I thought the floor made a really bad ruling in this hand. What do you think they/I should have done?

1/2 NL

I had 10d, 10h. I had 200, button had 120, and BB had 400.

I am in utg + 2.

LJ open limps out of turn, HJ calls, button raises to 6. Then someone points out that I haven't acted yet. Floor rules that I do not have an option to raise now, and I can only call 6 or fold. He says this is because I have already seen so much action behind me and I should have stopped them.

I call 6 (in utg + 2), then BB calls, then LJ calls, then HJ calls. (30)

Flop is As, 9c, 7d. BB touches chips like he is going to bet, then checks. Everyone else checks.

Turn is 6h. BB bets 15, and I call. (60)

River is 7s. BB bets 20, I raise to 100, and BB folds.

Why didn't you say something earlier? Fees kind of like an angle shot to me. I don't hate the ruling. It's a bit of a strange situation that I haven't really ever seen playing or dealing.

The ruling I would have gone with is I would have cancelled the action and gone back to you UTG2, if you limp, then I would not force the raiser to the same action when it gets back to him, but if he chooses to still raise after you limp, then the action is back open when it gets to you and you can do whatever you like.

This is standard, while it may not have been your fault it would simply be too unfair to give you action at this point.

Agree with javi. Now what you could have done: stopped action when he raised & just called, then his raise stands & then you can re-raise.

This ruling can go either way, floor will sometimes judge wrong.. its unclear how culpable op was in terms of timeliness/table awareness etc.

Your hand is either dead or you should have your full range of options to you imo.

Hand is never dead.

Not to be a dick, but too many players think like this. If you let three players act OOT after you, you are indeed at fault. OP certainly isn't 100% at fault and I think we would all agree that the first player who acted OOT caused most of this, but as a player, it's your responsibility to protect your action. OP failed to do that.

Ruling is completely fine and there are some cases where you hand could be ruled dead for allowing too much action to happen after you (though I don't think this should be one of them).

Side note: Please spare us unnecessary details when posting about a ruling. Stack sizes, what you had, post-flop action, etc is all irrelevant information here.

It is a bad ruling. It was their fault for not watching the action and limping out of turn.

TBH, the usual result is that the hand is redealt.

Not much point in getting worked up about it though. We need to be focused on the game.

In many rooms your hand is dead if 3 players act behind you without a peep from you, and I believe that is a good rule. If I made the rules for the room and am called to the table, your hand is dead.

Where did something like this happen?? Never seen a misdeal for a skipped player and think that would be the worst ruling.

From what I can tell we never called the $2 originally.

If we allow hero to call here doesn't this just encourage us to hide our hand and see what transpires before hero acts from EP?

It is if I'm the floor.

Do you think he should have his full range of options?

Normal ruling. Why didn't you say anything for 3 actions?

I have never seen a misdeal in such a case. There is WAY too much action for a misdeal,in this case. And yes they are at fault for not tracking the action but op is also at fault for not stopping the oot action promptly.

Protecting your hand is more than putting a chip on your cards. It also means stopping the others from taking actions that takeaway ones options to act (among other things). Op now has much more info than he would had he acted in turn. This extra info is why some rooms do kill his hand.

As others have said: no. Everything you just said is completely wrong, except maybe that the other players share some blame for acting out of turn. Declaring a misdeal is possibly the worse possible ruling I can imagine in this case.

Absent some extenuating circumstance to explain OP's allowing 3 people to act behind him and someone else being the one to note that he didn't act yet:

Giving you passive actions only for this street <> killing your hand (you haven't put any money in yet, if you had this would be slightly worse) >>>> Rewinding acting back to you with full options >>> Giving you full action after everyone else >>>>>>>>>>>>> misdeal

Had UTG and UTG+1 already acted?

From Roberts Rules:

"Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act. You cannot forfeit your right to act if any player in front of you has not acted, only if you fail to act when it legally becomes your turn."

So, according to those rules (which may not match your room's rules) if UTG or UTG+1 had not acted yet either, you shouldn't be penalized. If it was your action and you failed to stop out of turn actions, you may lose the right to act. Exactly what losing the right to act means here I'm not sure, but that floor's decision seems perfectly reasonable to me. Giving all your options back seems wrong because you're suppose to speak up, killing your hand seems harsh because we all know these things can happen very fast and you weren't necessarily choosing to angle.

"Hold on there I haven't acted yet."
"STOP it's not your turn."
"HEY, THE ACTION'S OVER HERE"

Yeah, bad ruling, your hand should be dead.
Unless all the out of turn action happened real fast, like bang, bang, bang, and everyone agrees you had no time to speak up.


What have you been smoking?

Repeat offenders are handed a rack and given a few days away from the card room to think about it.
No. Call or fold.
The only time I've seen this type of thing happen is when someone is new to live poker and don't think they are doing anything wrong. Are you really killing a newbs hand here?

Never a re-deal ... 'May' is a term that allows for Floor interpretation and there are other rules in both Robert's and TDA that include the word 'may'.

I would rule slightly different here ... maybe
1) I would allow Hero to limp or fold (obviously) for $2.

2) When action returns to Hero he would have the option to call or fold if still facing the $6, but not raise.
2A) If Hero is now facing a raise from BB he has all options.

I'm not going to 'tax' Hero chips that wouldn't have been in the pot otherwise when action was actually on them. I agree that a player could 'sit and watch' but I'm not going to be as friendly if I get called back for the same offense from the same player!

There are times when I might kill the hand and this one is close since Hero didn't even stop the action ... another player had to stop action.

We had a case where a B straddle in Seat 9 went all the way to Seat 7 (all folds) and the SB hadn't acted (BB did fold) yet. The B had to stop action. Floor was called and the Floor rules that 'this player' would never pull an angle and was allowed to fully act, they limped. B, a Dealer from another room, is not happy with ruling and 'tilt' shoves TT ... SB calls with AA!

I think in the case above that six seats is a little too much ... and I don't think the Floor should be ruling on a player's character (at least out loud). GL

On what grounds?

So killing a player’s hand for the first offense is too harsh, but repeat offenders get a multiple day ban?

I strongly disagree that this is only done by newbs. I’ve seen several experienced players let OOT action go on because they incorrectly think “it’s not my job to stop them”.

From Roberts Rules:

"Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act. You cannot forfeit your right to act if any player in front of you has not acted, only if you fail to act when it legally becomes your turn."

I think this should be 'do not' but anyway ... 'can not' sounds like you have the option to forfeit your action (which is essentially folding). GL