I wasn't involved in this hand, and wasn't even paying a ton of attention to it until the issue occurred, but somehow we've arrived at the turn with three players -- the SB, who is a late-50s or so white gentleman with a mustache, a small Asian lady in EP, and a middle-aged white lady on the button. 1/2 NL game at Ocean's in Atlantic City.

Board reads: Q92 [8]

The first two players check, the white lady moves a little bit but not enough to call a check, the dealer burns and turns the T. The gent bets $18 into about $40, and this is where it gets wonky -- the white lady says she didn't check on the turn. Floor comes over, says the card's going back in, the lady can have action on the turn -- now she checks.

River gets re-dealt, is now a 3. Gent still bets $18, Asian lady folds, white lady calls. Gent had Q8, lady had QJ. Someone points out to her that the original river was better for her, and she says it wasn't!

Two procedure questions for the many people with knowledge of how this ought to work:

1. The floor had the dealer burn again -- I don't think I've ever seen four burn cards before (or at least not in a spot where it didn't get run twice) -- is this actual procedure?

2. How do you prevent the angle from the white lady here? I'm about 95% sure she was trying for a "better" river card, but obviously wasn't bright enough to understand which ones were good for her.

The floor gave the assist here. You prevent the angle by not making such terrible rulings that allow it in the first place.

No comment on the 'angle' but I've seen at least some places have it in the procedures to burn a 4th card.

Need a little bit more information and maybe about the dealing procedures there. Most places, before burning and turning, the dealer will tap the table, announce how many players remain, and/or say something to confirm the action, e.g. "check around" or "free card" to give a little time which should avoid this issue. Some dealers want to go as fast as they can and it's possible he went straight into exposing the turn and the gent may have smoke bet before white lady could stop it. Doubtful, but possible. Unfortunately, the floor will probably not have enough accurate information because each player will want it a certain way and the dealer won't think he's done anything wrong. I would probably tend to say that the card stays because of the significant action of burning, turning, and betting.

I guess she didn't see the straight.

1) You don't mention a shuffle but I'm going to assume one took place since you do mention 'going back in' from the Floor. Typically the top card after a shuffle will be the new River since the integrity of the stub is not in question, but rooms can have their own rules when it comes to any procedure.

2) As described I don't really think we have an angle here, but it's possible. Are we really going to go angle hunting when that person can't see the benefits of the current River card? The timing of everything is so important in these spots it's hard for us to judge from the outside. I'm leaning more towards an honest, although maybe a bit aloof, older lady. GL

Given the fact that she saw the river, objected, then checked anyway, I can't see how this is anything but an angle. Unlikely she manufactured the angle by inducing a premature river, but she certainly took advantage of both seeing the river card and seeing how the other player played the river to both freeroll the river, and get information she was not entitled to.

That being said, it is pretty sweet to see someone out angle themselves

1. Correct, deck was shuffled (actually shuffled better than I think I've ordinarily seen in these spots, she did about 6-7 riffles, a strip, and a cut, I think two riffles, a strip, a riffle, and a cut is "random enough" for this spot).

2. As the floor was sorting out the situation, I was borderline on whether it was an angle. The table talk afterwards heavily suggested to me that this lady decided she did not like the T river and opted for a new one as a result. The self-own just made it too delicious to not share.

I don't think she was deliberately ambiguous about her turn action to create herself the option for two rivers, I think it was more in the vein of her realizing that we'd gotten to the river in an ambiguous way so she piped up to "preserve" her turn action when she didn't like the original river. I think that's most angles, right, is crimes of opportunity (as opposed to deliberately constructed scenarios)?

Yes, which is why you don’t hand out those opportunities.

I’ve seen our floor reject the notion of ‘I didn’t act’ if they thought it was a major angle shot or someone who should know better. The floor came over and asked the dealer if she announced check. Yes she did. Did she tap the table before she burned? Yes she did. The next person acted in turn and THEN they decided to throw a fit. Floor ruled ‘too bad’ and you had plenty of time to stop the dealer.

Not sure if any supervisors here would change their ruling or if you always shuffle the card back in but I appreciated putting the ownus on the player in this particular instance.

Maybe she saw it but didn't think she needed it vs a flush draw. The flush seems far more likely than 2 pair once the guy bets the river.

I think it is definitely an angle. And she owned herself.

I have never seen an extra burn in any room I have played in. If I was the Dealer/Floor and I was going to deal another burn card, I would shuffle the original river burn card back in before I dealt the burn and river...

