PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: mikeyp22 on March 12, 2015, 06:50:28 PM
-
Alright, this scenario came in one of our tournaments Saturday night, and all three of us couldn't really decided what to do. We looked up the Illustration Addendum but that didn't help us either. Here is the addendum:
Example 1:
NLHE,
blinds 100-200. UTG (Seat 3) makes it 600. Seat 4 is skipped when Seat 5 calls 600 OOT. Seat 6 thinks for a moment then folds. There are now two players acting with chips involved to the left of Seat 4. Two players with chips qualifies as substantial action (Rule 35 ). Also, Seat 4 has had reasonable time to speak up and bring it to the dealer’s attention that he has been skipped. The OOT call by Seat 5 is now binding due to substantial action OOT, and the OOT fold by Seat 6 is binding (Rule 50 ). The floor is called to make a decision on the fate of Seat 4’s hand.
SO, what do you floors do with the fate of seat 4?
-
Alright, this scenario came in one of our tournaments Saturday night, and all three of us couldn't really decided what to do. We looked up the Illustration Addendum but that didn't help us either. Here is the addendum:
Example 1:
NLHE,
blinds 100-200. UTG (Seat 3) makes it 600. Seat 4 is skipped when Seat 5 calls 600 OOT. Seat 6 thinks for a moment then folds. There are now two players acting with chips involved to the left of Seat 4. Two players with chips qualifies as substantial action (Rule 35 ). Also, Seat 4 has had reasonable time to speak up and bring it to the dealer’s attention that he has been skipped. The OOT call by Seat 5 is now binding due to substantial action OOT, and the OOT fold by Seat 6 is binding (Rule 50 ). The floor is called to make a decision on the fate of Seat 4’s hand.
SO, what do you floors do with the fate of seat 4?
First of all Mike you have presented this case very well, and identified the applicable rules perfectly IMO.
This subject was discussed at length at the 2013 Summit and can be found on one of 4 videos of the event, first one is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfO6pdhsVYM
To summarize, there is not super-majority agreement within the Association as to how to deal with Seat 4 at this point, and I'm not sure there will be anytime soon. There are basically two remedies:
I: Seat 4's hand is dead... providing of course, as you note that he had reasonable time to act, there was nothing obscuring his ability to follow the action, etc. etc. as set forth in the rule and as you note in your case.
2: Back the action up to seat 4 and allow him only to call or fold, not to raise, AND (optionally) "2-B": allow him only to call on any subsequent raise on this betting street, which is classic RROP from General Poker Rules, Section 3 Betting and Raising, Para: 12. "To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act."
Regarding "2-B", I ran this question by Bob Ciaffone several years back... probably 2009-ish.... to clarify what he meant by "lose your right to act"; specifically I asked whether that meant a dead hand or merely losing the right to act aggressively (initiate a bet or raise). His answer was that he hadn't thought about it for awhile, but definitely intended it to mean the latter.
So, hope that answers your question, but it also leaves the question open as to what exactly to do with the hand and as Rule 38 says "...the floor will be called to render a decision on how to treat the skipped hand". Personally in the situation you outline, I'd opt for 2-B, but completely understand that many TDs, perhaps a majority, would kill the hand. Again, this is player beware and you've clearly outlined that the player wasn't attentive.
How did you rule?
-
I was ready to leave at the time so i wasn't clocked in so my fellow TD ruled that the hand was dead. He looked at me and I just said "I think that is the rule but we will look into it later and make sure" The player and table had no problem with it (if I were the floor I would not have killed it, in the past I would have, but I've become less cynical now, haha) So I gave a vague answer and we discussed it later. We all came up with someone but the most common one was stopping the action and having him act. But it's tricky after that. Our scenario was a little higher staked, Blinds 1000-2000, UTG players gets skipped, there is one call of 1,000, and then the next player Raises to 5,300. Just seems like a weird spot that if UTG players decides to call 5,300 the 1,000 guys is sandwhiched. Not sure if that matters or not still. If two players just call 1,000 it's fine, but then what if UTG wanted to raise? is he allowed to? are the OOT players bets still binding? I know if one players acts OOT and then substantial action has not occurred they get to pull their bet back and re-think, but when two players make substantial action OOT they are binding?? just a lot to think about for one scenario.
