5 ways to the flop, first two check. I am last to act. Nothing happens for 20 seconds. I think maybe I didn't see a check, ask if the action is on me, dealer says yes, so I check.

Dealer burns, player 4 says wait I haven't acted yet. Dealer stops, p4 bets. Folds to p2 who calls.

Dealer burns again and deals the turn. He realizes pretty quickly what he has done and tries to stop the action, but as he is saying "oh shoot. Wait. Pit!" P2 checks and p4 bets.

What should happen here? Normally I am pretty good with rulings but this one stumped me. The dealer tried to freeze the action immediately but the players acted very quickly.

where was this?

id just say accepted action and let the turn stand and go from there

Both players acted on the card. It has to play. Next card off the deck will be the river if needed.

Timing here is key. Players have acted but they may have acted after the dealer said "wait" Action occuring after that can't count as significant action

This.

Once the dealer realizes their error and makes an attempt to stop the action and call the floor, there's no way the action can stand.

Turn should come back and should be replace with the real turn (the second burn), and don't burn for the river card.

If a dealer tries to stop the action in the forest and nobody hears him, did he make a sound?

I think there's a big difference between an authoritative "HANG ON, FELLAS," and a meekly mumbled "Oh dear, wait a second, maybe." In the first case, I can see the point of "action that occurred after that will be disregarded". But in the latter, I think it should stand.

Suit brings up another good point: if this card stands, do we burn again before the river, or use the next card off the top (the "originally intended" river card)? I'm really torn on this one, I can't decide which would be better/worse. I guess there's no perfect answer, might as well use the top card to keep players from whining about "changing the order of the randomly distributed cards".

I'd go with this and for the reason you stated. I believe that random card is random but the players at the table would definitely prefer to not change the order of the cards.

Make correct burn the turn, put wrong turn face up on top of deck to be the burn for the river. QED.

The pit decided to bring the dealt turn back, use the proper turn, and using the top card as the river (as it was supposed to be). Of course player 4 was upset but they couldn't very well reverse that decision once it was made.

I wasn't sure what was right given the timing. The dealer was a bit meek and player 4 bet while he was trying to stop the action. But player 2 pretty much snap checked so I guess you could argue that it was too late even though the dealer reacted as quickly as he could.

I think, in hindsight, it's not really that important which card is dealt even if it's not the right order, and if using the correct card would interfere with the action at all then it's better to just let the wrong one stand.

God dammit YTF. Quit bringing your logic around.

Very good point. It depends how vocal the dealer is here. I could see it going either way once you consider that. Fwiw, if I'm the floor and I rule that the turn card stands, then I'm not having the dealer burn for the river in an attempt to bring the original river card.

This is part of the problem.

I would have asked 3rd to act "did you check?" or "did you act yet?". Maybe he doesn't know it's on him, is thinking, or already checked but no-one else saw it. This protects 4th to act's action somewhat, even though that is still *his* responsibility, sounds like he was waiting for the other guy to act.

Although it's all avoided if when you ask the dealer "is it on me?", he points to 3rd to act and says "no dumbass, action's here". It *is* part of the dealer's job to know where and what the action is at all times.

Most of you say that a random card is a random card, yet you want to bring back the random card that both players already acted on and give them a different random card... This is crazy to me. Whether the dealer stopped them in time or not, they still both acted on the card giving out info. It is not fair to bring a new card when p2 knows that p4 would bet x on the first card and gets to see what he will do with this new card and vice versa. The card has to stay.

I would be an advocate to say that once one player acts on this incorrect card, it is too late to bring it back. Maybe I'm on the wrong meds!

I would strongly disagree with that.

If two players acted on an incorrect card, maybe it stays, but no way should it stand if only one player acts. So if I'm in this hand, and I notice the dealer double burned and the turn gives me the nuts, I can snap bet (or even check) and make that card binding? After all, one player has acted on it?! Come on, now...

I'm not a fan of the players controlling the cards, or most rules. This isn't a home game, it's a casino. Just because the players all agree on something doesn't mean it will happen. I see it a lot with burn-and-turns. The dealer brings the turn early because they miss a player, but then that player says "Oh, I was folding anyway." Even when the players left in the hand say "Oh, it's fine. He was folding anyway! No harm done", the turn comes back. So, just because both players bet does not mean the card stands. The situation is a weird spot though....

As YTF said, it depends on the attempt the dealer made to hold the action. If they loudly said "Hold on guys! This isn't the right card, FLOOR!" before anybody acted, then I don't care if 10 players act after that, the card comes back. However, if he quietly say "oh... oops... Floor..." And nobody at the table hears them, then the card should probably stand.

Agreed. We don't bring the card back because it's not the "right" card, we do so because otherwise first-to-act gets to freeroll on whether he keeps the incorrect card or tells the dealer it's the wrong card and gets a second chance.

Robert says it stays if one person acts on it: Doing otherwise lets the second player to act freeroll. He can sit quietly and wait for his opponent to act on the card and then demand a new card if he doesn't like what transpires. He not only gets to force a new card out, he gets the HUGE advantage of seeing his opponent act before he decides. Yipes.

Basically, it pays to pay attention. However you do it, somebody gets an advantage.

I wouldn't really shed a tear if this happened since his opponent would be angling.

Wasn't aware of that rule and I'm frankly surprised at it. Really disagree with it. "It pays to pay attention" sounds like something an angler would say imo.

Thinking a little more about it, my feeling is that the card should just stay, regardless of the action. A random card is a random card. Let me pose this ... we add a die to poker. On every street the player on the button rolls the die and the dealer burns however many cards the die shows. Does this change the game at all? (Ignoring the possibility of burning through the entire stub) No.

The motivation of only burning one card is the same as that for burning a card *at all*. To prevent cheating. The burn card prevents players from seeing marks on the card that will be dealt on the next street while they're making their actions. From that motivation, if the dealer burned 2 and dealt the turn, they should still burn another before dealing the river, since players have a clear view of the current top card.

The only problem with such a procedure is that a mechanic of a dealer could burn extra cards to change the outcome of a hand, if he knew what was sitting on the top of the deck.