I'm playing at the Sandia Resort & Casino in albuquerque where they have the weirdest rule. If a player acts out of turn. That action is NOT binding no matter what the action turns out to be in front.

I learned this the hard way when HU @ river, player says "check" out of turn. I end up checking in front, tabling my hand and being informed by the dealer that the player still has action.

Have you ever seen this? The player was a gentleman and mucked. But I talked to the floor who sent me to the room manager. My only question: why? Why would you change a standard rule to deviate from every other game in America? Why would you change a rule that would allow for the integrity of the game & player protection to be at risk.

His response "because that's how we do it here"

Scenario: 4 ways in raised pot. Button flops gut shot. Why shouldn't he shove out of turn. Induce checks to him, then check back - angling himself to a free turn?

This rule needs to be exposed as horrible, and changed for the good of the game.

Managements attitude of "that's how it's always done here" is the laziest argument possible. Protect the players.

I think this is possibly the best rule, IF everyone knows about it. It is bad for people who aren't expecting it though. If everyone knows it isn't binding, then no one will fall for any trick, it just makes you look like a douche if you change your action without a good reason.

In your scenario, you ask why wouldn't button shove out of turn? Because everyone knows that he knew it wasn't binding, so no one is scared of it. In fact, they probably know he would like a free card, so they might even be more likely to bet instead of checking.

This is the best rule (with the exception of heads up action or if the OOT action causes action behind it.) But just because OOT action isn't binding doesn't mean it is legal. A player who repeatedly acts OOT or intentionally does it should not be allowed to continue to play.



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Crazy like a fox.

Most clickbait title in history of 2p2!

No no no, acting out of turn not being binding is not the best rule. Action out of turn should be binding unless the action changes.

And the justification that it's the best rule as long as everybody knows about it? This is fantasy; anyone who's ever played live poker knows that the amount of players who know all the basic house rules caps out at maybe 25%. And even if most knew about it, why encourage people to waste time and take angle shots via acting out of turn? This rule in NM really makes no sense.

Yes yes yes, it's a perfectly valid rule, and one that many experienced players and floors would prefer.

While it has a downside of allowing the "angle" of fake shoving OOT then checking (which can be mitigated with training and experience, just like any other fake tell like grabbing stacks of chips or acting excited to bet OOT), it has the upside of not creating a situation where players in between are guaranteed a checkraise on the field, which can be significantly more damaging not only to the OOT player, but to everyone else in the hand.

Also, as psand said, just because it isn't binding doesn't mean it is legal and acceptable. Players who abuse the rule should be shown the door, just like any number of other player behaviors that are bad for the game.

Fake shoving out of turn is great until it isn't.

Imagine you fake shove and the guy who "hasn't acted yet" says "call". You are going to claim that he hasn't checked yet. And when the Floor comes over you get to hear the other player say "if I didn't check then why did he bet?"

Good times.

A worse justification for a rule is that it is universally followed. How would you ever expect we evolve away from a bad rule if not by someone being the first?

The only problem with the rule is that it might hurt non-regulars who are used to it being differently.

But if every single casino had the rule that OOT action wasn't binding, that would certainly be preferable to the status quo. Dealers will have a way better estimate here, but I would just guess that >90% of OOT actions are honest mistakes by the player and not intentional or malicious.

Side note: how many people who read the title of the thread expected the registration date of OP to be "Aug 2017"?

But is it the craziest rule in the history of casino poker? I think not.

Right, but the point is, it's inevitable that less knowledgeable rec types in the OP casino will not know about this method for angling by shady regs and will be victimized by it, damaging the health of the game.

True, it is nevertheless illegal when done deliberately as pointed out above, and if floor staff can police the illegality, then maybe it would work but I don't have faith in many floors ability to do this fairly; so I prefer the more universally accepted rule as is.

Let me explain why it is the best rule:

Imagine a poker game

Player A, Player B, Player C seated in order

In the ordinary course of the hand how is the action supposed to occur:

THIS IS THE NORMAL STATE: WHAT THE GAME IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE.

now suppose that Player B bets out of turn acting before Player A.

We stop the action and now apply a rule.

If we apply your rule. what does the game look like:

Now look what happens if we apply the rule that OOT action is not binding.

which of these two rules results in something closer to the NORMAL STATE?

Now I get it ..... everytime I have this discussion the essence of the argument for making the action binding is that PLAYER B must be punished for his OOT action. But I ask why does he need to be punished in this way? Doing it your way punishes other players. making it not binding does not preclude punishing the player who acts out of turn. You can punish the player with warnings or removal from the game.

Yep, and the rule that OOT action is not binding adheres to the Principle of Least Astonishment for newbies (while the other rule violates it). Existing players expect OOT action to be binding not because the rule makes sense upon inspection but because of its universality. That is bad.

A generation of players formed an opinion about OOT action that they would have never formed had the rule not been so common.

As an infrequent player here, maybe 2x a year driving I-40, this place can be considered a destination resort. This rule is a locals cardroom rule.
The two do not square.

I do not see why you think this is a locals cardroom rule as opposed to "tourist" cardroom rule.

Why would one rule be better for locals and one rule better tourists?

I think he's alluding to the fact that the locals that know how this will be ruled get to take advantage of the people who otherwise are expecting the "universal" norm. Now, if everyone is handed a flyer explaining the rule when they enter the room, then I can see your point.

I have played there many times on my travels thru Albuquerque. They also allow players to pump fake to their hearts delight.

What Crispen said.

He alludes to a tourists sheet of rules to be handed out.....It got so bad at Agua Caliente in Rancho Mirage that they did just this- had a little pamphlet of special rules so all the tourists could read it and be warned of the angle shoots in advance.

I think this is backwards. In a locals joint the casual player is potentially at a disadvantage because all the regulars know the rule ...but in a tourist room regular players are a smaller percentage of players so the tourists are on equal footing with most players.

Of course OOT action is so common that any player should very quickly see the rule in action and thus the chances of harm from not knowing are greatly reduced.

But more importantly this argument is not really an argument that one rule is better than the other. This argument is really that having different rules in different rooms can potentially disadvantage players who assume the rules are uniform.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

As others have said here, it's not as standard as you might think. My room utilizes this rule as well. Enough people know and there aren't a ton of issues with it. If someone acts out of turn enough, we have the power as floors to make the bet stand or take other action. It rarely gets that far.

His response was kinda weak, but in essence it means it's a house rule, the list of which can encompass quite a bit. I would have said something like, "It's a house rule. Players can take shots on either side of the rule."

But either way, Boiler Up Dan!

One rule incentivizes acting out of turn with no downside for doing so; the other disincentives it. That's basically why I think things work better overall with the more universal rule.

I don't know why you think it creates an incentive, but you overlook the disincentive of being being warned or removed from the game for intentional or repetitive OOT action.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Actually, this rule makes it impossible to act out of turn. You can say whatever you want, but you can't act, because it's not your turn yet.

you could combat this rule by flipping over your hand as you did, but when the dealer says "oh the person still has action", you could say "what? I checked right before he said check".

if they want to allow angles, this would be angling the angle.