Question About Prematurely Exposed Cards

[Poker Jack]

Hi there,

if the dealer deals, for example, the turn card prematurely, you take that card, put it back in the stub, reshuffle and re-deal once action is completed, as it is suggested in the Explanation Section of RRoP. You do this to make sure that the same card can appear again, instead of cutting the chance in half by taking the card out entirely and dealing the river for the turn, thus, deminishing a players odds for, let's say, a gutshot.
So far, I think, we agree.

Now, if a card is exposed during the initial deal, what do you normally do?
You finish the deal, deal the player another card, take the exposed card and use it as the burn card should you deal a flop.
Why do you do this? Because it preserves the deck as best as possible.

But, if the exposed card was, let's say, a queen, and the other card the player was dealt was a queen, too, you have just butchered a premium hand. Now, apart from the player being upset about that, you actually deny him/her the chance of receiving the same queen again by using the card as the first burn.
Why not use the same method that governs prematurely dealt community cards? Simply take the exposed queen, put it back in the stub, reshuffle and continue the deal where you left off.

Why not???



 

[Martini]

Good question. I hadn't ever thought it through to the extent that you did. If you're so inclined you should email Bob Ciaffone and see what he says. He has been remarkably accessible and responsive whenever I've asked him questions.

The key thing that stands out to me is that an accidentally exposed hole card was going to stay hidden until showdown whereas a board card would be shown to everyone still involved in the hand at that point. An exposed player's card does not directly affect the hand of other players at the table. Yes, it can potentially decrease the number of outs but no one would have used that card to make their best five card hand so one could argue that there is no need for that card to potentially come up again in that hand. Another point is that during the deal there has likely been no action taken at the time the card is exposed so if someone sees that they are missing some outs due to an exposed card they can assess whether or not they want to proceed in the hand before committing chips. One more point to consider is that it might be a time saving measure since there is far more opportunity for the dealer to expose a card when dealing out multiple hole cards to the entire table than just flipping a Turn card.

[William]

Preserving the order of the deck should be the main concern. Allowing a dealer to alter the order of the cards to come midhand is opening the door to collusion, whether real or perceived.

In the case of the premature Turn card, the Turn card is set aside, a card is burned after action is complete and the would be River card is dealt as the Turn card. The stub is then reshuffled with the premature Turn card, and after action is complete after the turn the River is dealt without burning, allowing the premature Turn card to return as the River card.

As Martini has mentioned, the amount of action is also a consideration. An exposed card during the deal will cost the player at most a Big Bilnd and perhaps an ante. An exposed card during the hand could cost a player considerably more.

[72]

lol just expose 2 more cards in the initial deal and you can call it a misdeal then instead of ticking off one guy, everyone's ticked.

[Jambine]

.....Now, if a card is exposed during the initial deal, what do you normally do?.....

Leave the card where it was dealt and continue dealing in sequence.  Then give the player the last card from the top of the stub, and the exposed card becomes the burn card.

[Poker Jack]

.....Now, if a card is exposed during the initial deal, what do you normally do?.....

Leave the card where it was dealt and continue dealing in sequence.  Then give the player the last card from the top of the stub, and the exposed card becomes the burn card.

Thanks, but I already got that figured out.

[Poker Jack]

Preserving the order of the deck should be the main concern. Allowing a dealer to alter the order of the cards to come midhand is opening the door to collusion, whether real or perceived.

Hm, could be a valid point. Just can't see how... could you give an example of how exposing a card and then reshuffling could be exploited by a dealer?

In the case of the premature Turn card, the Turn card is set aside, a card is burned after action is complete and the would be River card is dealt as the Turn card. The stub is then reshuffled with the premature Turn card, and after action is complete after the turn the River is dealt without burning, allowing the premature Turn card to return as the River card.

Yeah, well, that's how they used to do it (and are still doing it, as I gather from your explanation), but I think Bob pointed out that you cut a player's chance to hit his out again in half by dealing the river for the turn. If I understood it correctly, Bob thought it a better method to simply reshuffle the prematurely dealt turn back into the deck and readeal, thus, giving the same odds and outs as before.

As Martini has mentioned, the amount of action is also a consideration. An exposed card during the deal will cost the player at most a Big Bilnd and perhaps an ante. An exposed card during the hand could cost a player considerably more.

