That's grounds to prevent action not kill the hand.

Further I don't think that should impact UTG+2's ability to act in response to the raise but rather it prevents UTG+2 from rolling back the action.

The language is "players have acted behind you" - ok that's happened - so the initial action related to the BB is forfeited but now btn has raised. That's new action so why shouldn't utg+2 now be able to raise?

Although it could read .. right to 'fully' act .. I think the absence of the word 'fully' allows Floors to kill the hands of excessive (5-6 seats of action) or repeat offenders as well as determine what 'rights' the player may or may not have at that point in the hand.

I agree that UTG+2 should be able to act on the B raise to 6 .. that's why (if I allow them to stay in the hand) I limit their 'rights' to a limp or fold, thus not backing action up. GL

It is ambiguous what it means, which is unfortunate, and possibly deliberate.

The plainest reading (to me) is that it would always (if enforced) kill the hand. It doesn't say "lose the right to raise", which it easily could have, it says "lose the right to act." Of course, it also could have said "may kill your hand" or "your hand is dead" which would be entirely unambiguous. As I said, it's unfortunate that it's not written more plainly.

Regardless, all this "passive action only" nonsense was basically invented out of whole cloth by experienced floors who realized it might be a better, fairer option. There's no way you can read "may lose the right to act" and decide that plainly means "passive action only", which is a ruling that exists exactly nowhere (else) in RRoP for any reason, IIRC.

The rule: "Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act."

I agree with everyone that this is poorly written. To me, "lose the right to act" means exactly what it says. You don't get to act. A call or a raise would be acting and that only leaves one other option. FOLD. So when it says "lose the right to act", I believe, that it means your hand is dead. Now, for the part of the rule that matters... It says "you MAY lose the right to act". This is where the rule gives the floor the option to take circumstances into consideration. So if the floor decides you could've/should've been able to stop the action but you didn't, then your hand is dead. If the floor believes you didn't have time or it is reasonable why you didn't stop the action, then they may allow you to act. Plus whatever other justification may come up. If the floor decides to allow you to act, the action needs to be backed up to you.

The floor's ruling in the OP was wrong. If he was going to let OP stay in the hand, he should've backed the action up and gave him all options. Personally, I would've killed OP's hand because:
- 3 players acted after him and he never said a word.
- someone else had to stop the action for him.
- one of those actions was a raise
- this was preflop and he had $0 invested at this point
Easy decision on this one IMO.

It's probably good to give the TDA Rules, which might be considered a more polished version of some rules which shouldn't really be different between cash and tournies:

Oops .. contradicted myself in there after your post (#28). I'm only allowing UTG+2 passive acts against the action that has already taken place before action was stopped. The $6 raise had already taken place on the B before action was stopped, so therefore I'm not allowing UTG+2 to raise that action ... but I am allowing them to react to any raise from the SB or BB that may occur.

If a player objects then I simply say "Well, I could've killed your hand." Losing their 'right' to act aggressively on 'known' actions is a small price to pay for remaining in the hand.

This limits their abiity to angle by just watching the action before they stop the action. They will have to wait until the next street for that. GL

See I disagree. UTG missed the chance to raise before BTN raise - fine - can't roll that back w/ 2 limpers between him and btn.

But BTN has raised now and action has stopped. You're saying that UTG shouldn't be able to respond to BTN's action - AT ALL. However, SB and BB can?

I don't agree with that. I think that UTG should have all actions available because the action has now changed. However, if BTN had simply limped then UTG could either only call or fold.

It's OK to disagree .. .. Certainly UTG missed their opportunity to raise 'in turn' but I guess I may also be appeasing the rest of the table by putting a little bit more of a penalty on UTG for not stopping action and yet still allowing them to stay in the hand. And like I said, it minimizes the angling of PF action by UTG.

SB/BB are free to act 'normally' but if they change action then UTG is off the hook. GL

Looks like you and several others here just don't know or understand fairly standard rules. Although maybe the rule is different where you play, I am quite certain that there is nowhere it would be standard for a misdeal to be called.

If you let people act after you when you know it is your turn, you are doing something wrong. It would be unfair to allow you to act after knowing what people behind you wanted to do; the fairest thing to do is not allow any action, which preflop means killing the hand.

It is not only newbies who try to pull this; I once played a 10/20 LHE game where 9 people saw the flop. 8 people checked (out of turn) and then the SB who should have been first to act said he wanted to bet. Um, no, you don't get to do that. In that case his had should not have been killed (and wasn't) because he was not facing a bet, but he was not allowed to bet, which he somehow felt was a great injustice after he smugly watched 8 people check behind him thinking he was making a point.

I agree with Suit on this one.
The rule is ambiguously written, but I have always felt that it meant the hand should normally be killed, unless there was some unusual circumstance (such as the other 3+ players all acting almost instantaneously), and allowed the floor to apply their own judgement and common sense.
I have seen these situations (i.e., facing a bet) ruled either dead hand (most often), or (rarely) rollback action to OP, giving him all options. I have never seen OP given limited options, and I think this is a poor solution. It certainly shouldn't be a misdeal. In general, the only times I recall (experienced) floors not killing the hand were when OP did actually speak up himself, while the action was happening. Otherwise it goes under "Too bad, OP, next time protect your action".

First off, there is a difference between knowing the rules and interpreting the rules. Simply because someone doesn't agree with you does not make them arrogant, and it is sheer hubris to presume otherwise.

