out as if it didn't happen. The dealer showed the burn cards to everyone, giving all in the hand the same information. After the hand, the idiot gets a warning and doesn't deal the rest of the night. It may have been a simple and honest mistake, but it's the only way to prevent it again. After the tournament, I'd pull the guy aside and tell him to pay more attention next time.

[Martini]

@Jaxen
If you're going to rule that the hand plays out, are you not going to shuffle the burn cards back into the stub so the dealer would not be able to benefit from seeing the burn cards? Would you rule the same if the dealer were out of position and looked at the burn cards before deciding to check or bet? Would you rule the same if a non-dealer picked up the burn cards and looked at them?

[Nerre]

The burn card is placed with the first burn card, below the flop cards,

Here is the error.

The burn cards shall be tucked under the edge of the pot, second burn under the first, third under the second. That way they are:
- easily discernible from board cards, hole cards and the discard pile (which should be on the other side of the dealer)
- easily countable
- protected by the pot
- kept in order (in case of irregularities)

[Jaxen]

@Jaxen
If you're going to rule that the hand plays out, are you not going to shuffle the burn cards back into the stub so the dealer would not be able to benefit from seeing the burn cards? Would you rule the same if the dealer were out of position and looked at the burn cards before deciding to check or bet? Would you rule the same if a non-dealer picked up the burn cards and looked at them?

On reflection, realizing that, yes, the dealer showed everyone the burn cards, but they acted without seeing them, and the dealer alone was able to act after seeing them. Dealer's hand is dead, there's no other recourse.

In this example, the hand would then be over because there's only one person left in the hand. But say there was a call after the bet before the dealer. In that case, I say those burn cards are simply exposed cards -- if you shuffle the 1st 2 burn cards back into the deck, don't you also have to shuffle the turn card in as well since the 2nd burn card came out prior to the turn? Now everyone has the same information, and got it at the same time -- after they acted on the turn. Burning and rolling the river may not be the rightest decision, but it's the fairest.

[Wedge Rock]

The burn card is placed with the first burn card, below the flop cards,

Here is the error.

The burn cards shall be tucked under the edge of the pot, second burn under the first, third under the second. That way they are:
- easily discernible from board cards, hole cards and the discard pile (which should be on the other side of the dealer)
- easily countable
- protected by the pot
- kept in order (in case of irregularities)

Yep.  There is a reason for each nuance of the dealing process.

As for the OP, dealer's hand is dead because he had unfair information.  It would be dead if he were the dealer or any other player (who saw the burn cards).  As the dealer, it is partially his fault because he didn't properly isolate the burn cards such that they were available for a peek.  If he had his cards capped, it would have been less likely to happen too.

Can't see another way around it other than killing his hand and awarding the pot to the OP.

[Tex Rex]

Dealer's hand is dead on several counts.

1. Dealer had an unfair advantage no other player had BEFORE he had to make his play.  That advantage simply cannot be undone since other players had to act without that knowledge.
2. Dealer's cards should have been protected, which would have distinguished them from any other cards on the table.  Since he picked up unprotected cards, his hand is dead.
3. Dealer's error, and in this case irreversible.  If no one else had acted, he could show the cards to everyone so everyone was acting on the same information.  That, though not necessarily reversible, treats all players equally.  But if any player acted, Dealer's hand must be dead.  Someone might have folded, but seeing two cards, whether helpful, neutral, or hurtful, might have made a different decision.

I didn't know the dealer rule about where the burn cards go.  Thanks for that info.  That would have solved this problem.

[Jaxen]

http://www.howtoshuffle.com/poker-board-cards.htm

Clearly shows where the burn cards go.

[Martini]

@Jaxen
If you're going to rule that the hand plays out, are you not going to shuffle the burn cards back into the stub so the dealer would not be able to benefit from seeing the burn cards? Would you rule the same if the dealer were out of position and looked at the burn cards before deciding to check or bet? Would you rule the same if a non-dealer picked up the burn cards and looked at them?

On reflection, realizing that, yes, the dealer showed everyone the burn cards, but they acted without seeing them, and the dealer alone was able to act after seeing them. Dealer's hand is dead, there's no other recourse.

In this example, the hand would then be over because there's only one person left in the hand. But say there was a call after the bet before the dealer. In that case, I say those burn cards are simply exposed cards -- if you shuffle the 1st 2 burn cards back into the deck, don't you also have to shuffle the turn card in as well since the 2nd burn card came out prior to the turn? Now everyone has the same information, and got it at the same time -- after they acted on the turn. Burning and rolling the river may not be the rightest decision, but it's the fairest.