-
Mikey: I think in that situation, IF you don't kill the hand, the UTG doesn't call 5300, he calls the 1000 (or folds, he cannot raise). THEN when the 5300 (or any subsequent raise) comes back around to him, under RROP, ("Option 2-B"), the UTG can only call the amount or fold, he can't raise on this street.
Thanks for the GREAT case... we will definitely see this debated at the 2015 Summit, hope you can make it !
-
I've always felt that the rules were very clear until we complicated the situation with the amount of time that expires before the skipped player acts. Mike's answer solves the problem if we omit "If you don't kill the hand." I have always backed up the action to the skipped player unless substantial action occurs...in the event that two or more players have acted after the skipped player, the action proceeds clockwise until it returns to the skipped player and (as Mike stated) can only call the amount and can not raise. The only time a hand should be killed is if the skipped player has allowed multiple players to act out of turn and the dealer has burned and turned the next board card.
-
My first initial thought was to let action continue and let the skipped player only call. That was my interpretation of "losing his right to act," he only gets to call, but my fellow TD didn't like having that player get to see everything happen then make a decision without having any money in the pot. Just a tough spot.
-
mikeyp22:
I'm with you on this one. Others have legitimate concerns if players are intentionally allowing action to pass them by. In my opinion, this is when we should; weigh the facts and render the most appropriate decision. There are times when a "strict" enforcement of a rule will result in an (obviously) unfair result. Killing a players hand because two players quickly acted beyond them (out of turn), is not in the best interest of any game. Another similar situation would involve an errant dealer, directing action to the wrong player.
Factors I like to consider are the ones I learned years ago. Chuck Ferry wrote a couple small books regarding "Rules of Poker" and I've always felt his books the most "simplistic" and fair. I will quote a brief example from Mr Ferry. "An unintentional error shall be construed more liberally than what appears to be a deliberate violation of the Rules." The experienced player, against a beginner- the intent of the out of turn or skipped player...accidental or malicious? Making moves to "trick" a player into a questionable situation is highly unethical.
-
Camp 1: My first initial thought was to let action continue and let the skipped player only call. That was my interpretation of "losing his right to act," he only gets to call, Camp 2: but my fellow TD didn't like having that player get to see everything happen then make a decision without having any money in the pot. Just a tough spot.
Mikey: And the two opinions you cite above are exactly the positions of the two camps on this issue.
-
First, there has to be a reasonable amount of time in which Seat 4 can speak up and say something. There are times when it could go raise, fold so fast by the two other players that Seat 4 can't even open his mouth to say "hey!" before it happens. This is why it can't be a dead hand when significant action happens after you on the same street.
Ruling I will make in this scenario if it is a first offense:
If the next street has NOT been dealt: Seat 4 loses the right to an aggressive action and may call or fold only.
If the next street has been deal: Seat 4 has a dead hand.
In either cases if the player(s) is(are) (a) repeat offender(s) I will issue a penalty to either the player who keeps acting out of turn or the player who allows action to keep happening and just sits there and watches (equivilant to ettiquette violation penalty).
-
Brian,
I think most of us that replied to this post agree. Convincing me that the blame should fall on a player that was skipped goes against all logic, unless this person has a history of intentionally concealing cards in such a way that others are unaware he is in the hand. Hard for me to believe that the out of turn, other players, and the dealer all fail to notice the bet was made by the wrong player.
The only issue I have is when the dealer prematurely burns and turns before the last player has acted. Now that's a different story. The hand can not be killed but the board card or cards may be altered.
