Once I get into a hand, I generally try to do a silent slow count to 5 before acting so as to not give away any info. With noobs and recs, this often results in out of order action.


Two sessions ago in a FL card room, HU at the river, while I'm counting, an old lady checks to me out of turn. The dealer stops action, says she went early, and tells me to act. I ask what the room's rule is and dealer says her check is not binding because I have yet to act. The floor is called and confirms the old lady has all her options regardless of whether I check or bet. I don't like their rule, but I can't change it, so I check and she shoves. Curses. I wanted a free look at her cards. I can't call so I fold.

What is the consensus on that ruling? Out of order checks are not binding?

I know that in that room, if she had bet out of order, if I check, her bet is binding, but if I bet, action has changed and she has all options open.


>>>>>>

Last night, different FL card room. I'm HU vs a tilting V on the BTN. V instashoves a PSB on the river before the dealer exposes the card. I start to ask the dealer for a ruling since I had yet to act, but decide I might not like what he says, so I say call for a double up win with 3rd nut flush on my first hand of the night.

Later I walk over the the floor and ask him how he would rule on that hand, just to make sure I understand the room's policy. That floor flip flopped three times, changing his ruling, so it was clear he was not a deepier thinkier kind of guy. At one point he said since all action was out of order, V could take his bet back. Then I said that my call should be significant action in HU, so the dealer can't back up the action and the floor agreed.

{sigh} I really don't care what the rule is, I just want to a rule that is consistent.

Out of turn check not binding is incredibly dumb, but pretty standard in FL.

Stop with the silent 5 count, less than 1% of people at the stakes you are playing have any idea what is happening.

If a doofus like me can get a fairly reliable read on quick actions being draws, I figure good players can as well. And if it tilts players like you, all the better.

I’m good with any ruling that punishes a player who wastes everyone’s time by doing a silent slow count.

Waiting 5 seconds before acting every time is incredibly annoying. Stop doing it.

And some would argue that doing something that you know induces people to act of town is angling.

Um, no.

If you think timing tells are going to do much in a low stake game, you're wrong. Also, by delaying the game, you're drawing attention to yourself that the few better players WILL notice. They're the ones that combine your betting patterns, with all your tells (body position, head movement, eyes, hands, chips, etc.) to range your hand.

So, what your 5 second count is really doing is drawing unwanted attention to your game by the very people you don't want, as well as annoying everyone else.

But, as long as you are the one paying for your chips, you play them the way you want, even if it is annoying.

I never lost money because I paused to think. You might want to try it sometime.

You are not going to get any traction here. This forum almost universally hates people who waste everyone's time on every action to hide tells at low limit tables. Continue to defend the practice if you want to get on everyone's bad side. Maybe you should listen to the points that we're making instead.

As for the ruling, it is whatever the room says it is. Having said that:

* It's unusual for the OOT ruling to be binding if they bet, but not binding if they check (across the US, maybe this is normal in FL as someone else said)
* More typically, their action is binding if the action to them doesn't change (only checks and calls, no bets or raises)
* As an aside, my personal preference is for it never to be binding, but I am in the minority, and I've basically given up arguing for it

I will respond to this before this thread gets locked for going off topic.

90% of all poker decisions are automatic. They require no thought.

You should pause and think before making meaningful decisions, and you should do that even in cases where you have already decided which way to act.

Pausing every time is stupid, wasteful, and annoying

Confining yourself to a set, predictable routine is a great way to give off unconscious tells when you unknowingly deviate from that routine

Timing tells, and tells in general, in most games, are overvalued and underreliable

I agree with that. I said, "once I get into a hand," which admittedly is vague, but I meant only once there has been significant action and we're usually down to HU or 2 Vs.

I'm using that pause for more than just avoiding a timing tell to include setting up meta bluffs with observant players, looking for tells, and double checking math for outs, bet size, etc.

Something else occurs to me as well. If you're taking longer to act on non-draw hands, then you're also not planning ahead on what to do with your hand.

You've misread completely or maybe I am misreading you. What you're saying makes no sense to me. Explain pls.

and I'm with the forum on that. If I'm folding pre, I almost always fold fast. There are folds I do post that are rapid as well, because, I'm NOT "into the hand" perhaps because I was in the hand only because it limped to me in the BB. I want to keep the game moving as well. You're arguing against a position I do not advocate.

If you take 1 second to make your decision, and then count to 5, it takes you 6 seconds to make a decision.

If you take 10 seconds to make a decision, then count to 5, it takes 15 seconds.

If someone is already paying attention to how long you take to act, they’d still notice differences.

Just count to 3 instead

Have I written something that would lead you to believe I do that?

My preferred rule is that out of turn action is binding, so long as the intervening action does not change.

1. Curious which Florida room has a check out if turn is not binding.

2. The 2nd situation where you "called" the bet, is technically not a call since action is supposed to be on you. If the action is binding, you're supposed to check to them so they're forced to bet, then call

1. Oxford - The Villages
2. agreed, but I didn't want to take a chance that if I asked for a ruling, it wouldn't go my way, so it seemed less risky to initiate "significant action".

I think it is relatively risk free to announce call. What you don't want to do is put out a call, say the bet is all in $150, you don't want to put out $150, since that could be a bet. But if you just say call, then either you are calling their bet OR you are doing nothing. But if you just put out $150, then that could be ruled a bet which would void the action. Plus what is villain going to do if you say call, argue that he was acting out of turn purposefully?

I suspect what OP wanted to do was check, have the OOT bet held binding and then OP raises wit nutted hand. His fear if he checked was that V would check behind and OOT action not be binding.

“Count to 5 before acting”

Unless your thinking pattern is like “1 i think they could 2 have pocket 3 4s or 5s 4 guess i shove 5”

Amazingly enough, I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

The problem is the sometimes a 5 count won’t be long enough. So you have two options in that case. Rush your decision to fit you defined 5 count. Or take longer. One leads to rushed and thus poorer decisions. The other a timing tell.