Secondly, nobody has said the word misdeal in the thread until you. So are you sure you are following the thread correctly?

In this case, UTG+2 had TWO actions. Nobody is saying that his first action should be revisited at this point. I'm only saying - why shouldn't he be allowed to act IN TURN after the btn raise? WHY should the worst possible penalty for that hand - killing it - be the outcome of a lapse of attention?

Huh? I said nothing about anyone being arrogant. I do think you are grossly misunderstanding the rules "preventing action" preflop is the same thing as killing the hand. If a player who is facing a bet is not allowed to act late (because he allowed action to pass him without protest) then he has folded.

And Nogyong said "the usual result is that the hand is redealt". I was addressing his comment when saying a misdeal would not be standard. Are you criticizing my using proper terminology when referring to his comment?

Because it is unfair for him to be able to play the hand without the other players knowing what he would have done the first time had he acted in turn. And because it might not have been caused by a lack of attention, but by a deliberate angle shoot. And because those are the rules (in most places).

For me it all depends on if OP did everything he could to stop the action or not. I believe if he did not (meaning he purposefully let action continue to gain information) his hand should certainly be dead. If the action happened too rapidly to speak up (keep in mind 3 quick actions could happen in the time it takes to check your cards) I am fine with giving him all options.

Although I agree that Plan A, dead hand, is the best way to go in this case and probably most others I don't really like Plan B, backing up action.

IMO backing up action 'punishes' the players that did act. UTG now knows what those players 'may' do (or at least wanted to do). Granted we wouldn't be in this spot if they didn't act out of turn to begin with, so maybe I'm looking at the wrong seats here when it comes to whom I'm ruling about. We are sort of blaming UTG for letting (lots of) other players act out of turn. Somehow making right against two wrongs?

I assume we are then holding these other players to their OOT action if UTG limps? Or are we truly backing up action? What if there had been a fold mixed in there? Even OOT folds are binding when action changes, yes? If UTG limps then we are right back to what I proposed or UTG has wiped out all the other action (including B=$6) by raising.

I'm liking 'dead hand' more and more at this point ... GL

Firstly, I think it's the dealer's fault for not stopping the action immediately. If they were paying attention, it should have been obvious that someone acted OOT.

Secondly, it's also OP's fault for not stopping the action especially after not 1, not 2, but 3 players acted.

I think killing the hand is the best course of action here. $0 invested, has seen too much action, too advantageous to allow him aggressive action and he is essentially gaining position by allowing him to call the $6 or fold.

If I were ruling this one, it's a dead hand.

killing the hand seems ungodly awful, having seen this happen tons of times before, usually from a noob. its not a tone you want to set for a friendly 1/2 table.

they are angling about 0% of the time here, give or take 1%. They "gain" nothing if its not a repeat offender. like i said, in terms of poker skill this type of player has to remember to breathe.

from what i remember, floor usually let them call or fold. passive option seems fair, they never want to raise.

Yes. Because if it's a noob that does it, it's a procedural error by someone that didn't know any better. If someone is a repeat offender they are an angling SOB and they are bad for the cardroom.

Never blame the dealer for the player's screw up. That bugs the heck out of me. Players yell at dealers for not announcing action, for not controlling action, etc. Not declaring bet amounts. Not declaring straddles. (usually player just isnt' ****ing listening)

The dealer is there as a BACK UP to the player. Players need to own their own ****.

i would strongly disagree with you. I am there to control my game. Not let the players run it.

I appreciate your dedication but you are mistaken. Here's why

You cannot show me in any rule book where it says the dealer is responsible for:
- protecting the player's hand
- being aware of the action
- anything else

The dealer is, at the end of the day, a body who's provided to help protect the sanctity of the game and speed things along by being a pro at flinging cards. You're also there to rep your employer, provide customer service, and collect fees.

PLAYERs, however, can play cards w/o a professional dealer - just not in a casino. It's on US first to own OUR jobs. You're welcome to help - but if you don't say straddle, the straddle is still valid. If you don't say raise, the raise is still valid. If you don't say "action is here" action is still there.

It is up to the player to protect their hand, correct.
It is most certainly up to the dealer to be aware of the action. You are wrong there.

A dealer is supposed to control the action and protect the game. Protecting the game in this case would be telling a player that they acted out of turn immediately.

And these are not rules we are dealing with here, we are dealing with job description.

First line from Caesars's job posting:
Responsible for all aspects of dealing poker games and assists in tracking play and game observation.

You need to be aware of the action in order to do your job. Players need to be aware of the action in order to ensure they don't get their hands killed or miss opportunities to bet. Again - read the rules - they never say "dealer is responsible to keep player's **** straight for them"

Your job posting says "assist in tracking play and game observation" - but again that doesn't make you responsible for MY ****.

While I FULLY appreciate your dedication on this - again - you are NOT to blame when a player screws up. You can help them - but if you want to feel personally responsible for keeping the players from screwing up your'e taking on too much.

Again: if you don't say straddle, the straddle is still valid. If you don't say raise, the raise is still valid. If you don't say "action is here" action is still there.

That's all on the players to track whether you say anything or not - and plenty of dealers don't, btw - at least not consistenly.

I agree with you on the bottom points, but if a player bets out of turn and I miss it, I consider that my error. Also, I call my games and usually make more money because of it.