-
An example of a time it should be ruled dead: Player A bets 500, Player B does nothing, Player C calls, Player D calls. Dealer announces "3 players," taps the table, burns and turns the river. Player B now says "I never called" although he had adequate time to correct the action prior to this street being delivered. Dead hand for Player B.
-
I'm in the dead hand camp...well, I should clarify. I like that on a checked round, if substantial action occurs behind, they are held to a check. On a bet round, if substantial action occurs with betting, they have a dead hand provided they had ample time to stop the action. It may seem harsh, but once they are used to it they always speak up! Plus deciding whether to call with a weak hand with 2 players is different that deciding to call with a weak hand with 5 players. They gain info that their position shouldn't get.
-
Tristan,
I respectfully disagree completely. You can not kill a players hand unless he is not in for all bets and the dealer burns and turns the next card. In fact, there are situations of premature dealing that allow the skipped player all options and the premature board card (or flop) is re-dealt. The difference there is the player was skipped by the dealer, not another player. Furthermore, there are rules in place that clearly say the skipped player can not take aggressive action...there is nothing that I know of, that kills the skipped players hand, other than what I've mentioned.
Why has noone addressed the scenario I've mentioned about the last player to act being skipped? Or how about the next to last player being skipped (by the last player behind him), and the dealer burns and turns...then what? Is it still considered substantial action?
-
I agree with Nick. Unless the player is a known angle shooting sob who does this kind of shady things you can not blame him for being skipped and punish him for others' mistake, thus his hand may not be killed.
In my game I (dealer) control the action, I'm 100% in charge of the table every time. This guarantees the proper ruling and etiquette.
-
I'd like to know why the skipped player didn't speak up. I'd be asking "when you saw your neighbor put out chips for a call, why did you not stop the action then?"
Overall, I prefer Brian's explanation and approach. I will lean on the side of not killing the hand, particularly if the action has been quick or there's some other reasonable excuse, and while I'd also lean toward limiting the action to a call/fold, I'm not against the idea of allowing all options depending on the circumstances. The more "action" that has occurred after the skipped player, the better excuse that skipped player will need as to why he didn't defend his right to act, otherwise I will kill the hand.
I also have no problem with killing the player's hand even if the dealer has not burned and turned the next street; in my mind, if the skipped player allowed "a lot" of action without good reason, I will kill the hand. Determining what is a "lot" is part of the job.
K-Lo
-
Ken, Welcome back, and Lado...welcome to the Forum.
Now I'd like to address K-Lo's decision to kill the skipped players hand, before the dealer burns and turns. Before the dealer even burns and turns? ??? Ken I'd also like to ask you when the last time was, that you skipped the proper bettor and acted before him? Why does everyone insist on blaming the skipped player? I don't get it. I'd also like you to tell me when you tell the skipped player, that his hand is dead?
Will anyone address the other scenario that I've mentioned several times with no response... at all? I'm not even going to repeat it. I will tell you this, if I ever play in your casino and you tell me I have a dead hand because a "brain dead" player acts of of turn, and your "equally "brain dead" dealer tells the next player to act, your going to need security to restrain me! >:(
The problem is: you have too many bad dealers, or...you insist on restricting the good ones from doing their job. Player bets OOT...the dealer says: "Hey, the bets not on you...FLOOR" Now you can sort it out just about any way you'd like...except: killing the skipped players hand. I'm done, see you on the next post.
-
Before the dealer even burns and turns? ??? Ken I'd also like to ask you when the last time was, that you skipped the proper bettor and acted before him? Why does everyone insist on blaming the skipped player? I don't get it. I'd also like you to tell me when you tell the skipped player, that his hand is dead?
A B C D E F are in the hand. A bets. B gets skipped. C calls, out of turn.
At this point I agree with you that it is C's fault for acting out of turn. I don't blame B for anything at this point.
D calls. B says nothing. E calls. B says nothing. F calls. B says nothing. Dealer collects the bets. Taps the table.
Now B says "hey you skipped me".
