Usually, the affected player gets the card on the top of the deck and the flipped card is the burn card.

I saw a flipped card and the dealer just randomly gives the player a card within the deck. I was going to make a comment and then thought about it, because the dealer still burned a card, so the flop was unaffected, just what the replacement card was.

Which way is better and why? Of course, I'm sure the dealer knew to get the replacement card somewhere below the rvr card to not affect the run-out.

Edit: of course the replacement card comes at the end of dealing everyone else, just to be clear

Where I play the affected player gets skipped and the deal proceeds as normal.
Then the affected player gets what would be the burn card and the exposed card becomes the burn

That's what I meant, no dealer would stop and give a replacement card right away lol. I'd edit my OP since it wasn't clear to everyone.

Horrible procedure. Dealers should never deal from anywhere but the top of the deck. All you have to do is replace the exposed card with the burn card and make the burn card the exposed card, and the integrity of the hand is maintained.

Wait the dealer just pulled out the replacement card from somewhere in the middle of the deck? That'd make me uncomfortable. It's unlikely that anything shady is going on beyond a dealer with sloppy procedures but this would be pretty easy to manipulate if they dealer wants to give a specific card to the player.

This is one of those situations that I would escalate to the floor right away.

An old school rule is that a player cant be dealt 2 consecutive (touching) cards, so if the button has an exposed card, his replacement card will come from the middle of the deck. Most rooms have gone away from this line of thinking.

It's doubtful that a dealer would use this procedure unless it is endorsed by the house.

Sounds like a strange procedure to me. Have you played in this room enough to know that it's not how they do it normally? Maybe the dealer is a rookie and doesn't know better. Or maybe he doesn't want any more marks on his appraisal for flipping cards so often and this is his way of hiding it?

My room still had the no consecutive cards rule, so only when the buttons second card is misdealt does this happen. It does make a little sense when hand shuffling, I guess. Ive never thought it was a big deal

Good question, at first when 1 dealer did it, I thought he was the only one who didn't know the rules, but I noticed a few doing that now, so I'm wondering if it's a house rule. The flop is unaffected, just the replacement card. Also, the affected player was never the button so I dunno if the '2 consecutive cards' rule would've taken effect.

As I've never been in such hands and now that I realize the flop is unaffected, I dunno if I would make a comment.

With the proper method, I.e. burn goes to player and exposed becomes burn, the flop, turn, or river are also unaffected.

If players is not button the two touching cards never applies.

Rooms here have some strange and sometimes they change the rules about who can’t recieve the original burn as a replacement. But they all have the same rule if the burn can’t go to the player. That rule is and always for many years has been that it is a misdial in that case. I have never seen here or elsewhere the dealer ever deal any card other than the top one at anytime for any reason. As noted by others, having the dealer go “randomly” to somewhere in the middle of the deckseems really bad procedure to me.

I agree it's not the norm and weird, but if you really look at it, it's just another way to fix the flipped card as the flop is unchanged. Now, we can argue if it's proper for that player to not get the burn card, but it's the "same" random card, right?

Two problems with the rule - first, it introduces an opening for the dealer to select which card goes to the player. Unlikely to have marked card or rigged deck these days in a casino environment, but it's possible.

Next is the act of lifting part of the deck up to pull a card out will often flash one or more cards.

I have not figured out why getting two consecutive cards is bad enough to have a weird rule created to avoid it.

The only way a Player should 'hold' two consecutive cards is if their first card is exposed, not the second. Then they would get their normal 2nd card and the burn card, which were in the deck back to back.

Most rooms have moved away from this practice and 'exposure' misdeals are when either SB/BB first card is exposed or a 2nd card is exposed during the same deal. GL

As someone else mentioned, this is an old procedure for replacing a flipped card that was dealt to the button. Maybe some places still use it and maybe some places use it for any flipped card... IDK. The actual procedure is to spread the stub on the table and pick a random card somewhere around 10-15 cards from the bottom so it will not affect the community cards.

I've never understood this thought process. Random cards are random, and IMO there is no 'integrity' of the hand to maintain. Each player is impacted in exactly the same way if a card is exposed prematurely or flipped during deal (obviously, that player is impacted by the flipped card, but to what extent, if at all, is unknown except to him).

Obviously, there needs to be a procedure for dealing with these issues, but fighting to maintain the 'natural' flop, turn or river (or all three) seems like a waste of effort.

For every player dealt into the hand, you have exactly the same odds of having the changed card positively or negatively impact your exact hand. At least that's how my mind is working it out now.

Back to back would only happen if BTN's 1st card is exposed, wouldn't it?

It's not about logic. It's about how it feels to lose a hand that you 'would have won if that didn't happen'. Obviously it can go either way. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just reminding you that not everyone is a robot at the table and there are many players that feel things you might not.

Yes, the B reference is in the quote I copied into my post .. a little lazy I guess, not meaning to imply 'any' Player ... GL

I don't think the integrity of the hand/stub is a primary reason that a procedure should or shouldn't be used. But it is (would be) a very nice 'by product' of any procedure that is under consideration. And may or may not be a tipping point. GL

PS .. Typically the more complicated a procedure is the more likely it will also have 'accidents'. IMO not 'messing around' with the stud is a positive feature of most any procedure.