This is an SNG on the bubble. One big stack. One medium stack. Two short stacks hanging on for dear life.

The two short stacks fold. Medium stack announces raise, but before MS can say anything more, the big stack says, “Re-raise.” And before BS can announce the size of his re-raise, MS says, “All in.” Action stops and everyone tries to figure our what to do next.

How do you rule?

Assume min raises.

MS bets 1BB
BS raises for a total of 2BB
MS goes all in

BS now decides whether to call the all in

I assume this is preflop, so MS raises to 2BB and BS re-raises to 3BB.

.... and KITNs all around!

/thread

As anxious as these guys were, all the chips were probably going in the middle anyway, but tell them to slow the heck down and wait their turn.

Actually, he should convert a Twister spinner to a "you have to bet X much!" poker spinner. 2x bet, 4.5x bet, 7x bet, 1x bet, etc.

Then, when this kind of thing happens.... the idjut causing the problem gets to spin the wheel, match the bet amount... and see what happens!

1. Both get a KITN
2. MS is all in, BS can now call or fold, and is only in for the BB so far.
3. After the hand, they both get a KITN.

If either argues or complains.. that's a kicking.

Not this. BS is also at fault, and this is letting him commit less than normal if he decides to fold. He would have to have put in at least 3BB to get to this point.

The host ruled for min raise + min raise (although host got the amount of the second min raise wrong and thought that a min raise was 4bb instead of 3bb).

The other option being discussed was letting MS open raise to any amount and binding BS to his stated intention of raising, whatever the amount of MS's raise. I don't like this option. Doesn't seem right to give MS the right to put BS all in at that point.

well if MS had half a brain he would have stated call and put his chips all his in the middle, forcing BS to call the all in. on the other hand the minraise policy looks the best course of action. i think BS is at fault more than MS here, and MS should have taken a minute to think about how to turn this mistake to his advantage. MS acting quickly like this just made it so that he was also in the wrong there.
LEsson his: take your time to make a decision, take your time to find villain's mistake and turn it into your advantage.

• "Raise" hasn't completed his action.
  • "Re-raise" may be bound to his action by the letter of the law, and I would hold him to it, as he's doing so aware that "raise" is already raising.
• "Raise" should complete his action, raising to whatever amount he wants to - unfortunately (for the game) with the knowledge that "Re-raise" will be raising also.
• "Re-raise" should now be forced to complete his raise -- to at least a min-raise.
• "Raise" should now have to go all-in, as this declaration was made with the full knowledge that he was being re-raised, and can and IMHO should be held binding.

Hey, man, how do you do that bullet list thing? Pretty cool.

I don't agree with number two. I don't think raising to any amount is right "for the game" as you put it, even though BS's acting out of turn has the effect of preventing MS from making the original raise that was intended. On the other hand, we can never know what raise that was and I don't like giving MS the windfall of sizing his bet knowing that it will be re-raised. That would be fine in a cash game, where on those in the hand have a stake in the outcome, but not in a tourney where everyone is playing against everyone else. Therefore, the fairest result for everyone in the game -- those in the hand and the two not in the hand -- is to rule min raise + min raise + all in. BS can then do what he wants.

Well, the alternative is that anytime you want to make the bet 4x and you can just shout "RAISE!" any time someone else tries to raise a rational number...

I'm not sure you worded that correctly. In any event, I do agree that this is open to angle shooting from the person in the position of the BS. But most times, this isn't an angle shoot, just a guy who can't control himself. Also keep in mind that MS can minimize this chance of such an angle shoot by the manner in which the bet is placed, such as by putting chips into the pot simultaneously with saying raise or raising without saying that word, just announce the amount of the bet from the start. I'm not saying that MS is at fault. Only that this is one factor to consider among others.

I just don't like a world in which you can take my action from me (or limit my actions) by acting out of turn behind me.

[-LIST]
[*]"Raise" hasn't completed his action.
[*] "Re-raise" may be bound to his action by the letter of the law, and I would hold him to it, as he's doing so aware that "raise" is already raising.
[-/LIST]

take out the -

I understand. There is no perfect solution. But you do have some ability to control prevent what you don't want to happen by the manner in which you bet, so it is worth thinking about how we place our bets in a poker game.

Let me throw this at you.

Player A: "Raise."
Player B: "I just ate a taco, and it was delicious."
Player A: "All-in."

Player A's action was not complete. Player B's statement was unrelated. The "All-in" was part of the initial action.

Player A: "Raise."
Player B: "Re-raise."
Player A: "All-in."

Player A's action was not complete. Player B's statement was out of turn, and therefore unrelated. The "All-in" can be read to be part of the initial action.

Am I holding him to that? Probably not. My point is that this can be interpreted a whole bunch of different ways, and figuring out which combination of rules applies, and which sort of nittery to follow, would just take a lot of time to sort out and probably wouldn't be helpful for the game as a whole.

