New rule to consider

I like the first rule change anyway

I agree that something needed to change about that situation, but why not simple give the correct card to first base that the dealer took out of turn and than have the dealer take the next card from the shoe, (which would be the correct order they should have come out anyway)?

It just seems to be the easiest fix to the problem. Plus it will eliminate other possible problems such as the first time the dealer has to burn a small card and replaces it with one that makes them a pat hand and the other 6 to 7 players now lose because of it.

The problem (like 99% of them) come from dealers error. We need to correct the dealers errors not cause other problems. I think anytime you change the correct order of the cards by burning one you effect the table and out come of the players. Thats my opinion anyway.

It's just like the "Surrender" card I came up with, it isn't as much for the players as it is to cut down on the dealers errors.

 

If an employee made as many mistakes in the real world as dealers do they would be looking for another job fast unless they wanted to live on unemployment.

 

You're right, if the dealer hasn't finished dealing out the original cards yet, the order is preserved. However, Ken means AFTER all player actions are completed, but the dealer flips up his/her hole card BEFORE checking over with first base (ie, when the button is on seat two & the dealer forgets to check back to the left side of the table) -- then you have given a HUGE edge to that player because they now know what the dealer's hole card is before they act. So obviously, the dealer's hole card must be replaced.

Another interesting, yet just as valid, corrolary is that a player's double down card is replaced as well if it is unintentionally flashed/flipped up by a dealer, regardless what it is. In a casino, it doesn't matter, but during a tournament there are plenty of times when it is imperative to HIDE this information, so the rule across the board must be that ANY card exposed too early be replaced, rather than taking it on a case by case basis: "Well, i got a ten on my 11, so i don't care if other players saw it!" lol

This kind of superstition is no different than the old "you took the dealer's bust card!" myth; mathematically, it just doesn't stand up. Bottom line is, the next card out of the shoe has the same completely random chance to help/hurt you as it did originally (in a tournament, at least!), so crying about this 'new' card changing the potential outcome of the hand is no different than blaming a player for 'changing' the same results as a result of a player unnecessarily splitting tens, or taking 'too many' hits on a hand that should be waved off.

Of course the best solution is to make sure all dealers are trained to play perfectly, but in the off chance there is a mistake on your table at a key moment, its imperative to have a system like this in place to ensure fairness. If the dealer DOESN'T screw up, of course, than none of these procedures are ever actually used. Bottom line is, the integrity of the tournament must be preserved over any kind of voodoo traditionalism... especially when playing for this kind of $money$!!

-hd.

 

I agree that none of these rules matter if no mistakes happen. However by correcting this problem your just opening yourself up for other problems. Myths or not your going to have players upset over changing an "asked for" DD card.

I do applaud UBT for taking the effort to correct these problems.

 

No problems

Tex, adopting this procedure has *no* downside, but a helluva lot of positives. There are no "new problems" that pop up as a result. Bottom line is, there is just no mathematical basis to support any of your statements, and i don't know if i just need to repeat myself once again, direct readers to my previous post, or just make the point that your argument doesn't make any sense. Players will just have to be big boys and get over the "Awww shucks, I woulda made my hand!" syndrome, because JUST AS OFTEN, replacing a card will have the opposite effect and HELP a player instead of hurt. Again, this is no different than a player on 3rd base "taking a dealer's bust card" -- it's a myth, since that card could just as easily have helped the whole table as hurt it; we just find it far easier to remember the times we get burned by it.

It is simply unacceptable in a tournament situation, with all the constant calculations and jockeying for position, to allow certain players acting later in a hand to have an unfair advantage over others due to being privileged to more information, ie seeing DD and dealer hole cards that should have been concealed until after all player actions are complete. There is no sense in saying, a DD card is only replaced IF you had DD for less on a hard 12-20 intentionally to conceal whether or not you busted (trying to force others into their own DD), but NOT if its a DD during a less critical part of the game. Who determines what is critical or sensitive on a case-by-case basis? Can you imagine the final hand on CBS between me and Ken Smith if i had DD on the hard 16, but the dealer inadvertantly flashed my 2, letting Ken know he really DID have to DD behind? Or, conversely, a bust card like 8 or 9, letting him know i DIDN'T make my hand, so that he could adjust his strategy & just surrender to lock in the win? if a rule like this has to be made, it has to be made across the board, for 11 v 6 on hand one here in a sit-n-go, or hand 30 DD on CBS.

There is just no downside to adopting this rule, and a big upside of game protection. The dealer does his/her best to ensure the game runs right, the players jump in with quick corrections when possible (believe me, players are very good about policing this type of stuff), but sometimes, shit happens! And when it does, there is simply no other fair way of ensuring uniform game integrity.

