Home Tourney, on the bubble with 4 players left. Blinds are 5k/10k.

I am on the button. UTG folds. Before I act the SB calls. I say that I haven't acted yet. I raise to 20K. The SB goes all in. Is this an angleshoot?

Normally I would say, probably not. But I know this player and I have seen him do the following several times.

He will act out of turn by making a big raise to induce a check. Then when it is his turn, he will check and get a free card.

What are your thought please?

thanks,
HTJ

I believe the action of a player who acts out of turn is binding (with some exceptions), so he can't say he calls/checks and then decide to raise/bet when it's actually his turn.

Also, if he's consistent with this it sounds like a huge tell that you could and should take advantage of.

That is not the rule everywhere.

And I don't see an angle here.

Obviously true since both home games and casinos can choose their own rules, but Bob Ciaffone is pretty clear on this in "Robert's rules of poker" at least:

Good to know the Robert's Ruling on this for future reference. But in this case I had raised the pot, so villains action was within the rules.

Not really. The highlighted portion below should apply since he called out of turn.

Please clear up my confusion regarding these two sentences:

An action or verbal declaration out of turn may be ruled binding if there is no bet, call, or raise by an intervening player acting after the infraction has been committed.

Seems my raise would nullify the villain being bound to his out of turn action.


A player who has called out of turn may not change his wager to a raise under any circumstances.

Is villain then bound to call my raise?

He must put the amount that he originally called into the pot, then it is up to him whether or not he calls the raised bet. He isn't bound to call your raise but he will lose the original amount he called if he folds at this point. He cannot raise here, he can only call the rest of your bet.

I would bow to those more knowledgeable than me but the way I see it there is no conflict.

Agreed - he could fold.

The way I see it his options are call or fold since he cannot "change his wager to a raise". Maybe I'm being a nit here.

A lot of this "out of turn" stuff is more appropriate to Fixed Limit games.

There's a small but strongly opinionated group of us on here who feel that NO action out of turn should EVER be binding; if you feel someone is repeatedly doing it intentionally, it's time to talk to the floor to issue a warning or penalty.

This is part of why I like the "never binding" rule. It's unambiguous and never misinterpreted. This above quote is possibly the worst solution yet, tho' it's easy to understand how one can reach this conclusion because of all the ways the rules are interpreted.

The second part, I believe, means that if nobody else raises. Again, it's more of a Fixed Limit thing. If I call one bet out of turn, I can't make it two bets when it is my turn. But if someone else raises, then I can do whatever I want.

The only time I can justify keeping chips in the pot while still forfeiting a hand is if an action induces action behind. Otherwise, what's the harm? It's almost always an accident, so why punish this severely (especially the idea that they're bound to call ANY bet)? If it's a problem, address the problem. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In my casino and in my home games, action out of turn is not binding. Ever.

[QUOTE=pfapfap;5324027]A lot of this "out of turn" stuff is more appropriate to Fixed Limit games.

There's a small but strongly opinionated group of us on here who feel that NO action out of turn should EVER be binding; if you feel someone is repeatedly doing it intentionally, it's time to talk to the floor to issue a warning or penalty.

I was in a $1/$2 NL game at the Monte Carlo and a young drunk player was the big blind, and the UTG raised to say $10 and the young drunk said I raise. It was a full game. I had $150 and a few players had $700 plus. I had 67 suited and wanted to see the flop. The floor was called over and it was determined the BB (young drunk) was obligated to a min raise.

I vehemently disagreed. I still called the $10 as did a few people in front of me and a few behind. The drunk had to raise to $20, back to (one of the) the big stack(s) who made it $120 and the drunk called and lost and sat there stunned...

I talked to the floor again and said they had no clue, and they said that was their policy.

[QUOTE=Guy Whiz;5330721] yes there is nothing wrong here, the drunk guy was bound to a raise and in all honesty could have raised anything but had to be at least a minraise, and since this was not an underbet there is nothing stopping the next guy squeezing for $120.



it is a good solution, for you cannot tell everyone you call then raise when its your turn to act that is a clear angleshoot, and you shouldnt act out of turn anyway so if you call out of turn and someone raises, you must call the original bet then it is up to you if you call the raise or not, as you are limited to the action which you already made which was simply a "CALL", and i have had to deal with both situations in my time as a dealer.

Eh, I dunno, where I deal, action out of turn is never binding and it's never a problem. If someone's deliberately doing it, have the floor talk to the person. Far more manipulation and borderline angling occurs in situations like you describe. It's patently ridiculous for someone who calls out of turn to be forced to put in the bet even if it's raise. What if the person said raise and someone else raises before? Is that person bound to minraise the new bet?

Wow, that sure is complicated. How about "never binding, never ever"? That seems a lot simpler.

Sounds like you're in a house that doesn't know what they are doing, nor do they enforce the most basic rules. I'd suggest going elsewhere.

Action out of turn may be binding and is always binding when it affects the action before it. Making a big bet on the button out of turn, then having everyone check to you obligates you to make that big bet, not take the hugely obvious angle shot of now checking behind.

