What is the correct ruling here? - Page 2 - Poker Card Room

uDrewAtThat? · 06-17-2012, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bulls_horn

Although action changed, I think he's still limited to call or fold.

How do you completely ignore the two sentence immediately following the one you bolded?

Quote:

An action or verbal declaration out of turn is binding unless the action to that player is subsequently changed by a bet or raise.

The action was changed by a raise.

Quote:

If there is an intervening call, an action may be ruled binding.

If the second player to act in the hand had called the player who acted out of turn would have been obligated to only call, but the action was changed by the player raising, so all options should be available to the player, IMO.

(I've personally seen it ruled this way before and even though I don't necessarily like it, it seems to be in line with 'the rules'.)

uDrewAtThat? · 06-18-2012, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirRawrsALot

Question about a similar thing I saw last night. Didn't really think anything of it, but this thread made me think of it.

Seat 8 raises to 7
Seat 1 calls 7 (out of turn)
Seat 9 raises to 27
Seat 1 raises to 127

Is seat 1 bound to a call or fold, or can he now raise?

Why should Seat 1 have 'all options available'?

Well, if he thought Seat 8 was heads up with him (indicated by the OOT action) he may have been planning to: check/call the flop then check/raise the turn; or even check/call the flop and turn, then check/raise the river, depending on how much Seat 8 bet and how much he thought he could get him to pay on each street.

Seat 9 acting (raising) in the middle could definitely change the 'play' Seat 1 was going to make when he thought is was only him v Seat 8, because another player in the hand changes the dynamic and the action (raise) in between the original bettor and his initial call could change the way he believes is the most profitable play to make in the given situation.

It could be interpreted from the brief example posted Seat 1 thought he was heads up with Seat 8, then Seat 9 raised and Seat 1 decided to get to heads up (where he may well have thought he was in the first place) or take the pot down right then, because there were 2 other players in the hand rather than the 1 he thought he was calling initially.

Quadstriker · 06-18-2012, 01:24 AM

Room dependent. In my local room, button has full range of options.

Quadzilla13 · 06-18-2012, 10:05 AM

In the hand that occurred, the button checked as the river was being turned over. It was a clear checking motion with his hand that the entire table noticed. Seeing this the co bet $15. The button then said "thirty" and placed $45 in front of him. Two different floor supervisors could not agree. The first one said the button can raise. The second said he can only call or fold. In the end they not only let him raise, they allowed him to keep the $45 out there when the only word he uttered was "thirty." Not " thirty more" or "thirty on top" just "thirty"

AngusThermopyle · 06-18-2012, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadzilla13

The river card is turned and the button checks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadzilla13

In the hand that occurred, the button checked as the river was being turned over.

I do see a difference here.

uDrewAtThat? · 06-18-2012, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadzilla13

The first one said the button can raise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadzilla13

The second said he can only call or fold.

The third one shook his head and said...

Spoiler:

That's Poker
/thread

PardoG · 06-18-2012, 11:01 AM

action out of turn does not qualify at any action at all in some poker rooms. As many have said this unfortunately will be not only room dependent but how the dealer explains it to the floor and how the floor perceives it.

My personal opinion is that action out of turn does not qualify as action. The player is warned, and then if it happens again (penalty in a tournament) asked to leave the game (cash game) for a period of time and must go back on the waiting list to get in a new game(like a time out IDK)

QuickCheck99 · 06-18-2012, 11:18 AM

IMO, it depends if the button has done this action previously and this would be considere angle shooting or if this is truly his/her first time acting out of turn. If it simply has a mistake and they were checking out of turn by accident, then I think every option is open. If it was an angle shooting tactic, then call or fold are the only two options.

Quadzilla13 · 06-18-2012, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickCheck99

IMO, it depends if the button has done this action previously and this would be considere angle shooting or if this is truly his/her first time acting out of turn. If it simply has a mistake and they were checking out of turn by accident, then I think every option is open. If it was an angle shooting tactic, then call or fold are the only two options.

I respectfully disagree. The rule should be the rule every time. If you rule one way then you must be consistent. Clearly there is a lack of agreement in the same casino.

pfapfap · 06-18-2012, 11:42 AM

I agree, the rules are the rules.