No, I would not shuffle the Turn card back into the deck. It is the card which would have been the Turn in the first place and additionally, players have already acted on it. Under that scenario I see no need to shuffle the burn cards back into the stub either.

An uglier scenario is if the dealer picks up the burn cards after the first player acts but before the second player (not the dealer) acts. Yuck.

[Martini]

...
I didn't know the dealer rule about where the burn cards go.  Thanks for that info.  That would have solved this problem.

It isn't a "rule" per se though there are definitely conventions and protocols which are followed. They also vary depending on which card room you are in.

[Gobbs]

This one amused me.  I'm not even going to say it I'm laughing so hard.

KC

[KPrather]

Here's just a little Devil's Advocate.

I'm sitting next to the dealer, and I have already folded. My friend is player A. Player A and Player B are involved in a massive pot on the turn. Player A has gone all in, and Player B is thinking. Lightning fast, I reach over, grab the burn cards and flip them over.

Obviously I'm busted for collusion and I'm outta there, but what about the pot? Is Player B's hand dead because he was shown the burn cards?

[Martini]

Here's just a little Devil's Advocate.

I'm sitting next to the dealer, and I have already folded. My friend is player A. Player A and Player B are involved in a massive pot on the turn. Player A has gone all in, and Player B is thinking. Lightning fast, I reach over, grab the burn cards and flip them over.

Obviously I'm busted for collusion and I'm outta there, but what about the pot? Is Player B's hand dead because he was shown the burn cards?

That's a different situation because a third party turned cards over, not the player who has action to him. It also would be a terrible situation to collude on since knowledge of the burn cards is unlikely to have a large impact on how the hand plays out.

[Tex Rex]

With all due respect Martini, I think that might depend on what the burn cards are.  For example:

A makes a large bet (let's say it would put B all-in).  Everyone has folded except B.

B has 9c 10c

Board is Ah 6d 7h 8c 3h

B has a straight, but A could have a flush.  A can't have a higher straight, but could tie B and split the pot.  There is nothing else higher than 3 of a kind that B has to worry about.

A third person turns over the burn cards and it's 3 hearts.  Now B knows that while A could have 2 hearts and have caught a flush, of the now 42 unknown cards, only 7 are hearts and A has to have 2 of them to win.  However, without knowing the burn cards, of the 45 unknown cards, 10 are hearts.  Thus A is more likely to have 2 of the 10 hearts than 2 of the only 7 hearts.  B might well call knowing the burn cards but fold without knowing them.

I could think of a lot of ways this would come up where knowing the burn cards would make a HUGE difference to B.  At that point, even knowing one more card would help B -- knowing 3 would help him a lot if he knew how to use the info.

I'm not sure of the solution, but here's a thought.  Card exposer is removed from game (and perhaps shot in some circles).  B acts.  If A wins, definitely no harm done.  But if B wins or they tie, A could easily argue that B wouldn't have made the play but for knowing the burn cards.  B could be innocent of any wrongdoing, but once he knows the burn cards, he can't not know.  Only B really knows.

A might be bluffing, or he might have have a flush.  He could have a straight, and it could be the same straight B has or a lower straight.  He could have 3 of a kind or 2 pair.  Regardless, A is hurt by the exposure of the burn cards since he acted before knowing what they were.  B gets to act AFTER knowing and having information not available to A.

If I were A, I'd be furious regardless of outcome.  I might have to show a hand that I otherwise wouldn't have to show, thus giving all other players information and what I did in that situation.  Now that's a chance I took if B calls, but I have  a right to not have someone else, ANYONE else, interfere with what B would do.

If A won or they tied, I might be inclined to do nothing on the theory that A didn't lose anything because of it, though he might not have won as much.  If B won, perhaps an equitable remedy would be that A gets back his last bet.  I don't know that there is a precedent for that.  That's not really "fair" to either, but I'm not sure how else one might do it.

[Martini]

@Tex Rex
Of course they *can* be very relevant and possibly even conclusive. My point is that someone in collusion would be an idiot for turning over the burn cards because the chances are so high that they will be irrelevant and only change the odds by a few percent. And to what end? If the guy flipping the burn cards over wants to convey information to his partner then they would be far better off if he would just let him know the two hole cards he folded and any other cards that he might have been able to peek at from other players at the table. That would convey at least as much information without drawing any attention to themselves.

[Wedge Rock]

Collusion leads to one result.  Think Mikey and Worm at the Municipal game...

