I think i get what you two are saying, I guess im playing devil's advocate here. So I just respectively disagree.
(given the way the hand was described and no more)

Okay, if you couldn't translate the OP easily enough, then I'm sending you to 2+2 NotReallyGibberish remedial training....

-3 for Taso!

Hey, the mod has spoken!! Fall on your knees and acquiesce!

:P

The important thing in this is- as a TD, what is the logic behind your decisions? If a similar situation occured, with a slight difference in factors, would you change your ruling?

If that's true, then is your original ruling (the OP situation) logical? And would the players think so?

That's the best you can do. If your stance makes sense, based on that concept, then go with it.

Player B is obligated to honor the out of turn bet because action didnt change. Technically.

I have run both scenarios in my head with different types of people. I get it. Uncle. But I still think it could be handled eiter way depending on the precise situation.

Who's afraid of the big green larry?!!

My perspective is taken from my game which is run very very tightly (we have several copies of detailed rules in the house.) We try to stay strictly consistent because of angle shooting incidents in the past. So if I bend* in one direction for the sake of fairness (which is what we strive for) there has to be a damn good reason for it that everyone, at the time, understands and agrees with.



*This means rulings for out-of turn-acts, bad order deals, wrong decks, double burning, cards on the floor, acidentally exposing, mis-mucks, and others.

LOL

Sadly, no one is :P

Here is the question I ask you to think about.

In a heads up situation what interest is served by not making out of turn action binding? How does your solution serve that interest?

I don't like your analysis of the situation at all.

When a player bets $2K and another player responds by re-raising all-in then the all-in is subsequent action, not a change of action before it got to player B/2/whatever. If the push all-in is because of the out of turn $2K bet when the player would have checked to let the other player bet or bet a smaller amount to induce a call then it cannot be fair to take back the bet.

Also according to Robert's Rules:
"12. To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word)"
and
"13. A player who bets or calls by releasing chips into the pot is bound by that action"

I read no mention of friend 1 trying to stop the action and say "Hey it's my turn first" - it seems that by not objecting to the out of turn $2K bet, but responding to it by pushing all in - Player 1 was accepting the out of turn bet and giving no resistance to missing their turn to act first. I can't see any way I would allow the out of turn player to pull his bet back, especially after action has occurred in response to his bet and no objection from the person that should have acted first about having missed their turn to act. Player 2 can fold, but the $2K belongs in the pot.

I think the answer has been posted. But just for clarity, Small Blind wins the pot, 2000 from BB remains in the pot.

Unless there was some discussion from the dealer or one of the players indicating BB acted out of turn, he was taking back his bet and we were returning to the action of SB then I would suggest this is how to interpret the action:

BB acts out of turn, bets 2000. SB then acts out of turn in response to BB's bet and goes all in.

So, to unwind you take back both bets and action is on SB. If he checks then BB is obligated to bet 2000 because action has not changed to him. SB is then obligated to raise all-in as action has not changed to him. BB is then obligated to fold.

Since we've actually proceded too far (SB has mucked his cards due to BB's errors) to go through the actual motions of unwinding all the action, then I would simply rule that the action will be been deemed to have happened as above.

Note, in the interest of fairness, in my discretionary power as the House, if both players still had their cards, I might let the BB call at the end rather than fold, due to his reasonable misunderstanding of the action/bet sizes. Since he has caused SB to throw away his cards, by saying fold, and caused the problem in the first place by acting out of turn, I will not entertain a suggestion that he be allowed to call (and thus win the hand since SB has already mucked).

Because it's a mistake by a player who has no history of this and who is friends with the other player so there's no reason for him to be angle-shooting.

Player B is obligated to bet 2000 since action did not change. Player A can now fold, call or raise.

This is not the same as what happened in OP's scenario where action DID change when you take back player B's out of turn bet. Player A went AI. Player B now has the option to fold or call.

You are misinterpreting the word "action" and quoting a section that is irrelevant.

That's not close to being a standard ruling Z. No player is obligated to fold. I would also point out that once play has been unwound back to first action then each subsequent action can proceed on its own. So SB checks and BB has to bet 2000. That is the action. BB can now act any way he wants.

I disagree, unless you're ruling that Player A's action, which occurred AFTER Player B's OOT bet, is suddenly changed to binding first action because you rolled back Player B's bet.

I hope Player A was taking advantage and stealing the pot, then.

Oh, and I think you contradicted yourself:

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what could have happened in OP's scenario, except that Player A moved too quickly.

Now, while I agree that I wouldn't rule that Player B had to fold, you could say that a verbal action is committing, since it didn't come out of turn.

