+1

Also, no this is not a spot where gross misunderstanding applies. What is the misunderstanding?

I don't think anyone arguing that the caller not be bound to "any" call is arguing a gross misunderstanding. I don't know why that rule was quoted outside of just being thorough on all the rules that may or may not apply.

You can't misunderstand action that has not been completed.

If out of turn action is binding, and in many places it is, then the all-in and call stand. If out of turn action is NOT binding then the caller should have had all options available. The only question is should he have been held to calling a min raise,

Just providing a possible reason for not holding MP to a call. I think it's clear that he did not actually understand the size of the raise, especially considering it hadn't been made.


I'll put it out there as a possible reason not to hold MP to a call of the all-in. Yes, quoted as being possibly relevant to a ruling. Agreed, can't misunderstand action that hasn't happened. I do think there is a chance he thought the action was completed (raise of $100-ish chips being cut out).


Room rules vary. Interested to know what other rooms would rule, had a floor been consulted.

Yes he did. MP's call is not binding in anyway because an amount has not been stated yet. Therefore, BTN is exposing his hand before the action has been complete.

The floor should only be called if there is a disagreement. If MP willingly ships his entire stack to BTN, then no floor is needed and deal the next hand, but if BTN he argues he thought the raise was $100 then it gets murky and I agree with Suit's ruling of forcing him to call a min-raise.

This was my thoughts exactly. When MP got up it seemed as if he wanted to say something but didn't. I don't know whether that was out of embarrassment or not being fluent in English. He had been very quiet prior to this hand. But no problem rose from the situation and play continued which I have no problem with.

I am torn here. On one hand, this seems like it coiuld be ruled as actrion out of turn, since the action was not complete, so his call is not binding if the actrion changes (which it has to, by definition)

On the other hand, by not making his declaration binding, you open up the possibility of angling. By letting anyone make a nonbinding call, you allow them to influence the raiser or get information without risking anything.

I agree.

MP said "Call" before the button had acted. MP should have the option to call or fold, and should be warned by the floor to act once the other player has completed his action.

If MP does choose to fold after Button said "Raise," I can understand that he should be on the hook for an additional amount so that he forfeits a minimum raise.

And IMO in most rooms you are simply wrong. Raise alone does not define the action. So the call is OOT and thus when the action is defined it must be a change.

If raise alone defined the action then the only action that could be defined would be a min raise by the least aggressive action when an action is ambiguous rule. But that has never been the interpretation when a player has said only raise.

Remember poker isn't and should not become a gotcha game also don't forget the gross misunderstanding and best for the games rules.

No. OOT action is not generally binding.

The action was incomplete because MP had not called Button's raise after he had made it.

oot action is generally binding in all houses i have played.... Atlantic City Philadelphia and Las Vegas.

As described I would expect that MP loses his stack in a casino ... now in a charity room he might get some mercy and be forced to call the $100 and at minimum a min-raise. A floor may take a player's experience into account but we can't always lean on 'for the good of the game' in every decision.

The dealer in 'any' spot shouldn't be required to call the floor unless there is a disagreement or the room has a rule that the floor 'always' be called in these type of situations. Long time dealers are more comfortable with 'rulings' but what the room dictates has to take presedence.

One thing that I don't see here is the fact that B could've reduced his bet to a min-raise if he had been behind. No one here would hold him to the $100 in that case or we need to expand this big time. GL

I don;t like it but some rooms find conditional action "I will cal whatever you bet." "If you bet I will call" to be binding.

I was merely pointing out that Suit was basing his analysis on the button exposing his cards before he said all in. Also, we are all arguing semantics here and the actual words can be twisted several ways. What I actually said was that he did not expose cards until after HIS action was complete, not THE total action being complete, so my statement was technically correct. In the button's mind he did act properly since he said raise, announced the amount, the other player had said call (out of turn I know) and tabled his hand, so all that was left to do was to table his hand. The dealer is the one that should have stepped in once the MP said call and exposed his cards oot imo.

Again, I am not saying this was all done properly or disagreeing with anyone, nor was I giving an opinion on the out of turn action. Honestly, I am on the fence about exactly how this should be handled and defer to those that know more about the ruling here than me.

RROP says:

An action or verbal declaration out of turn is binding unless the action to that player is subsequently changed by a bet or raise. If there is an intervening call, an action may be ruled binding.

Perhaps I don't have data to confirm what 'generally' means, but it seems that OOT action is binding by default. Unless there is an action to 'unbind' the OOT action, and even then it may still be ruled binding.

Same here. I recognize that it may not be the case everywhere. TBH, I prefer the rule that it's never binding, but I think I'm in the smallest minority.

OOT action is generally binding UNLESS the action is changed. In this case almost by def any raise changes the action to B. The only call I could bind B to would be min action as in min bet or raise.

If the MP guy said "hey wait I thought he was betting the $100 that he cut out" (AND I believed him) then I'm willing to consider a "gross misunderstanding" ruling and allow the MP a do-over after the all-in.

This is especially likely if I believe him AND I think the button changed his bet to exploit the situation.

However, it's generally up to the MP guy to speak up. In the OP as presented I don't think anything needs to be done, but I do think a quiet word to the button to remind him that angling is "bad".

The button betting more because of what MP did isn't an angle. The only player possibly angling is MP, and the only warning issued should be to the player acting out of turn.

The tricky part of treating this as OOT or not OOT action is that the action was partially complete. The acting player has already given information. If the player acting behind is allowed to issue non-binding declarations before that action is complete, this opens up room for a lot of angling.

The best option would be for the dealers to be trained to immediately stop all action and declare, before the acting player can do anything, that the player behind's comment was not binding, allowing the acting player to proceed as normal. This is impractical for many reasons.

The acting player should not be penalized by having his options capped to a minraise, nor should the player behind be allowed to influence action through an ambiguous declaration (the very definition of angling).

I asked the floor at one of the places where I play about this yesterday. According to him MP would be held to whatever button would of put out there.

Okay so you created a litmus for identifying terrible floors.

I was going to reply to your post but Jigsaw beat me to it...
Basically what happened is like this... You are heads up on the river and you are first to act and you start counting out chips but your opponent says "call" before you put any money in or state an amount. You then say "all in" and table your hand before your opponent does anything. Your opponent is not bound to call anything. You screwed up.

This is no different except that you said "raise" before he says "call", but as stated that in itself does not complete your action, so I feel like in that case we have to hold him to something. Especially since he exposed his cards. But not holding him to call the all in. The raiser should not have exposed his hand.

I was doing no such thing. I never said he exposed his hand before he said "all in".

I said he exposed his hand before action was complete. His all in had not been called yet and he exposed his hand. That was his mistake.

I've read the rule references in this thread, and I'm still not sure there's a clear correct ruling here. That being said, I think I would have liked to see the caller held to calling a minraise, and then being allowed to reconsider whether he wanted to call the all in.

But it's definitely a murky situation.