When you raised the SB his limp isn't binding anymore because the action has changed. However, it still appears he's taking huge angle shots on a regular basis and getting away with it. If the house won't enforce the rules I see no reason to play there.

al

al

High Time you say this was a home tournament? Was there history in the game between you and the raiser? Was he trying to isolate you but wanted to call the other player. I think you stop and clarify the action before you act.

If you raised when you knew he was just trying to call, did you sense weakness?

If I want him to just call I say I just called, rather than say I did not act yet. I am not sure we know enough to answer your question.

Awliin
In Pfabfab's post he says no one calls bets or raises, here we had 6 callers and the whole table to act still.

I disagreed with the floor ruling but had no recourse. I could see if it was a person saying I raise one ahead of his turn in error, but not with 7 people still to act.

Really? I'll spell it out for you.

I have a strong hand, so if I call out of turn that will lead the button to believe that if he raises he can take the blinds.

I agree. Usually out of turn action is simply accidental and shouldn't be harshly punished. Anytime the action has significantly changed after accidental out of turn action, there's a new situation and a new choice to be made. I have never made someone forfeit chips and then fold anyway due to accidental out of turn action - that's angling a technicality, not upholding the integrity of the game. Only someone intentionally shooting an angle should be punished.

While it may be difficult to differentiate between the accident and the intentional, I think you have to err on the side of "accidental" until its happened a few times and been corrected...

Then its time to get the floor involved, they should issue a warning of some sort, that next time they will be forced to follow through with their action, or some such...

I agree with Al here...don't punish the accidental but deal harshly with the angle shooter.

To answer OP's original question...it seems to me from your post that this person may be doing something, but if its a home game I would assume everyone knows each other and this can be remedied easily with a little talk and a beer. If this is some "friend of a friend", just don't invite him next time...problem solved.

Actually that's not even true, or at least only true based on the caprices of a floorperson or TD's ruling.

He called, so he can't raise or reraise. If the action is the same to him (i.e., if OP folds or calls), he should be bound to call. If the action has changed, he has a choice to fold or call the raise.

I've seen this "fold but you have to put in the amount you thought you were calling" business from a floor but it's totally illogical. Generally it appeals to those who think acting out of turn needs to be punished, but there's no reason why the out-of-turn player should be obligated to follow a course of action that he never would have had to follow in-turn.

To put it another way, there's no reason the player in the middle should think that the out of turn call would be in the pot when she raises. So it's not like her decision to raise would be predicated on the out-of-turn action.

its not an instant fold it is an option to call the rest of the bet or fold the amount you called.

And it seems pretty logical to have a rule such as this to deter people from obvious angling. for example:

6-Max
Fish is UTG
Villian is BB

Fish moves all in, folded round to the button, suddenly BB shouts out "how much is it? I call." This is an obvious attempt to get the Button to fold and should not be tolerated, and if the Button was to fold then the action which the BB had declared must be enforced - he cannnot be allowed to fold here after angling to get the button to fold just because the action he decleared is not binding. the BB doesnt want the Button getting the Fish's chips and is deliberately angling here if he too folds.

so to combat this out of turn actions should be binding, and if the Button in this situation was to come over the top all in for 3x the Fish's stack, the BB who acted out of turn must pay the penalty of what could be perceived as a deliberate angle and be bound to his call of the original bet by the fish. just becasue factors between his turn and his action have changed should not relieve him of any actions he declared attempting to manipulate the other players still to act.

same goes if you announce raise OOT you must make a minimum raise of the original bet and if it is reraised before it gets to you tough luck YOU SHOULD HAVE WAITED YOUR TURN otherwise it is too easy to angle situations like this to get other players to fold hands which is unfair especially if you are allowed to simply fold after announcing raise. you are still allowed to call the reraise or fold at this point but the raise which you announced should be in the pot regardless of your choice thereafter.

Cliff's Notes: You're confusing two scenarios that aren't equivalent and just making up rules that appeal to your own sense of justice.


If the button folds, BB's declaration absolutely is binding. There was no change in the action to him (i.e., only calls and folds) so he's obligated to call.

No, if the button raises or reraises, regardless of amount, then there has been a change in the action. This is no longer equivalent to the previous scenario you cited, and the ruling from the previous scenario doesn't apply. There's no need to prevent the angle in the first scenario from working because it hasn't worked.

You're seeking to punish the BB here, which is understandable but arbitrary. Why not fine him a $25 flat fee? Why not 30 minutes away from the table? There's no logical reason why the amount of the call, which could be anything, bears direct relation to the severity of the crime. In fact the severity of the crime is zero, because the button continued as though the out-of-turn declaration never occurred.

In the first scenario you cited, the enforced call isn't to punish the BB per se. It's to prevent him from gaining advantage by angling out of turn and then declaring a different action once he's induced intervening players to fold. When that advantage goes away, in the second scenario, the validity of enforcing an action goes away.

Not everywhere.