Please, help me to clear this situation:

Game: 1/2€ NL Holdem cash game, staddle (5€) allowed.

Blinds are in, UTG places the live straddle 5€.
The big blind was short stack (total 7€), and after the straddle bet was placed, he moved his 7€ in blind. Cards are dealt.

How the hand continues? Who speak first? What about the UTG (straddle)? Can he reraise or just complete the 7€?

(Sorry for my bad english...)

Action starts with utg+1. Bet is 5 to go. Utg straddle has last action and can raise no matter what the action is before him unless all other players with cards are all in.

First of all the big blind should be forced to wait until his turn to stick in his $7. Action should start to the left of the straddle and its $5 to go. Straddle will have option to do w/e he wants once it comes back to him.

Bet is 5 to go starting Straddle+1. Big blind (should he continue playing after this hand) is admonished to act in turn after pot is pushed.

First thing that should have happened was the dealer shoyuld tell the blind to take back is 5. Just because he instends to move all in doesn;t mean he has to act out of turn.

He takes back his 5 and the action plays as a normal hand.

pretty clear....

Thank you for your answers! There was a little discussion about this hand at the table, because of the other rule: "what goes into the middle stays in the middle" which means the BB out of turn allin bet - like verbal declarations - is must be live, so logically the hand should continue with his bet 7€. Otherwise the dealer waste a lot of time with the "bet is 5" round because the BB will move in his 7€ anyway on his turn... what do you think about this?
(sorry again for my bad english, hope you understand what I want to ask)

Even if you have that ridiculous rule ..... why would you apply it to OOT action that occurred before the hand was dealt? If a player posts his blind, but decides to leave befor ethe hand is dealt you make him leave his blind in?

I dont think that rule is ridiculous... just an example: you are siting at this table and BB has a little bit more chips, not only 7 - about 25-30€, he moves allin before the hand is dealt, the dealer ask him to take back the chips, do not act before the turn, and the hand continues normal way, your turn, you have a playable hand MP, but you know the BB probably will go allin with 25-30€, so you decide to fold, and later when BB's turn he say check, what you gonna say? With this move he may scares away some players, thats why there is this 'ridiculous' rule, and thats why there is the verbal declaration rule to avoid tricks like this... Or what happens if the BB doesnt moves his chips in, only says: 'I go allin anyway'? Logically no difference, but in this case his allin bet stays - verbal declaration rule - so when his turn, the dealer have to force him to move allin... so the first '5 is the bet' round is only wasting time... and like in the example, lot of player will change his action because of his OOT allin bet...

"If a player posts his blind, but decides to leave befor ethe hand is dealt you make him leave his blind in?"

Yes. If you want to leave, do not post the blind. If you posted the blind, play the hand. That easy...
Or if a player posts his BB and the next straddle, and double straddle, and after this BB wants remove his blinds and leave, and the dealer let him leave because the cards are not dealt yet... this would be ridiculous... very very ridiculous....

What I'm gonna say is that in the ordinary course of the game I am supposed to act without knowledge of what the players behind me are going to do. In this case I had to act without knowledge of what the BB was going to do. I thought he was going to raise all-in ...... I was wrong ..... thats part of the nature of a poker game.



What magical verbal declaration rule. Are you saying that at 5pm if I say that at "9PM tonight I am going to go all-in blind" when 9 PM comes around I am bound to go all-in blind because I Verbally declared it so?

Wow ... you are insane........

Seriously? Do you think there is no difference between this... (I dont really want to comment this) or if someone says "I am going to go all-in" right before the hand dealt?

Your example is a joke, not a verbal declaration... why do I have to explane this? Can we talk seriously? If not please do not answer again....

Thank you. Would you explane me please, what you would say if somebody removes his big blind right after when you posted the straddle? I've never seen a situation like this in my life, but you say its normal. I think the normal is that you can decide before the hand: do you want to play or not, do you post the big blind or not. To let some crazy players to post the BB and remove that 2 sec later because they want to leave, that is insane....

Why wouldn't this be treated as an out of turn action? It is $5 to call around the table, and the big blinds shove must stand unless the action changes in front of him.

Do you really not understand why things that happen before the hand aren;t part of the hand?

Well I probably wouldn't say anything. But my thought process would probably go something like ..... "Oh well I'm the large blind this hand, I get to save the cost of the straddle."


Keep in mind we are talking two seconds later BUT STILL BEFORE THE HAND. Do you imagine that a player is getting some kind of advantage from this?

Have you ever played live poker?

Funny that you asking this question... I am a poker player and poker dealer also since 8 years. As I know the hand is started when the blinds are posted and the dealer starts to shuffle the cards...

'Before the cards are dealt' and 'before the hand started' not the same... You should know it after 8 year and 9K comment...

Robert's rule of poker:
"DEAL: To give each player cards, or put cards on the board. As used in these rules, each deal refers to the entire process from the shuffling and dealing of cards until the pot is awarded to the winner."

Please, would you do me a favour? Can you find another topic to reach your 10K comment?

Do you really try to find arguments for a verbal declaration to stand even though there are no cards yet and the player in question is supposed to act second to last?

this would all go a lot better if everyone would dial back the snark and acidity and explain their positions instead of insulting people.

This would have gone better if OP posted a question instead of a platform for trolling when nobody answers the way he thinks they ought to.