blonde poker forum

This happened the other night in a home game. The dealer (me as it happens) accidentally flips over an ace whilst dealing and, as several of us are regulars at DTD, we copy what they do (we think) and make this the first burn card and then give the last card to the player who would have had the original card that had been exposed.

Anyway, I now look at my cards - two aces.

I have two questions.

Did we follow the correct procedure?

And with my aces, knowing that one is now gone, how does this affect my play? It became an interesting discussion once the hand went to showdown.

Some said that knowing I was less likely to improve meant I should be more cautious, others reckoned this was good for me as it narrowed my opponents' ranges somewhat and made the hand easier to play post flop. I don't want to go into a specific hand detail, just want to know how people view this scenario.

I know what I reckon but would like to hear some views first. Thanks.

The procedure sounds correct to me...

Don't see how the Aces could play any differently? You're gonna play them strong preflop, and how many situations are you going to be playing for a 2 outer that you happen to know is a 1 outer instead?

Misread Title?

(http://blondepoker.com/images/the_new_era/uk_players/simon_trumper.jpg)

ur playing aces for their overpair power. exposed ace makes pretty much zero chance to how i play them. and yes, correct procedure afaik

correct to make it the burn

play the AA as normal, you're not looking to improve most of the time so the exposed card makes very little difference

as an example, AA vs a random hand aipf the AA only loses about 1.2% equity due to the exposed A

or AA vs a range of TT+, AJ+, KQ sees a loss of only about 0.5% equity

Any hand that cracks aces wouldn't have an ace in it?  So it's sort of bad for you I think, but not significantly so.  It makes it less likely you'll hit a set if you needed to, but otherwise can't see it makes much difference.

just to clarify on the ruling. it's correct to make it the burn card as long as it wasn't the 1st card dealt. if the 1st card is exposed then we have ourselves a misdeal.
and if 2 cards are exposed in the same deal we also have a misdeal

Unless they are following DTD rules. I'm sure it's the first 3 or 4 there.

Thanks, I thought we did the right thing.

With regards to having aces and knowing that an ace is gone, I agree that it doesn't change much and if anything makes playing the hand easier. I couldn't get my dippy mates to agree however.

U sure?

yeah, that as well

ah! that rings a bell. but i thought it was if the card was exposed in the first round of dealing (as in someone's first card not their second). then again, this ruling came from notts gala so feel free to ignore

this

id want the other one out as well, cant remember playing any huge pots with a set of aces, it kills your action.

it isnt a miss deal unless its the first card or the guy on the button... as he cant get 2 cards in a row..

however some places ive played including a few vegas casinos  if any ace is exposed its a miss deal doesnt matter were or when...

diff places will have diff house rules

Flipping over cards with home game is very common - we tend to play fast and the dealer may lose himself in the pray that what he get for himself would be two Aces, just like what you mentioned here. Hehe. Under this kind of situation, I think, we should improvise. Burn the shown card, or let go of this round. As long as we keep the rythm and everyone's mood untouched, that's fine.