What is the rule regarding a players actions that are out of turn. For example, a player is deciding whether to check or bet and the next guy bets $50 out of turn.

I was pretty sure there was a rule saying that if the action checks to the out of turn player, his action is binding, but if the action changes leading up to him, the action is not binding

Is this correct?

It varies from room to room. Most everywhere I've been that I've seen this come up, betting out of turn isn't binding, but sometimes checking is.

It depends on the card room. Where I play the player can take the action back. They will warn him, though, and if he is angle-shooting (trying to get a read on the other player) they will boot him.

In the vast majority of cardrooms, action out of turn is binding unless action changes. I believe this is in the TDA rules also.

We should probably ask if this is a cash game or a tournament.

At Fallsview Casino Resort, the written rule for cash games is this:

Players must act in turn. Action in turn will be binding. Action out of turn will also be binding.

Causes HUGE problems and should be changed to the accepted TDA rule:

Action out of turn may be binding. Action out of turn will be binding if the preceeding action has not changed; a check, call or fold does not constitute a change in the action.

By far, the TDA rule is the best all-encompassing rule for out of turn action that I have seen/read/experienced.

That is the common rule. Your action is binding if there is no other action by the missed player.

It does get a little more complicated than that though. If a player checks out of turn, he cannot raise if a player bets into him, he can only call he cannot raise.

Similarly, if a player calls out of turn, he cannot raise if the missed player also calls. If the missed player raises, he can only call the raise or take his previous lesser call back and fold (I've heard some places make you leave out the first call and fold but I don't like that one and fortunately I don't think it's common).

This is the current rule in Robert's. I am not a fan of it. I prefer saying "Action out of turn may be binding" and leaving it at that for the written rule. I prefer that if it is checked to the player they are obligated to take whatever action they had indicated (if they are not shooting an angle they obviously thought it was checked to them, so they should have no issue with this). If they indicated a call when they thought there was nobody else was in, but now an intervening player they didn't see calls they should be able to fold as calling two players is a lot different than calling one player.

I agree with this one in that calling in position in a heads up pot is a lot different than calling two players in position. If your plan was to steal the pot on the next street, that extra player you didn't see in the hand is definitely a negative factor and you should be able to fold.

And actually, looking at Robert's, I see this sentence: "If there is an intervening call, an action may be ruled binding." Are you saying you would change this to "...will not be binding."?

I would change
to read
I actually was thinking Robert had changed his to read like the TDA rule. I hate the TDA rule as they do not recognize calling as action changing. In general I am not a fan of the TDA.

I would suggest to the TDA that they use Robert's Rules for acting out of turn (whatever good rule that ends up as) and simply insert that acting out of turn deliberately or repeatedly may be penalized by a time out.

I'm a fan of it not being binding, ever. I've dealt in a room with that rule, and it was never a problem.

Well, I have a very specific example of a really bad acting out of turn hand that totally undermined me and I would like some feedback as to what is proper under this sort of acting out of turn circumstance ...

I was in a live NL Holdem tournament final table hand recently, with five people left, where preflop, out of the SB, I put in a sizable raise / squeeze on one middle position limp caller and the still to act BB. BB folded, middle position called.

Flop came, I raised half pot, middle position caller, called.

On the turn, convinced that the caller had nothing, I then bet roughly three quarters of the pot, middle position again called.

I had decided that on the river, if I still had nothing, but was still sure that the middle position caller still had nothing, I was going to fire another barrel and go all-in. I had a plan, was convinced my read was correct in that the caller had nothing, so much so that I was pretty sure that my K J nothing was better than the caller's nothing, so my thinking was that by moving in, he cannot call me, even if he has a small pair or ace high.

Then the unthinkable happened, the river card fell, but I had zero time to act, as immidiately, out of turn, the dude announces all-in and pushed his chips to the middle!

WTF? His acting out of turn completely ruined my hand and undermined any move I can make. It was now my tournament life on the hand, as making the call and being wrong would have left me effectively crippled. I was sure he was bluffing, but to call would be such a hero call. To now fold, though, left me with only a marginally playable stack that would take away my ability to keep actually "playing".

So anyway, I complained that his action was out of turn, but to me, having his move taken back (which didn't happen) still doesn't fix how I had been wronged, for now, knowing that he put all his chips in, it undermined my plan of action and led me to question my read where I should not have had to do so.

To me, there are several "just" rulings that could / should have been made ... none of which were enforced.

1. His hand should have been declared dead.

2. At my option, I could either call or have the pot split between us.

3. At my option, I could either call, or have the entire hand declared void and have all chips returned to all parties in the hand, if such could be reliably recreated for the returning of the right amount of chips to each player.

As it was, the offending player apologized ... and then I was simply made to act. I don't think the guy maliciously acted out of turn, although one cannot be sure, but I felt really wronged, regardless.

Ultimately, after expressing that I was sure he had nothing, I reluctantly folded my KJ. All were then shown HIS bluff, with something like a 9 rag high.

Anyway, this just does not sit well with me and I wonder if there is any sort of actual acknowledged rule of how THIS h2h acting out of turn on the river should be handled?

Your feedback is muchly appreciated.

This if fine if it is widely known that out of turn action is not binding. Problem is new players are always unaware of the rule until after the fact.

Not when I deal.

BTW, this is an ancient thread...

PokerSchmuck, yeah it sort of sucks to have your fold equity taken away from you, but your three proposed solutions are not very good at all. In the long run, having someone give you position on the hand is very good for you. Maybe it sort of took away a play this time, but on balance I would much rather have my opponents act out of turn heads-up every single time.

Why not take out the "may" and replace it with "will"?

Even if its non-binding?

You undermineded yourself.

Your solutions are bogus and you cannot make up your own rules in a poker torney.

You could have clarified the action. What happens if I check? What happens if I bet? Your plan was well thought. If you clarify his bet is not binding if you bet, you bet. If you clarify his bet is binding if you check, bet.

He took the play to you.

Information is information.

This seems to go against the overwhelming "when you get to showdown, just show your damn hand, even if its not your turn to show" theory thats been flying around here lately, but aside from that, if i could say anything i wanted out of turn heads up, i think i would have gained an advantage.

Well, if his out of turn action was intentional, then I think he took the play to me in an unethical way ... but your point is well taken. I guess I was / am not nearly sophisticated enough as to have taken it a level higher like you suggest. If there is a next time, then I shall try to remember your suggestion.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. You seem not to understand what is being discussed in the other thread. I'm happy for you to talk all you want about the hand while we're in the middle of playing it.

From reading many threads here, it appears to me the majority suggest just turning your hand over immediately rather than waiting your turn to gain info. Thats all i was sayin.
Maybe my memory is bad?

The only thing I don't like about this rule is that it gives the missed player an automatic ability to check raise if the player acting out of turn is putting the first bet into the pot. I don't have a problem with this situation when the pot is HU, b/c the person who acted out of turn is harmed. But in a multi-way pot, it could effect other players in the hand. But I guess that is the lesser of two evils, unless you have an iron-clad rule that acting out of turn is never binding, which is the rule that I prefer in a friendly home game. I don't know about a casino.

What I don't like about the rule is that it allows a player to influence the action of those in front of him, thus changing the dynamics of the game.

What do you all think about this rule? This is how they handle it at one of the indian reservations in my neck of the woods:

"Actions out of turn are not binding. If a player DOES raise out of turn, their action will be considered a “call” unless action changes in front of them."

This way, no one can gain an unfair advantage by manipulating a house rule; the only person penalized is the person who acts out of turn.


Any downside?