The rules state that the same action may have different rulings, depending on context and history.

The rules aren't an instruction manual, they're an anthropology report. There's a big difference between the two, and if you read them with the latter mindset, many things come into focus.

That said, I do agree with an out-of-turn check disqualifying you from taking aggressive action. But not all rooms have this rule, and not all floor are even aware this rule exists anywhere. As a player, it's best to assume that everybody behind you has all options available, no matter what you do. That's what was supposed to happen anyway, so it's no great tragedy. Just try to think a level higher than your opponent.

QuickCheck99 · 06-18-2012, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadzilla13

I respectfully disagree. The rule should be the rule every time. If you rule one way then you must be consistent. Clearly there is a lack of agreement in the same casino.

Unfortunately, we all know different casinos have different house rules. Living in Vegas I can tell you that you could go to three casinos and you would most likely get three different rulings!! While I agree that a rule should be enforced the same way, we all know that's not the case. If it were, it would leave decisions out of the "floors" hands, and make it much easier.

bulls_horn · 06-18-2012, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirRawrsALot

Question about a similar thing I saw last night. Didn't really think anything of it, but this thread made me think of it.

Seat 8 raises to 7
Seat 1 calls 7 (out of turn)
Seat 9 raises to 27
Seat 1 raises to 127

Is seat 1 bound to a call or fold, or can he now raise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bulls_horn

This, too, was answered by the quoted RRoP excerpt:
Although action changed, I think he's still limited to call or fold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uDrewAtThat?

How do you completely ignore the two sentence immediately following the one you bolded?

The action was changed by a raise.

If the second player to act in the hand had called the player who acted out of turn would have been obligated to only call, but the action was changed by the player raising, so all options should be available to the player, IMO.

(I've personally seen it ruled this way before and even though I don't necessarily like it, it seems to be in line with 'the rules'.)

The way I interpret the RRoP rule, if you act passively OOT (either check or call), you may not act aggressively (raise) when it's corrected, even if action changes, you may only call or fold. This makes sense, as it quells any sort of angle involving "check/call oot to appear weak so you can raise".

Pfap, DG, am I reading it right?

pfapfap · 06-18-2012, 12:09 PM

This is how I interpret it, too.

A bet may be changed. A check may not change to an aggressive action.

Remember, these rules were written as an anthropology report for a game that already existed, not an instruction manual for a game yet to be started. There's a hell of a lot of nuance to it that even experienced floor and directors don't fully grasp. I see it all the time.

They're easier to read if we don't look for technicalities, because we don't need technicalities. It says so in the rules, in many places, that much of this is "what's best for this situation?" Many of these rules are either an attempt to verbalize something that experienced people already understand, or a record of precedent for guiding future rulings.

They are not a black & white instruction manual.

uDrewAtThat? · 06-18-2012, 12:10 PM

Check my post right below the one quoted above.
(2nd post on this page)

Maybe it'll give you an idea of why the 'one size fits all' interpretation doesn't seem like it would always work in reality.

Slightly different example below:
Player in Seat 1 thought he was heads up with Seat 8 (didn't see Seat 9's cards, his hands were almost covering them).

He was going to check/raise the flop if the bet to him was over 15 (stronger hand in Seat 8), otherwise check/call to get another bet from Seat 8.

He thought the bet to him was 7 (weak hand), because he couldn't see Seat 9's card. He called.

Seat 9 raised out of nowhere.

Seat 1 goes back to: Bet over 15 = check/raise flop.

Seat 1 never intended to play the hand passively, he intended to determine the strength of the hand he was against and try to extract the maximum, either through a check/raise on the flop or by getting another bet on the turn.

The point is, just because he checked and called on the flop after a 7 bet doesn't mean he changed his mind mid hand when he raised.

It could just as easily mean the hand he thought he was against initially (Seat 8) was weaker than the hand he did not see (Seat 9) and if he had seen Seat 9 and waited, according to his initial plan he would have raised not checked to Seat 9's bet.

