·5 to flop
·Checked to button
·Button does not act
·Dealer deala turn
·MP points out button has not acted
·Button says it's fine I check
·Sm blind bets
·Table goes nuts saying turn must go back into deck
·Floor is called
·Floor rules bet is invalid and turn card will be shuffled back into deck after the the turn and before the river


Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk

Table and Floor are correct.

Standard

Ty

I was just confused a bit because the button said "it's fine I check" and then there was action following that before anything was stopped or objected to.

Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk

You can't let the button act on the flop when he already knows the turn card.

Might get funny if he claims that he did check before the dealer put out the turn card. Decent chance dealer backs him up on that so the floor doesn't know he made a mistake.

If the button says 'fine', and there is a significant pause where no one objects, and then SB acts, would the ruling still be standard?

That's the reasoning for my question. (and the small blinds irritation with the ruling)

Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk

The dealer SHOULD back it up to the flop (and call the floor if supervision is needed, which in most casinos I'd assume it is). It shouldn't be on the players to object. It's a procedural error. Not only that, but maybe the players in the hand don't want to give off tells about the strength of their hands by arguing one way or the other. It's the dealer's job to do the right thing here and not be lazy about it. With that said, I'd imagine 80% of dealers out there would just let things move forward, which makes me sad.

Bring the turn back. Back it up.
Button could be saying "it's fine I checked" cause turn could be major card for him, leaving too many doors open for him to take advantage.
As played, card comes back, burn and put original river out... card estimated time of arrival reshuffled with possibility of coming back, no burn and put river out. Standard.

That's what they did, except they burned before the river. I guess getting it 95% right is a step in the right direction for Twin River.

Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk

Shouldn't burn before new river, as now Dealer has 4 burns.
And speaking from someone who Dealt at the casino you mentioned, I'm not shocked they got it wrong

Turn gets reshuffled back into the deck and a new turn is put out as the Button checked.

No. River (ie New turn) is dealt first, turn only reshuffled back in if river is needed.

I'm never shocked anymore.

I had a similar incident but an interesting tweak:

3 players to the turn which goes bet / call / 3rd dude hasn't acted yet and the dealer premature deals the river. Then we speak up and the dude says oh ya I was folding anyway and tosses his cards forward (but not into the muck). Then the floor comes and it's put back and reshuffled in order to deal a new river. Then the 3rd dude pulls his cards back and says "oh well then can I still call?"

Should he be allowed to call?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So many errors.

If you make the river come back and be redealt, then it's because action was not yet completed on the turn. First you take back the premature river. Then you complete the turn action. Then you deal the new river.

I assume this is not the case, because if it is then the dealer/floor have now made the exact same mistake a second time, but... If the new river is already dealt, therefore, it is because action on the turn is completed, and player 3 has folded. Dealer needs to muck his hand before proceeding to deal the river. Even if he doesn't, his hand should be ruled dead.

If the new river has not yet been dealt, then essentially it is because action is still on player 3. As long as his cards are retrievable and identifiable, then I would allow him to call if he wants. (Particularly if there is any indication that he folded just to try to avoid having to create an issue which requires calling in the floor, which happened anyway.)

Note that player 3 actually develops a bit of an advantage here, because he gets to make his decision after seeing the premature river, which makes it slightly more likely that that card will come back again as the new river (compared to all the other unseen cards). But this is the case regardless of whether he had attempted to fold before or not, so it doesn't really change the ruling.

Yep. But you should always call the floor, don't do this yourself.

I've seen a room where the River stays if Player 3 indicates he was folding anyway, but he must decide before the Floor makes his ruling on the card currently on the Board. This is not the way I think it should go, but I've seen it. 'Try' to never let a Player facing action influence or determine a subsequent ruling.

There are other places that will put the 'real' River out face down and then shuffle and put out a new Turn. This placates more players IMO but opens up the door to the 'exposed' River now out on the table and eliminates the reason for the burn in the first place, which is to keep it covered up.

River becomes Turn, new River is the best approach IMO. GL

Even more important reason to not hold out the "river card" to the side i that if the premature card was say for instance the A if we pull aside the river card and then reshuffle the A in to deal the turn .... If the A does not come back up on the turn the players now have 100% certainty that it will not come out on the river.

the river had not been re-dealt yet

so i bolded what i think your response is, and im curious why because i thought differently. in my view the action was on player 3 but he had already folded, i viewed that action as binding.

I have made a call to let it stay at times in the past and those times were only because I was actually at the table and it was obvious to me the last player to act was in the middle of actually folding as the card came out. Beyond that I will always shuffle it back in and here's my reasoning why:

Imagine you are the last person to act and you were thinking about calling when the dealer brought the river early. Now, that river didn't help you, but as someone brings up the fact you were skipped, you see/hear one of the other players in the hand is obviously fighting to keep the card there and this is a friend of yours. You automatically go into "well I was going to fold anyway" mode because you assume you are helping your friend. This may not ever be the case, but to make sure this never happens, I will always rule to shuffle it back in.

Now imagine that exact situation happens and the floor decides to shuffle it in anyway and now you are asking if you can stay in the hand and call since a new river is coming now. Do you see the issue I have with it? We just take those possibilities out of play by always reshuffling.

maybe im missing something but yes this is what happened, and now the player who tried to fold is now trying to call.

the current status is, premature river has been recalled and shuffled back into the deck, and we are pending the deal of the new river.

As a 'stickler' comment ... In turn, any verbal action is binding regardless of any subsequent physical act, even OOT folding is binding in most rooms regardless of any subsequent changes in action. I don't think that RR or TDA (maybe) directly address an OOT fold declaration.

I've seen Floor's ask the player in question what he was going to do BEFORE ruling on the exposed card. They wouldn't answer any questions about the card to the player since it might influence their decision, but the card was left in play once the player 'confirmed' their fold.

This certainly is open for debate ... If I see an exposed card and it didn't help me, and I see that one of the players in the hand likes OR dislikes the card, I might take the x out of xx chance that it wont come out again and make the decision to call instead of fold. This is 'information' that can't be re-bottled so IMO you stick to one course of action (reshuffle and replace), thus limited the ability of the 'action' player to influence the rest of the hand one way or the other.

A Floor could always indicate 'circumstances' but I don't think we allow a player to change his mind now that he knows a new card 'will' come out. That fact that the player didn't know the rule or how the Floor was going to rule shouldn't allow him to back off his verbal declaration of folding. GL

Sorry, I didn't realize you had hijacked the thread with a different scenario. If you are asking if the guys fold should stand in your situation then yes it should. He can't have his cards back.