If a player not in the hand flips the cards, I don't think you kill either of the live hands...they took no initiative to create the unfair advantage (as opposed to what the dealer did in the OP).

[Martini]

Collusion leads to one result.  Think Mikey and Worm at the Municipal game...

If a player not in the hand flips the cards, I don't think you kill either of the live hands...they took no initiative to create the unfair advantage (as opposed to what the dealer did in the OP).

In Tex Rex's example, the collusion that happened was that the player who was yet to act with a bet to him had his partner turn over the burn cards to give him additional information (and thus unfair advantage) which would give him the extra information of dead cards in the hand though as mentioned above the likelihood of that action substantially helping the situation is remote.

[Tex Rex]

Martini, I agree with you that often those cards would be useless.  But even one additional suited card showing up in the burn cards would significantly alter the odds and might affect play.  I also didn't assume that A told the "flipper" to flip the cards.  Flipper might have just done it without realizing the affect it could have, and that isn't necessarily cheating, but it is against the rules.  The deliberate nature of it is why the Flipper should be punished by being removed.

Again, I'm still not sure how you would deal with it if A won.  I'm very curious what others think in that case.

[Martini]

Martini, I agree with you that often those cards would be useless.  But even one additional suited card showing up in the burn cards would significantly alter the odds and might affect play.  I also didn't assume that A told the "flipper" to flip the cards.  Flipper might have just done it without realizing the affect it could have, and that isn't necessarily cheating, but it is against the rules.  The deliberate nature of it is why the Flipper should be punished by being removed.

Again, I'm still not sure how you would deal with it if A won.  I'm very curious what others think in that case.

Sorry, got your post confused with KPrather's post about the collusion part. My mistake.

I think you're overestimating the value of an exposed Heart in your scenario. I can run the numbers later but I think it should be <2% and the chances of having the bet be in the exact zone where that difference would be relevant would be rather remote.

[Tex Rex]

Martini, I think the chances are as follows:

All 3 burn cards, no hearts:  10/42 (23.8%)
3 cards, 1 heart:  9/42 (21.4%)
3 cards, 2 hearts:  8/42 (19.0%)
3 cards, 3 hearts:  7/42 (16.7%)

However, looking at relative terms --
All 3 burn cards, no hearts:  Standard
3 cards, 1 heart:  -10.01%
3 cards, 2 hearts:  -20.2%
3 cards, 3 hearts:  -29.8%

Though the chances of a particular card are about 2%, the actual difference in percentages is closer to 10 per card.  That's a HUGE difference.

A professional player told me a long time ago that he considered knowing even one card another player didn't know to be worth about a 10% edge.  That's why I'd be so upset if I was A.  It makes a much bigger difference than might be obvious to a casual observer.  If I was B and my hand was declared dead and I wasn't part of the collusion, I'd be really upset too.  Of course, if A has a flush, and it happened that 3 flush cards were burn cards, B would be making what appears to be a much better call, but A would win.

I had this happen to me (or maybe this was actually FOR me) in a game one time -- I'm going to have to make the cards up, but this is pretty close.  I had a suited 8/9 and stayed in -- don't remember if I was on the BB, SB, or just playing it.  The flop comes 2, 7, and 10 rainbow.  On the flop, I had 4 straight (let's call it 7-10 unsuited), but no flush draw without getting runner/runner.

I realize there are 4 6's or 4 J's that could make my straight, and that would very likely be the winning hand.  Then before I called a bet on the flop, somebody announces "I folded a pair of 6's."  Now there are only 6 cards that could help me.  My chances of getting a straight went down 25%, not 4%.  I folded, and ultimately my straight didn't make.  But I would have stayed in had the player not said that.  The player was really just being stupid and had no real idea how that comment affected play, but without knowing that, I'm likely to have called for both the flop and 4th street, unless it got too high.

That's why talking shouldn't be allowed, and exposing cards or info about a folded hand should not be allowed during live play.  And someone may have already mentioned this, but I've seen people say, "I'm folding, but I want to hold on to my cards" may be giving live players info.  It can be very innocent, but it may help one player a lot.  The fact is, info will almost always help one player more than another.  But I really don't believe there is such a thing as useless info regarding cards.

Before we learned about cut cards, I can't count the number of times dealer's exposed the bottom card in the deck.  Sometimes knowing that might really only be a 2% edge.  Other times the edge was much bigger than that.  But it's always at least 2%.