DoTheMath · 06-18-2012, 07:47 PM

Bob Ciaffone knows poker rules. There's no question about that. But there might be some question, IMO, about whether he knows how to write them well. The excerpt from RRoP being quoted ITT is a prime exmple of the sort of ambiguity that pervades RRoP.

pfapfap's point, which he has repeated often, that RRoP is more of an anthropology report than an instruction manual is a good one, and, I believe, inherently accurate. However it does not follow that this necessarily requires the sort of ambiguity we see here. (It also leaves open the question of whether an anthropology report is what is most needed.)

Let us consider the paragraph in question.

Quote:

11. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. A player who has called out of turn may not change his wager to a raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn is binding unless the action to that player is subsequently changed by a bet or raise. If there is an intervening call, an action may be ruled binding.

The paragaph begins with a declaration of principle: "Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated". That is all well and good, but what does it mean? Deliberately acting out of turn is reasonably well defined, except for the small issue of how it is determined the action was deliberate, but what does "will not be tolerated" mean? It could mean that the offender is banned for life, ejected for the day, removed from the game, has his hand killed, or has his action limited, among other possibilities.

The paragraph goes on to mention two specific out-of-turn actions and a more general approach to out-of-turn action. What is not clear is whether these subsequent statements apply to all out-of-turn actions, only ones that are deliberate, or only ones that are not deliberate. Are they intended to amplify the statement of principle at the top of the paragraph by illustrating what non-toleration of deliberate out-of-turn action looks like, or are they intended to supplement the statement of principle by discussing how non-deliberate out-of-turn actions are to be handled, or are they intended to to make the point that non-toleration of deliberate out-of-turn action is so important that all out-of-turn action will be treated as if it was deliberate, to the extent specified.

Furthermore, it is not clear whether the general approach outlined in the final two sentences supercedes or augments the two specific cases.

I think any of the above interpretations is legitimate, and this gives rise to a difference in application between card rooms. Even in an anthropology report, there is no need for such ambiguity.

Depending on what is intended, here are a number of ways this paragraph could be re-written:

Quote:

11. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated, and when it is clear that an action was intentionally made out of turn, the offending player shall <insert penalty> . When it is not clear than an out of turn action was deliberately made out of turn, the following shall apply:
a) A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise at the first proper turn to act.
b) When a player calls out of turn, he may not raise at the first proper turn, and, if there has been no raise since the offending player's out of turn call, the offending player must call at his first proper turn.
c) When a player attempts to bet or raise out of turn,
i) if there is no intervening in-turn bet or raise by another player before the offending player's proper turn to act, the offending player at his turn must make the same bet or raise as his out-of-turn attempt.
ii) if there is an intervening in-turn bet or raise by another player before the offending player's proper turn to act, the offending player may, at his proper turn, fold, call, or, so long as action is not capped, raise.

Quote:

11. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who deliberately checks out of turn may not bet or raise at the first proper turn to act. A player who has deliberately called out of turn may not change his wager to a raise on the first proper turn to act. When a player deliberately bets or raises out of turn,
a) if there is no intervening in-turn bet or raise by another player before the offending player's proper turn to act, the offending player at his turn must make the same bet or raise as his out-of-turn attempt.
b) if there is an intervening in-turn bet or raise by another player before the offending player's proper turn to act,
i) if the amount of the offending player's out-of-turn bet or raise was an amount large enough to constitute a legal raise over the last in-turn intervening bet or raise, the offending player must, at the first proper turn, bet or raise to the amount of his out-of turn attempt, unless action is capped, in which case the offending player must call.
ii) if the amount of the offending player's out-of-turn bet or raise was larger than the last in-turn intervening bet or raise, but not large enough to constitute a legal raise of that intervening bet, the offending player must, at the first proper turn, either call or, as long as action is not capped, raise.
iii) if the amount of the offending player's out-of-turn bet or raise was equal to the last in-turn intervening bet or raise, the offending player must call at the first proper turn.
iv) if the amount of the offending player's out-of-turn bet or raise was less than the last in-turn intervening bet or raise, the offending player must, at the first proper turn, either call or fold.

Quote:

11. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated, and when it occurs the offending player shall be penalized after the hand is completed by <insert penalty> . Any action or verbal declaration out of turn, whether made deliberately or accidentally, is binding on the offending player if it remains a legal action at the time of his proper turn, unless the action to that player is changed by an in-turn bet or raise by another player made after the out of turn action but before the offending player's proper turn.