Hey -- the next time the dealer accidentally flashes her 10 in the hole out of turn under a 10 and has to replace it with what turns out to be a 6, you'll stop thinking this is such a bad rule, i'm sure!

-hd.

 

I'll play either way!

Hollywood I am not talking numbers here, I am talking players who see a dealer card burned and then replacing it with one that beats them. Not every player knows the game as well as you and all they will see if that happens is they were screwed, (I'm not saying they were, it is just what they think). Which players you ask? The ones who talk about this myth you talked off!

In Ken's situation, I agree 100% a card exposed should be burned, the only question I have on this rule change is on the players DD where an exposed card doesn't effect his/her hand.

Now I agree that knowing the card can make a differance in how the other players play their hand, but the DD card should stand in my opinion. The player made their decision and the card should stand.

Myth or not you can't tell me that some player won't go nut's if their DD 11 catches a face and the dealer has to burn it and replace it with a three, and they end up losing the hand because of it.

If the card was exposed prior to the player making their action (such as DD) then yes by all means the card should be burned.

This is the only point of this rule change I would re-think.

Once again I think it is GREAT UBT is make the effort to correct these problems that have been long over due needing corrected.

 

You have a point Tex, but ...

The simple, absolutist approach that all exposed cards get burned is probably the only one that could ever be viable, After all, there will be situations in which the recipient of a DD card will be worse off for having that card exposed, even if it makes a 21. (i,e. players to the left who suspected they might have to DD themselves now know that they have to.)

Any rule that attempts to be fair to people by giving them what they would have had if it weren't for the dealer error is likely to run into scenarios where it turns out to be unfair to someone in some way. And you might end up with so many exceptions to the general rule, in an attempt to cover all these situations, that there would have to be a ten-minute break while the small-print is examined, before it becomes clear what the correct adjudication is.

And of course hd is right about the maths but, as you suggest, this is also a question of human nature. If the myth-believers get annoyed with third base for (in their minds) mis-playing a hand and changing the dealer outcome, how much nore annoyed will they be with the dealer for actually making a mistake which has (on this occasion) cost them.

But what can you do? No dealer error can have zero impact on the game. It is a question of which is preferable - for some players to gain knowledge which they shouldn't have had, or for the result that 'would have happened' to be changed and reset to a new random result, dependent on the next uknown card in the shoe. The latter seems fairest overall, though I might well change my tune if it were ever to work against me. That's just human nature.

 

Now if someone can give me a vaild reason why they should burn the card then please explan it to me and maybe you can change my mind.

If were going to make the effort of change rules, than lets change them to the best possible rules they can be, not just the simplest.

I understand about the myth's, and if the same scenairo is played out 20 times it should level out 10 wins to 10 losses. My point is your talking about hands leveling out and not the player!

Example: it is the last hand of the final table. A player who has never made a final table before has a chance to win and can close out everybody with a DD win, does just that. They DD on 11 and catch a face, but wait the card was exposed so now it gets burnt and they now catch a 3 and lose the tournament. How does the other times leveling out help them in that situation?

Don't think in terms of math and leveling out, think about the player and what effect it will have on them. Doing the math is great, but we are all real live players and I just can't see someone getting beat out over a tournament due to this rule.

And yes I understand it could happen just the oppisite and there are several other scenairos as well, but I just think since the DD is not a misdeal the card should stand.

 

i give up

?????

You just don't get it. People keep explaining it to you over & over, and you just keep repeating the same inaccurate points. This may sound harsh, but how can you call yourself a tournament player when you repeatedly say things like, "i know it doesn't hold up mathematically, but i still think blah blah blah"... rather than spend energy trying to cater to those who falsely believe this superstitious nonsense, why not just help them understand the truth?

i think the point is clear. and those who would prefer to worry about "the order" of cards (as if that has anything to do whatsoever with the skill involved in the game) will just have to deal, while those who understand that this is actually the best procedure to have given the possibility of occasional dealer error will gain yet another advantage over those who unnecessarily choose to go on tilt over this...

there's nothing more i can add to this discussion, so go ahead & repost how you kinda agree, but kinda don't, then restate your entire flawed voodoo opinion once more. Then we can move on to another thread, maybe one that discusses the validity of 3rd base screwing up the table by intentionally taking a dealer's bust card....lol

-hd.

 

The title of this thread was: new rule to consider, that is all I was doing. I posted my concerns about one of the new rulings and how it could effect the players and offered another solution for whatever it's worth.

