Running out of cards in a Stud deal and other Stud irregularities

[K-Lo]

I know the non-NLH games are not currently a priority, but I have a suggestion for some rule changes:

1. Currently in Stud games, if it appears that the dealer does not have enough cards to deal a card to each player, e.g. on seventh street, there is quite a complicated procedure where dealers must deal to the last card, do a reshuffle of certain cards, cut or no cut, and then deal out cards to remaining players UNLESS there still wouldn't be enough cards to complete the deal in which case a community card is used.

My suggestion is that, for simplicity, prior to dealing a street, if the dealer does not have enough cards to deal each player a card from the existing stub, then a community card is automatically used for that street.  No reshuffling.  

2. Currently, if on the last street a card that should have been dealt face down has been dealt face up by mistake through dealer error, different approaches are used.  Some differ depending on whether the action is heads-up or multi-way.  Other approaches depend on whether the first player was dealt a card face up mistake (as opposed to a later player receiving a face up card); sometimes a player has the option of being all-in for existing bets, while other times all remaining cards are also dealt face up.

My suggestion is that, for simplicity, if any seventh street card is dealt face up by accident to any player, then all seventh street cards will be turned face up, and betting will proceed as normal.  The only exception (which is the rarer situation since the more common situation is that the first person receives an upcard by mistake, which would fall under the main rule) would be is that if a card was dealt face down and mixed in with a player's existing hole cards such that if the seventh street card is no longer clearly identifiable, then that player (with the unexposed downcard) will be deemed to be all-in for existing bets.

[Nick C]

Hello Ken,

I understand most of the inconsistency that exists in the current rules for card shortages in stud. A couple facts I'd like to clarify for those that are not that familiar with seven card stud. The dealer must always be aware of a hand playing out with a full table of players still remaining. I like to teach student dealers to count the number of players before burning and turning, especially on sixth or seventh street. In order to assure that there will be no shortage of cards on a particular street. There must be at least two more cards remaining in the deck stub, than players. Six players...eight cards. This, of course, will allow for a burn card and one remaining unused card. The old rules would tell us to never use the bottom card of the deck.

Local casinos are in favor of using a "community card" when it is obvious that the stub does not contain enough cards to complete a round of dealing. This will only apply on seventh street. The alternative, in certain situations, is to include the burn cards along with the short deck stub, when possible. This of course will take a little more time and that's probably the main reason why most casinos frown on it, and prefer a community card. It has been my experience that the shortage almost always happens when the early rounds are checked, or minimal action has occurred, thus the remaining players. There are other situations when a complete street is removed because of a premature deal, but that could be a subject for a later discussion.

I'm not sure what kind of a change you're looking for. Once a player receives a down card and the next player (through dealer error) has his rivercard exposed, it's usually impossible to ask the first player to turn his up.

The way I see it: On seventh street: If there are not enough cards to complete the deal by adding the "clean" burncards to the deck stub...use a community card.

As far as the mistake of the dealer, accidentally turning the first players rivercard up instead of down, well, I always thought that could use some work too. If the dealer is going to make a mistake on the rivercard, the first card off, after the burn, is when it will occur. I actually prefer offering an option to the player with the exposed card. I'd even prefer that when the first player accidently has his rivercard exposed. In other words; dealer burns and turns the one-seat's river card face-up (hopefully by mistake)...I'd prefer that he continue dealing the other players their rivercard down. I know that's not the rule, but that's what I'd prefer. Head to head adds to the complexities, as Ken mentioned.

I don't know if I'd be in favor of automatically declaring the player that received his downcard and it is intermingled with his other holecards, all-in. I'd prefer giving the option to the player or players with the exposed hand.

I don't know if I answered any of your question, but I thought I'd try to explain what I remember from those good old stud games, from years gone by.

[K-Lo]

Thanks for your response, Nick.  You may some good points.

For the record, I am one of the (perhaps) few that do not favor re-introducing burn cards into play.  First, the rules between draw games and stud games and whether burn cards should be reshuffled in are not consistent.  That's not helpful.  But the bigger issue for me is game integrity.  I think there's a much higher chance that the identity of a burn card could become exposed, since it is not in the direct control of any player or the dealer, and it is easy for dealers to forget to burn the cards in a manner that minimizes their chance of becoming exposed.  It's not a huge issue, but I think burncards should remained burnt, just as mucked cards should remain mucked. 

That's why I prefer... just count the cards in the stub, and if there is not enough to burn and deal a card to each player, just use a community card.  I would not object to even using the last card of the stub (which is not traditionally done), although it would certainly be safer not to count that card either. 

If there are not enough cards to complete the deal by adding the "clean" burncards to the deck stub...use a community card.

[Nick C]

Ken,

While we're on the subject of seven card stud, please don't tell me they still use this rule: When a community card is used, the player that was high on sixth street, is first to act on seventh street.
That one always baffled me. I think I read (somewhere) that they no longer use that rule, but I'm not sure.

As far as worrying about the burncards being unseen, I guess we have to teach the dealers the importance of keeping the burn, clean and separate from the muck...especially in stud.

[K-Lo]

I think they still use that rule. But that's a good point.  You think it should be someone else?  Whoever has the best board showing that includes the community card?

[K-Lo]

As far as worrying about the burncards being unseen, I guess we have to teach the dealers the importance of keeping the burn, clean and separate from the muck...especially in stud.

And dealing the burn cards with the deck close to the table so the burn card is not accidentally seen (as opposed to e.g. lifting the burn card high off the deck and flashing it to one side of the table).

