The One-Card Button

In a previous column, I mentioned a conversation I had with Chris Ferguson, in which Chris stated to me, "Show me the guy who everyone thinks is the luckiest person in poker, and I will show you the best poker player." I stated that I thought there was one particular person doing well in poker right now to whom this would apply, and asked if you know who he is. That person is Daniel Negreanu. Daniel is playing, and reading his opponents, better than anyone. I often hear other players mention how lucky Daniel is, but luck is only the beginning. Daniel has had his ups and downs in the past, and I don't think there is anyone who has learned more from his mistakes. He is on top of the poker world, and contrary to what players he is beating think, luck plays only a small role.

Here is an interesting decision for you from a $20-$40 hold'em game. The game is full and six players call before the flop, including the player on the button and both of the blinds. The button player has been playing very fast and aggressively, and is having a good time (as well as a few drinks). On the flop, everyone checks to the button, who bets, and everyone calls. On the turn, all five players again check to the button. At this point, the button player states, "It might be a good time to look at my hand!" He had not looked at his hand to this point, and when he does, he is shocked to see that he has only one card. The dealer had not dealt the last card preflop to him.

The player on the button now says, "I don't need another card, I bet." Immediately, the player behind him raises. At this point, the dealer stops the action and calls the floorperson over to make a decision. What is the correct decision? As a floorperson, it is important to listen to any pertinent information before making a decision. Even in cases in which the ruling is cut-and-dry, there is always the possibility that something might have happened that might change what is perceived to be the correct ruling.

One of the players in the game (not the raiser) immediately tells the floorperson that he thinks the player should be able to play with one card. There are other players in the game who say the same thing. It is obvious that the button player is the live one in the game, and no one wants to upset him because of a decision that is obviously going to go against him. The floorperson is sympathetic to all of the players at the table, and not wanting to upset anyone, he makes a decision to allow the player to play with one card. He makes this decision after ensuring that the dealer had indeed delivered only one card to the button player; that is, the card hadn't ended up on the floor, under the rail, or elsewhere.

Was this a good decision? Although I don't really like the decision, I am not 100 percent opposed to it. The only other decision that could have been made was to kill the button player's hand, because according to the rules he didn't have a complete hand. By making that decision, the floorperson would have made a decision based solely on the rules without taking anything else into account. In this case, the entire table wanted to allow the player to play with one card. And since no decision would change the boardcards, the hand would play out the same way no matter what decision was made. Allowing the player to play with only one card kept everyone happy, even the player who was at a disadvantage, and it didn't change how the hand played out.

The end result was that the player with one card lost the pot, but he was happy that he got to play the hand out and the game went on. The moral of the story is: Even if you don't want to look at your holecards, at least check to make sure you have the correct number of them!