Here's what I'm doing as TD:

"Okay, guys, I know poker's very exciting, but when you start acting out of turn, problems happen. Player A, we're still waiting for your declaration of your original raise. How much would you like to bet?"

And then go from there. They'll probably re-raise and go all-in anyway, so it won't be an issue. But if it comes to it, nothing else was binding. If either player feels like he was angle-shot, then that's just too bad, because both players made the same mistake. Hopefully lesson learned for next time.

One of the oldest rooms in the country (over 100 years), uses "no action out of turn is binding, ever" as the baseline rule. So far, fire hasn't rained from the sky. I think we'll be okay in a small home tourney.

Well, I wasn't at the table, so I don't know if the "all-in" was just a continuation or a part of the initial raise. I suppose it is possible, but nobody at the table seems to have interpreted it that way, so I doubt that interpretation applies to this particular situation.

I can't agree that BS's "re-raise" is "unrelated," akin to saying a taco was delicious. It is related to poker, and in a game where the rule is that action out of turn "may" be binding, we need to decide whether that poker-related action is binding or not.

Personally, I like the rule that action out of turn is never binding, ever. Most times, I think that is the best rule to follow.

Action out of turn may be binding. That's the rule. "May" is obviously subjective.

You basically have two choices here:

1. You decide as "floor person" that indeed the re-raise is binding despite the first playing not having completed his action (he hasn't said how much his raise is). [This is my preferred solution, as outlined above.]
   1. The "raise" player completes his action, raising to whatever he wants, and isn't restricted by someone wanting to step on his action by acting prematurely.
   2. Once the initial raiser completes his action, then you make the re-raise player raise - to any number he wants, since he's declared raise and it's his turn. That would have to be at least a min-raise, but again, could be anything you want.
      1. There is an interesting footnote here. If the original raiser uses this opportunity by the re-raiser to make some sort of "move" by shoving all-in, or adjusting his bet to take advantage of the premature re-raise, you could possibly withhold your ruling on the re-raiser's "may be binding" action until you see what the original raiser does.
2. You decide as the floor person that the re-raiser's action isn't binding because it's not his turn to act yet.
   1. Warn him to act in turn in the future.

Repeat this action for the premature all-in by the original raiser.

So, anyway, it's subjective. Such is the wonder of "may" type rulings in RROP.

I'm also comfortable with "Shut up, Bob. It ain't yet turn yet."

How would you know if that is true? How could you ever know that the original raiser was adjusting his bet based upon the re-raise that is made out of turn? That is the nut of the problem for me, and why I don't like allowing the original raiser to announce a raise and hold the other player to a re-raise.

You can't ever "know." Queue the Philosophy 101 text... ...a class from which I mostly recall terrible Descarte before the Horse jokes.

Not all rules are clear-cut. Action out of turn may be binding, unless specific events occur between when the premature action happens and when it becomes their turn.

...but it doesn't have to be binding. This is why, in most of my games, my answer is simply to slap people upside their heads and tell them that it isn't their turns.

But remember, whatever you force some out-of-turn actor to do, it's subjective, and it's based on the best interests of the game, and you get to make that decision for what he has to do when it's his turn.

Sure, you can bind someone to an action, because sometimes the original raiser is going to ask you his options. "If I mis-raise, what does he have to do? OK. What if I go all in, what does he have to do?" ...and you'll be pressed into making a ruling for what the re-raiser's options are before you have benefit of initial-raiser's action...

The answer here is: It depends.

Action out of turn may be binding.

I was unclear. I was not promoting that viewpoint, merely poorly drawing a parallel. My point there was that if we recognize that the re-raise was not valid because the initial raise wasn't complete, then that means the "all-in" could be interpreted as still being part of the initial raise.

My point was that it's a mess, and there are a bunch of ways to interpret it, and I'm sure even hard-core rules nits would find ways to disagree with each other.

That's why I'm in favor of, "Both of you simmer down and play in turn. Starting from the last valid action: What's your raise?"

OK. I guess you are saying that, as floor person, you decide that the second player will be bound to raise, but you don't reveal that ruling before the first player acts, and you might change your ruling if the first player makes a move by asking to know what the ruling will be depending on what the bet is. I never thought of that as an option, the reason being that I was focused on this particular situation, in which the players wanted to know from the host what the ruling would be before the first player acted.

I guess I just prefer a rule that says action out of turn is never binding. Not ever.

My favorite catch-all is the "first offense is a warning" progressive system. That way when I'm faced with a crazy situation and don't have time to fully consider and debate it, I just default to, "Okay you idiots, we'll let it slide now, but don't do it again." I can figure out a more thorough solution later, and it's fully consistent with everything.