[Nick C]

Ken:

No doubt about it. You have to count the community card.

I remember telling a player that he was the high hand with his ace, (no pair board) and another player had a flush with the community card! I'm always looking back to the rules from long ago, but sometimes I don't agree with them either! What were they thinking? When dealing a low limit stud game, dealers are to announce "possible" straights and "flushes" on sixth street. So how do you not announce a five-flush on the river when a community card is part of the hand?

As far as the burncards: Yes, they must be "clean" (unseen). Did you know; a prematurely dealt card could cause an entire round to be buried? And, they are placed with the burncards for a later round if necessary? 

While were at it...keep the damn burncards away from the muck!

[K-Lo]

No doubt about it. You have to count the community card.

I agree with this.

When dealing a low limit stud game, dealers are to announce "possible" straights and "flushes" on sixth street. So how do you not announce a five-flush on the river when a community card is part of the hand?

True.  This isn't done/encouraged anymore.

As far as the burncards: Yes, they must be "clean" (unseen). Did you know; a prematurely dealt card could cause an entire round to be buried? And, they are placed with the burncards for a later round if necessary? 

Yes, an entire round of cards will be taken out of play if cards for a subsequent street are dealt prematurely.  The unexposed ones are set aside to be used later if a reshuffle is required. 

However, this is another aspect of the traditional way of dealing with reshuffles that I'd like a proposed simplification to address. I'd like to see that we (1) never re-use burn cards even if they are supposed to be "clean" (since they have been out of control of the dealer or players and have a high chance of being inadvertently flashed, IMO), and (2) don't bother reshuffling anymore, just use a community card whenever there are not enough cards from the remaining stub to be dealt.

Some might even argue that if a card is exposed prematurely, rather than removing all the cards of the whole round, we could simply complete the action, treat any exposed cards as scrap pieces of paper, and simply burn and deal out the cards for the next street without removing a whole round of cards. This was of course done traditionally so that each player would receive his "correct" card, albeit one street earlier, but it's all random anyway... a bit similar to that dropping of the deck example we recently discussed on a different thread.

[Nick C]

Ken:

Are you saying that announcing "possible" straights and flushes on sixth street is not encouraged anymore? I know it was not practiced in big bet poker, but certainly still used in low limit.

I can't imagine dealers exposing any burncards on a regular basis. Exposing a card, any card, could have a serious affect on any game and is unacceptable.

As far as your proposal for prematurely dealt cards: I believe the reason that it's done the traditional way is to allow the exposed card, or cards, a chance to be redealt. There is a big difference when a player sees, what should have been his "proper card" get taken from play, as opposed to being put aside with a chance that he could get it on a later round. Hopefully, the occurrence is rare and not a problem.

Please don't make me go back and rewrite my dealer training text.

[K-Lo]

Are you saying that announcing "possible" straights and flushes on sixth street is not encouraged anymore? I know it was not practiced in big bet poker, but certainly still used in low limit.

Yes. This was common long ago, but rarely done anymore. Players have to read the boards. New pairs still announced.

[Nick C]

Ken,

Would you say that reading "possible's" is not practiced at any limit?  Are cash games treated the same as Tournament poker? When did we stop announcing four card straights and four flushes on sixth street? If so...where is it written?

While we're talking about stud. I've got another "pet peeve" Why have we changed the old rules for awarding odd chips? The current TDA Rule #19 Awarding Odd Chips declares that the high or low card, depending on the game being played, must be part of your best 5 card hand. Why? and When?

[K-Lo]

Hi Nick:

I can't speak for cash games, I am only talking about tournament poker. It's been like that, at least, at the WSOP for many years now (e.g. as noted in their Dealer's guide) and I think many other venues continued to do the same.

The Rule #19 alternative was discussed and debated at the last summit. It was done in various different ways on different tours, and although not everyone agreed, it was decided to go with one way for consistency. At least that's how I remember it...

[WSOPMcGee]

The current TDA Rule #19 Awarding Odd Chips declares that the high or low card, depending on the game being played, must be part of your best 5 card hand. Why? and When?

Again one of the most overly worded rules that adds to confusing all. Not sure if it was in '11 or '13, but I think '11. Because the players wanted the 5 cards being played to matter. 

[Nick C]

I don't agree. Why would anyone take the time to even consider changing the old rule? Just because, I guess.

[WSOPMcGee]

but it's all random anyway...

If we could convince poker players of this, we wouldn't be burning and turning the river card in place of the true turn card when the card is prematurely exposed. We'd be shuffling the card in immediately allowing that card a chance to come back as the turn card.

That in a nutshell is why some of our rules make little logical sense and why we do what players want. 

The argument is very simple - Proper Card vs Random Card.

Players want their proper card, whatever that card is. They don't want a random card, whatever that card maybe.

I used to agree with Ken, that burn cards need to stay burnt. Because it's the same logic as above, it's the proper card to be burned. It is never supposed to be in action. But using that logic as basis, you can't then say - these are the proper burn cards and can never be introduced while at the same time say to the player, I'm sorry your proper card was prematurely exposed, here.... have a random card and we'll just continue the game. The only thing I know of that works like that is Politics

Therefore, IMO, it is best to use fresh cards whenever possible to complete a hand without using a community card in Stud or having to reshuffle the muck in some cases in Draw games.

Oddly enough Ken, the series does not use the burn cards as fresh cards for Draw games, but it does use burn cards as fresh cards for Stud games. #SMH