Wel, my aim would be to not make a mistake cost a player anything, not even a BB. So, by putting the exp/ card back in the deck, reshuffling and redealing, it doesn't necessarily cost that player a premium hand (for hes got the same chance to re-hit his card as before).

[Gobbs]

Prematurely turning a card is extremely rare and the need to reshuffle for this would waste minimal time.

Exposing a pitched card happens on occasion.  Now you're getting into an area in which you could be wasting time - not a lot, but more than for a prematurely exposed turn.

KC

[R-Ho]

Now, if a card is exposed during the initial deal, what do you normally do?
You finish the deal, deal the player another card, take the exposed card and use it as the burn card should you deal a flop.
Why do you do this? Because it preserves the deck as best as possible.

But, if the exposed card was, let's say, a queen, and the other card the player was dealt was a queen, too, you have just butchered a premium hand. Now, apart from the player being upset about that, you actually deny him/her the chance of receiving the same queen again by using the card as the first burn.
Why not use the same method that governs prematurely dealt community cards? Simply take the exposed queen, put it back in the stub, reshuffle and continue the deal where you left off.

Why not???

During the dealing of hole cards, no voluntary betting has occured. Therefore, one exposed and replaced hole card is considered an acceptable random event, by reason that it is fair and does not disrupt the order of the community cards to come. It does not matter how the player's hand is affected.

[Poker Jack]

It does not matter how the player's hand is affected.

Well, it does matter for the player whose card is exposed due to a dealer error. The issue is not really whether or not there has been action, but rather that a player is possibly very upset that he is denied an ace that could have made a playable hand. Of course, I am looking at the whole issue from a player's point of view. As a card dealer, it doesn't matter much. But as a player, I would feel much better if the dealer just reshuffled and gave me (at least) a second chance to get that ace, or whatever card.

As a sidenote, you could argue that if you reshuffled and redealt, every player would know that nobody holds the exposed card. BUT, maybe the player whose card got exposed is redealt that same card, but now nobody will know for sure (except him of course). Maybe that could be considered an unfair advantage.

[72]

there's no shame in folding. and it's free to fold pre-flop if one of your cards was exposed during the initial deal.

[Wedge Rock]

Well, it does matter for the player whose card is exposed due to a dealer error. The issue is not really whether or not there has been action, but rather that a player is possibly very upset that he is denied an ace that could have made a playable hand.

You are assuming the card was a good one.  What if you were intended to get K4 off and the 4 was exposed and replaced with another K?

Its just as possible to improve your hand by getting a replacement as it is to degrade your hand.

[Nerre]

but rather that a player is possibly very upset that he is denied an ace that could have made a playable hand.

I get very upset each time I don't get pocket aces. Does that mean there should be a re-deal each time I don't get pocket aces?

You get the cards you get, as long as the cards are random you have to stick to what you get. You would have been denied that ace if the dealer had shuffled differently.

Yes, it sucks to get bad cards, but still, the cards are random.

[Poker Jack]

Well, it does matter for the player whose card is exposed due to a dealer error. The issue is not really whether or not there has been action, but rather that a player is possibly very upset that he is denied an ace that could have made a playable hand.

You are assuming the card was a good one.  What if you were intended to get K4 off and the 4 was exposed and replaced with another K?

Its just as possible to improve your hand by getting a replacement as it is to degrade your hand.

Good point. But the second K might also come when using the exposed for the burn and deal the original burn to the player.

Oh well, maybe I'm starting to grind it here....

[Martini]

I think the topic in the OP is valid. In one case the entire deck is shuffled (using alternate remedy described in the Explanation section of RRoP) and in the other case the exposed card is used as a burn and cannot come up in play.

As I said before, one could email Bob Ciaffone for his thoughts on the matter. A house rule could also be made to treat both instances the same though they are not exactly analogous since a card exposed during the deal is not "prematurely exposed" since it is a hole card, not a community card. That said, a house rule could override RRoP if it is that much of an issue.

The most important thing IMO is to have a clear set of procedures that everyone has access to. The most important thing that rules do is to make sure that there is a prescribed resolution for situations so that there is no dispute over how to handle certain situations. Personally I think keeping the deck in as close to the original order as possible is preferable because people tend to get bent out of shape when there is an irregularity which causes a different outcome *and* where they lose the hand. You don't hear people complain when they benefit from a reshuffling. So even though either remedy (shuffling or not shuffling) would work from a mathematical standpoint of randomness, leaving the cards as close to original as possible will ruffle fewer feathers.