As long as it is the same for everybody it is fair going into the tournament (just like it has always been). We can play or not play (I already said I would play either way). The most important thing is the rules are the same for everybody.

Hopefully your new rule never has a problem come up where it could change the out come of the event.

 

And the beat goes on.

The one outstanding "thing" about the UBT tourney's is(are) da rules.

Posted sometime back, that they were the most comprehensive and adhered to of any "land" tourney I have attended.

The rules committee, the head honcho of the rules committee, knew, anticipated and addressed the inconsistencies and sloppiness of enforcement of the previous land tourneys. Everyone has a story.

As long as the UBT tourney officials enforce the rules consistantly and there's no reason to doubt they will, no player will have a gripe.

Only lingering doubt I have ,and the Arubaites can weigh in, is the enforcement of the time limits, without the aid of the tv technology.

 

Aaargghhhh!

In the words of Basil Fawltey;

"Oh Buddha!"

Cheers

Reachy

 

Gotta love Basil

Fawltey towers was great!

 

I should stay out of this

When the big guns start taking shots at each other, I really should just keep my head down.

Nevertheless, ....

Tex:

There's little point in focusing on that one word 'simple', as if it somehow embodies the whole sense of what I was saying. The paragraph it came from would read just as well if you removed it, and is part of my attempt to explain why it seems to me, on balance, to be the best way.

Depends on your definition. If the rules say a card should be face down and it is face up, that seems like a misdeal to me. If it didn't matter then there'd be no point in having the face-down rule to begin with.

I may be misunderstanding, but your logic here seems to be that it is better to upset just one player than several. It might cause less upheaval, but it's not very fair on the unfortunate individual. Letting the randomness of the next card decide things is ultimately the only thing that is equally [un]fair to all the people all the time, irrespective of the exact details of a given situation.

I agree it is rather different, both because of the infrequency with which it is likely to happen and because of the fact that a player will have a couple of very tangible targets for their anger - the dealer for making a mistake, and 'whoever came up with this stupid rule ', as they may see it.

I wasn't really thinking about math at all. Just about what might be both fair and workable. I don't claim that I must be correct, but I do claim (much like you in relation to Dave's posts) to have understood all the points you make, but reached a different conclusion.

As I said, I think the DD is a misdeal. It may be less apparent, and so draw less complaint, but it is equally true that without the new rule (just as with it) the exposure of a DD card can change the outcome from what it would otherwise have been. Like I said, I think this whole thing boils down to a simple question -

The answer to that question is, I believe, the essential point on which we differ.


Dave:

If I can grasp the point that Tex is making (though, ultimately not agree with his conclusions), then I'm sure a man of your intellect can too. He does 'get it', but he is pursuing the issue of keeping the majority of players happy, certainly not an inconsequential consideration.

Tex has much experience of running tournaments and you have much experience of playing, and I have none of either (except online), so I'm starting to feel out of my depth here. But, for what it's worth, those are my thoughts.

 

Last words on the subject

I just want to make this one point and I am off this subject.

As Colin posted above I have been running tournaments for years and taking surveys and polls from players for over eight years now. I even had a four-page survey entitled "In search of the perfect tournament".

My point is, when I say or suggest something it isn't something I pulled out of thin air, it is something that the majority of players voted on, it was what they wanted, not always my idea or opinion. This time it happened to be both.

Until I started taking the time to ask the players what they wanted I to just accepted what was offered to me as a player and never tried to make any changes.

I may come across as a ass sometimes, but I am just trying to stand up for the majority of tournament players out there, most of which either PM or e-mail me thanking me for voicing their opinions and standing up for their rights.

They tell me they are glad that someone stands up for them (AP and non AP players). This is the majority of tournament players and they are the ones who believe in myths, voodoo, and other superstitions, that is why I voice not just my opinions, but theirs as well.

Go back and read most of my post, I usually state that any suggestion is just that or my opinion. Rarely if ever do I state this is the correct way or the only way to do something.

Bottom line is if UBT wants to change the rule as stated that is their rule and we can either play or not. I for one intend to play in as many of their events as possible. If I didn’t play in tournaments because I disagreed with one of the rules, I would never get to play any tournaments…LOL

 

mistakes

In all STL Ameristar bj tournaments any dealer mistake is considered a misdeal, all cards a put into the discard rack, all bets either returned or taken back from players that where paid. If the dealer dosen't wait for a player to wave off his bj it's a misdeal he therefore doesn't keep his bj. What's strange is bj pays 2 to 1 so no reason to dd a bj, but you still must wave it off. It's tough but they are consistant.

tgun