Markovnikov's rule, and when it does not hold
Adding HX across an alkene puts the hydrogen on the carbon that already has more of them, and the X on the other. The memorable phrasing hides the actual reason, which is that the reaction goes through whichever carbocation is more stable.
Why it is really about the cation
The proton adds first, and it can land on either carbon. Whichever way it lands leaves a positive charge on the other one. Alkyl groups stabilise that charge, so the proton effectively lands wherever leaves the more substituted carbocation — which is the carbon with fewer alkyl groups, the one already carrying more hydrogens.
Stating it as the stability of the intermediate rather than as a counting rule is worth doing, because it is the version that keeps working when the counting version stops. It also explains the rearrangements: if a hydride or alkyl shift gives a better cation, it happens, and the product is not the one the counting rule predicts.
The anti-Markovnikov cases
Hydroboration puts boron on the less substituted carbon and hydrogen on the more substituted one, which is the opposite placement. Nothing about the rule is being violated: there is no carbocation, because boron and hydrogen add across the bond together in one step, and sterics decide where the boron goes.
Radical addition of HBr in the presence of peroxides does the same thing by a different route, through a bromine radical adding to give the more stable carbon radical.
So the useful statement is not that Markovnikov's rule has exceptions. It is that the rule describes what happens when the reaction goes through a cation, and reactions that do not go through one are not exceptions to it at all.
Where this stops being simple
- The rule predicts which regiochemistry dominates, not that the other product is absent. Both usually form.
- It says nothing about stereochemistry. A new stereocentre made through a flat carbocation forms as a mixture.
See it happen
Other concepts
What is the difference between SN1 and SN2?
Both replace a leaving group with a nucleophile, and they differ in whether the bond breaks before the new one forms. SN2 does it in one motion and turns the carbon inside out; SN1 lets the leaving group go first, makes a carbocation, and whatever attacks it can attack from either face.
What is a leaving group, and why are some better than others?
A leaving group is whatever leaves taking the bonding electrons with it. How good it is comes down to one question: how comfortable is it holding that negative charge once it has gone?
What is the difference between a nucleophile and an electrophile?
A nucleophile has electrons to give and an electrophile has somewhere to put them. Every curly arrow in every mechanism runs from the first to the second, which is why getting this right makes mechanisms readable rather than memorised.
What is a functional group?
A functional group is an arrangement of atoms that behaves roughly the same way wherever it appears. It is why a chemist can look at an unfamiliar molecule with an ester in it and already know several things it will do.
What do the curly arrows in a mechanism actually mean?
Each curly arrow means one pair of electrons moved: the tail sits where the pair is now, the head where it goes. Nothing else about the drawing is arbitrary, which is why a mechanism can be checked rather than memorised.
Everything here is open without an account. If you want to try the idea rather than read it, the mechanisms run on structures you supply and prediction will tell you what it thinks a flask would give, with the evidence it is reasoning from attached.