Do you mean SB can now act any way he wants?

In this situation BB has to be made to fold, otherwise his (let's call it inadvertant) "angle shot" has caused SB to muck. So if we allow BB not to fold, his errors in the hand award him the pot as the only player with cards left.

Also, I don't see how you can roll it back so that if SB checks, then BB has to bet 2000, but then SB is free to do whatever he wants. SB's all in bet either happened in turn, before BB's 2000 bet, or out of turn, after BB's 2000 bet. If you rule that it happened in turn, then BB can fold, since action has changed to him, without putting in the 2000. If SB's all-in happened out of turn (i.e. after BB's 2000 bet) then if he checks, BB bets 2000 and action is on SB, then action hasn't changed to SB and he has to go all-in.

Here's the thing guys, no moran who knows the game is really going to fold for 4-1 given what he/she has already put in the pot anyway. (1500 preflop + 2000out of turn bet, then 3200 ish all in) I think if it was a mistake, but I know what im doing, the first instinct is "Chits, 1200 more but I already put 3500 in the pot, I guess im screwed, but I'm probably live so here goes!" (Like Sowers getting caught re-stealing from Sexton with his 94o for his whole healthy stack)
So in most cases this is a moot point. If I'm player B I am not retracting a bet UNLESS my move was deliberately angleshooting or a legitimate wtfamidoing f-up). The fact that she did fold fast tells me she is a inexperienced. But that she took her bet back immediately (per the ops story) says she knows more than we realize (what newb knows that acts out of turn arent binding if things change ahead of her. The two actions counterdict each other frankly.

If she is new and still learning (to not be so stupid) then to penalize her could deter donations. Which of course is also an important long term issue.

But then the quick take back without even asking the TD what to do or questioning the turn sequence etc makes me wonder if she isnt raping her table completely. So ponder I do.

I am glad I am not alone in my analyse (and with help from a +++ poster too weee!) but I think there is probably more to the story to make a real ruling the more I think about it. Thanks to everyone's well thought out opinions - we all have a valid point imho, but I don't think we going to solve anything without going back into time.

To clarify, Friend B (who was on the BB) bet out the 2000 as soon as the flop came out... At about the same time Player A was sliding all her chips into the middle.

Flop was A89.

Friend A had 99 and Friend B had AT. Both players are inexperienced. Friend A was NOT checking this hand, no way. But Friend B knows that Friend A is a very tight player and is only shoving in with two pair or greater in this situation, that's how he can easily reason to fold for 5200 more when he realizes that she has moved all-in. That's when he takes his 2000 back and declares a fold. When we tell him he cannot take his 2000 back out of the pot he says well then I might as well call.

I tell players to decide outcome on their own because I'm not in the hand.


Friend B wants his 2000 back or the ability to call the 5200 all-in.

Friend A doesn't want him to be allowed to call (really tight player as I said before, didn't even want a call with her 99).

Well the hand is certainly not dead. If you dont let him take back his bet, he has to call or fold. Thats easy enough. What was outcome?

Friend A gave up the 2000.

Well, that changes things a bit, since Player A was making a betting action without knowing what Player B was doing (I guess?)

You should have been more clear about the details, because it makes a difference... as did this detail:

"Both players are inexperienced."

Now Friend A is the one who seems to be in the angleshooting camp.

In this revised scenario, I would possibly rule that Player B could take his chips back.
Even if I made Player B leave the 2k in, no way do I rule that the verbal fold is binding here.... unless it was made abundantly clear before the verbal fold that the 2k was in the pot and it was 3k more to call.


This, again, is a lesson in how important it is for exact and full details when reporting these things. imjoshsizemore, please remember that in the future.

Oh, and kudos to Player B for being a stand-up player about the bet/fold.

Ah Larry I heart you

This is EXACTLY why i was thinking the way i was. With inexperienced players in mind, rather than the rest of us degens.
Part of the role of a home game host is to protect and guide the newb ( so they keep giving us money lol) but in that process to err on thier side until we know otherwise. IMHO.


Plus this is why i meant we didnt know al the details. Ok i feel better i can sleep tonight LOL

You and Larry have completely confused me. lol. I can't even follow the arguments anymore because you guys introduced all sorts of "if they bet this then this has to happen so this forces that to happen" so I'm just going to go back to my original thought on this and that is that this was a friendly game and one player bet OOT. My ruling is that they can take their bet back and action is on the first player with nothing binding.

Under this revised scenario, BB takes back his bet and folds. SB wins the pot without the 2000 in it.

Sorry, didn't mean to. Since I know what I'm talking about it what I say always seems clear to me...