Funny thing is if I was the Floor I would be very tempted to say the River stands once she checks.

If a Floor is even thinking about letting the River stand they better not announce what their ruling would be before the Player acts. Then it's a freeroll to the answer they prefer to give.

The real question comes in as to whether the bet is enough to keep the card. If we were still on the same street you would need another action after the bet to 'prevent' this Player from having all options available.

I could easily wrap my hands around the fact that the Turn card and 'intervening' bet are two actions and that would lean my ruling towards keeping the first River. GL

Dealer has time to tap the table, burn and deal a river, and a guy has time to bet, all before she objects? Gtfo. It doesn't even matter if it was an angle or not, way too much time and action has taken place.

Yep

This is not standard procedure in most places, but this room may very likely have that as their procedure, so I can't answer your question really.

By not bringing a new river card. You can't wait for the dealer to deal the river and someone to bet before you decide to say something. It is too late. I would not have given a new river card here.

I’m not really sure if that’s even an angle?

Of course the lady might be a regular and know the casino has some non-standard rules/rulings and how to make a fake check work in her favor.

But there’s also a chance she got totally confused by what happened and basically spoke up when she realized the mistake. She might have not even realized what the river did for her hand because of the confusion.

No matter what, ruling should obviously be that she waited too long to speak up.

+1 to all of this.

The table talk afterwards *strongly* suggested to me that she:

1. Did not realize she had made a straight on the T
2. Realized that standing up for her missed turn action may enable her to get a new river

I don't think she had deliberately made an ambiguous check-like motion on the turn to opt for two rivers, I think it was once the river was dealt and the guy had bet she realized she hadn't acted on the turn and could use it to her advantage.

lol at this being the worst angle, maybe not even an angle, shot.

It's the worst I've ever seen in terms of effectiveness.

I’ll project a little of myself into the situation. If I didn’t check, I’d object, even if I was going to check.

That said, with the action, I don’t expect another river.

I’m not expecting another burn, but room rules vary.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What would you do in this situation: You are last to act in a multiway pot. You are considering betting or checking behind. You decide to check but the dealer burns and turns the card before you can say check or tap the table. Regardless of whether you like the card or not, do you feel that you are supposed to speak up here and point out that the dealer burns and turned prematurely?

Personally, I feel like I'm angle shooting if I don't say anything, regardless of what I was planning to do and regardless of how I feel about the card.

2 3 5 NL game, half the table with > 2k.
3 players in the hand with 500 in the pot. EP raises to 1300. LP tanks then pushes 2500 in chips out. LP gets snap called then calls the floor on himself for not doubling the bet for a min raise and decision is forced in to a call. No 50% rule at this venue. BS because floor turned the 2500 bet in to a 1300 call.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ruling seems to be technically correct. Terrible rule. Definite angle.

I don't believe she was clever enough to angle here. I think she was just a flustered, middle-aged woman. Without the compelling title and the "this is where it gets wonky," this isn't obvious and is just OP's opinion that an angle took place. I've seen this happen 100x over the past 20 years. Sometimes it's an angle and sometimes it's not.

The fact that OP sees this as the worst angle ever and seems like this is the first time he's ever seen this occur (How do we prevent this? Really?) leads me to trust his perception of the situation even less.

I'm a bit surprised this thread got bumped three months later, but like I said in one of my follow-up posts -- the table talk made it apparent she wanted a new river and realized somewhere after the original one had fallen that she could get one. I ended up shading the language/title accordingly, since it's rare that you end up with an understanding of someone's state of mind when in these situations.

My bottom line is that allowing her to peek at the first river, *not change the turn action when given the opportunity*, and then change the river is incorrect. If she's checking the turn, then nothing's changed, the river's correct, and the hand should proceed.

I agree that the title was hyperbolic. I really have not seen many turns/rivers shuffled back in, probably less than I could count on my hands over the last ~15 years of playing in cardrooms off and on. I've never been full-time, so I mean, we're talking about like 1500-2000 hours or so, but I can't imagine replacing board cards happens often, and should be a last resort.

YMMV, of course, but I mean, change the thread title to "An angle I saw shot recently" and change "gets wonky" to your preferred nomenclature for SNAFU, but I otherwise stick by the sentiment in the OP. This was definitely an angle, made hilarious by the fact that the lady had a winner on the original river and ended up losing after calling a river bet when she angled for a new one. What can I say but schadenfreude I wanted to share?