[Martini]

@Tex Rex
The relative increase in percentage is a nice number to look at but really doesn't mean much to the situation at hand because it is the overall percentage that needs to be considered when weighing pot odds. I also don't know where your friend got the 10% figure from because knowing ten extra cards in the deck obviously isn't going to give him 100% certainty of what his opponents cards are.

In your example of having an open ended Straight draw, you are correct that your odds decreased from 8 outs to 6 outs. The rule of thumb is that you lose 2% per out on a given street. So instead of being roughly 16% to hit your hand on the Turn you got that knocked down to 12%, a difference of 4% as it relates to pot odds. The 25% proportional decrease is irrelevant because your call/fold decision needs to be based on the odds of catching your card compared to the pot odds (and implied odds as well but for simplification purposes we'll ignore them for now). In fact, you could have someone also tell you that they folded the other pair of Sixes which would cut your odds to make your hand in half and you could STILL be correct to call depending on the size of the bet to call.

[Tex Rex]

Martini, I'll start with what the pro actually said.  I didn't mean to mislead you about what he said.  He said knowing one card is about a 10% advantage.  It's a mistake to think 10 would equal 100% certainty.  The relative value of knowing each addition card does go down.  But the point is, while one card is approximately 2% of the deck, knowing that one card may amount to an advantage significantly greater than 2%.

While I agree that a call/fold decision is based significantly on pot odds, those are not the only odds to look at.  Catching my straight in that case was significant because there wasn't a possible higher hand, however, you could never really know that until all the cards are out.  Once two cards on the board pair up, there's always a chance for either 4 of a kind or a full house.  And unless the first 4 are all different suits, there's always the possibility of a flush.

If I knew all the 6's were out, a call should still be based on the pot odds, but at that point, they are exactly the same odds as an inside straight.

BTW, neither of us has addressed it, but the guy could have been lying about having the 6's.  I considered that too, but knowing him I tended to believe him.

I also think where you are playing in a freeze out tournament, pot odds may favor plays that in fact shouldn't be made.  In a cash game, especially a limit game, pot odds are more significant.  The reason for that in a freeze out tournament is that you could be left crippled by playing pot odds and losing, so you have to look at other things.

I think for the most part we agree on this.  I was really trying to make the point that knowing 1-3 cards might really affect greatly the chances of winning, much more than they might affect the actual pot odds.  Pot odds will almost always favor a guy holding KK when the board is KAKA3.  But in reality, his chances of losing to AA is enough that playing pot odds only might well be a long-term losing proposition if he's having to call an all-in bet on 4th or 5th street.  Thus, to me, you can't go by pot odds alone.

Consider the plight of a guy who has AA (and doesn't go all in pre-flop).  On the flop, what should he do when someone goes all in on KAK?  He's got a full house, and the top one at that.  The ONLY hand that can beat him is KK.  The chances of someone having KK are about 1/221.  Pot odds will always favor a call there.  But is that the right call?  Well, I don't think it's the right call 220 out of 221 times, despite what the pot odds say.

The guy holding KK is in the same position when another player goes all in on 4th street when it's KAKA.  His odds of winning are also 220/221 according to pot odds.
 

[Martini]

I'll tell you what, I'll play a game for money with you or your pro friend. I will draw a card from the deck and you or your pro friend will try to guess which suit it is. The chances of you doing do are 25% or 3:1 so each time either of you guess correctly I will pay $300 and each time you miss you pay me $100. We both know that this will net out to no advantage in the long run and we'd just be trading money back and forth with no edge. However, since I'm such a nice guy I will allow you to look at one of the cards remaining in the deck so you can get an extra 10% or a 35% chance of guessing the suit. So even though you have a better than 2:1 chance now of guessing my suit I will play the game for just 2:1 so you can have an edge. You guess right I will pay you $200 and if you guess wrong you owe me $100. Let me know when you want to play.

OK, the example above is of course ridiculous...unless you actually want to play in which case just let me know! But I just don't see how how anyone can arrive at the figure of a 10% edge based on one unknown card. I'd be interested in seeing the math behind that assertion.

As for your pot odds examples, you are correct that you are always going to get pot odds to call with hands like Quad Kings or Aces full. That's why you snap call with those hands. The fact of the matter is that if you are going strictly by the odds of someone having random cards in their hand (bad idea) then you are probably going to get the odds to call on the end no matter what the burn cards are. For example, if there are four Hearts on the board and, by your numbers, the odds of villain having a Heart are between ~16% and ~24% then you should call if the pot is giving you 3:1 or better which is easy to do since all villain would have to do is bet 1/2 pot on the River or even less if there are Hearts exposed as burn cards.

[Tex Rex]

Martini, here's how knowing one card can amount to way more than a 2% advantage.  Let's say I know that the 10h is at the bottom of the deck and out of play.  For the sake of simplicity, let's call each card 2% of the deck even though it is slightly less than that.

First, suppose I'm holding a 10.  My chances of pairing up just got cut by 1/3.  If I have 2 10's, I know the chances of a 3rd one showing up are cut in 1/2.  When the board comes up, each 10 is worth somewhat less than any other card because of the reduced chances of a pair, 3 of a kind, and the non-existent possibility of 4 of a kind.  If I'm not holding a hand where the 10 helps, my chances of making my hand went up 2%.

Second, suppose I have a straight possibility.  Since either a 5 or 10 is required for every straight, one of 8 cards is required to make a straight.  Take one out of play, and the chances of a straight just went down by 12.5%.

Third, suppose I have 2 hearts.  The chances of a flush are down by 1/13 or 7.7%.  By the same token, if I have 2 cards that are not hearts, my chances of getting a flush just increased about 2% since one card that wouldn't help me is not in play.  The first 3 situations are how that one card affect me based on what I'm holding.  Even though I don't necessarily know what others are holding, I know those things about their hands that they don't know.

Collectively, knowing that over one other player amounts to way more than a 2% advantage.  That's because it's 2% of known info that can actually be applied to multiple situations.  So when you consider all of the possibilities, his 10% doesn't seem unreasonable. 

Back to the pot odds -- While they do almost always favor huge hands, I understand that having a great hand, is good as it is, counts the same as having nothing when up against a greater hand.  Honestly I'm more likely to have a losing night when I get good cards than when I get bad ones.  You don't get points for second place -- you just lose your money to first.  So if you rely on pot odds alone, you will lose sometimes when the odds are heavily in your favor because you aren't looking at other information.

[Martini]

First of all, your very specific Th example that you manufactured is not representative of the entire deck. You are just as likely to see a blank on the bottom of the deck. The implication that I understood was that knowing ANY dead card is worth 10%. Or maybe I just misinterpreted what your friend was saying.

Secondly, again, the percentage difference is not relevant. Let's say I run a lottery and your chance of winning the jackpot is 1 in 10 million. Since my hold percentage is huge and I'm feeling charitable I tell you that I will sell you two tickets for a buck instead of just one ticket. You have just increase your percentage of winning by 100%!!! But that doesn't mean that buying a lottery ticket is EV+.

Let me illustrate this for you. If you run your pocket Tens through the ProPokerTools.com simulator you will see that you have a 75% chance of winning against a random hand. Now if we make Th a dead card we can run the simulation again and see that your odds of winning drop down to 72.7% or a little over 2% and a far cry from 10%. Now lets take a different example where you hold 8h9h and the dead Th affects your ability to make a Straight and/or a Flush. You are 50.8% to win against a random hand normally but if you know that Th is a dead card then your odds of winning the hand "plummets" down to 50.4%.

I think 10% is an overestimation of how valuable knowledge of a dead card is.

[Edit: I had accidentally added an extra extra word.]

[KPrather]

I think my point was missed.

Say I'm the colluder. My friend has made the big bet. It's up to you to make a decision. I grab the burn cards and show them to you. It's not about whether or not I influence your decision. What was said earlier was that since you saw the burn cards, your hand is dead, and my friend wins the pot.

[Martini]

I think my point was missed.

Say I'm the colluder. My friend has made the big bet. It's up to you to make a decision. I grab the burn cards and show them to you. It's not about whether or not I influence your decision. What was said earlier was that since you saw the burn cards, your hand is dead, and my friend wins the pot.

What was said earlier is that the hand was dead because the player who was yet to act was the one who picked up the cards. He, on his own, took action which he could benefit from. That is a different situation than a third party exposing the board cards since the person yet to act had no direct control over that event.

[KPrather]

What was said earlier is that the hand was dead because the player who was yet to act was the one who picked up the cards. He, on his own, took action which he could benefit from. That is a different situation than a third party exposing the board cards since the person yet to act had no direct control over that event.

Fair enough. So since it wasn't his fault, he can have the opportunity to benefit?

[Dr. Neau]

What was said earlier is that the hand was dead because the player who was yet to act was the one who picked up the cards. He, on his own, took action which he could benefit from. That is a different situation than a third party exposing the board cards since the person yet to act had no direct control over that event.

Fair enough. So since it wasn't his fault, he can have the opportunity to benefit?

Yes, because if not you then open it up to me intentionally screwing him over.