At this point, if B wasn't to be blamed for anything earlier, he certainly must accept some of the blame now. He's allowed 4 people to act behind him. They've all put out chips. B hasn't put out any chips. Maybe he thought he already folded (this happens quite a bit). The problem now is that he has all this extra information and now he's priced in to call, at least in his mind. Unless B has a good excuse as to why he didn't protect his right to act here, I am killing his hand. Like I said, I don't always blame the skipped player, and I don't think substantial action alone is the test of whether the skipped player should be penalized. In fact, I tend to give the skipped player the benefit of the doubt most of the time because I really don't want to be killing hands as a matter of course. However, while he may have started out as blameless, he does not get the benefit of remaining the innocent victim forever.
-
Ken, There's no point in continuing, for me anyway, I disagree.
-
All players have a responsibility to speak up if they see a mistake being made. Apparently, someone did but only after Seat 6 folded. There is an implication that Seat 4 failed to protect his right to act. Yet, the dealer and all other players also failed to meet this responsibility up until this time. Seat 4 should be allowed to act unless he is a known angle shooter, in which case, his hand should be declared dead. However, Seat 4 should be allowed to call or fold only. Then, action should continue with Seat 7.
Nick C said I have always backed up the action to the skipped player unless substantial action occurs...in the event that two or more players have acted after the skipped player, the action proceeds clockwise until it returns to the skipped player and (as Mike stated) can only call the amount and can not raise.
I don't like this variation as the proceeding actions (OOT) would only benefit Seat 4's eventual decision and subsequently penalize those that would be forced to continue the actions OOT. Backing up to Seat 4 first makes it clear as to his fold or call decision without giving him additional information about the remaining players. If a remaining player chooses to raise then Seat 4 should have all options as the action returns to him.
In regard to many of the other scenarios above, I feel it most important to give special emphasis to the fact that it is the responsibility of all players to point out mistakes. If this is not being done then the root cause becomes very important in making a fair decision to alleviate the mistake. If it is an angle shooter then obviously they should pay the penalty. Otherwise, all players should be treated fairly.
-
BillM16:
Perhaps you misunderstood when I said that I prefer to back up the action to a skipped player. Player #1 bets, #2 is skipped, #3 bets...this is when I freeze the action beyond #3 and tell him it's not his bet, and direct the action to the proper bettor. I see no advantage to the skipped player. In this case, the dealer skope up immediately. Isn't that what you agreed to? How can we ever correct this situation if we don't back up the action to the proper bettor as soon as the mistake occurs? Can we never back up the action?
-
I could be wrong, but I think most are missing the point of Substantial Action and Losing Your Right to Act.
People are getting caught up in the fact that all of the action is OOT (I really hate the anagram OOT. It just makes me want to put a P in front of it).
In the original post, the skipped player had ample time to stop the action.
1. There's a raise in front of him
2. Then he's skipped **Why is he skipped? Is he covering his cards?**
3. Then there's a call behind him.
4. Then there's a fold a behind him.
5. Luckily for him only one player folded behind
So first off, this is NOT Substantial Action. TDA Rule 35 is written incorrectly. I argued with the board at length and luckily it's on tape (2011). The point being, that if we as floor people couldn't figure out whether there's been 2 actions involving chips or 3 actions in total, then we have a much bigger problem on our hands. Obviously I didn't read the rule too closely after the debate when it went into print. Glad this topic came up.
INCORRECT
Substantial Action is either: A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).
This is supposed to say:
Substantial Action is: A) any two actions in turn that involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any bet and call or 2 calls or raise and a call in turn); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).
Under the above definition Substantial Action has not occurred behind the skipped player and that is the key as to whether they Lose the Right to Act. If substantial action occurs behind, then the hand is dead (I'm a dead hand camper). If not, then you back up the action as you would with an Out of Turn Raise (OTR - I like that anagram much better :) ) or Out of Turn Bet (OTB) and allow the player to make their action.
In this case, the action should have been backed up and given the skipped player all of his options and holding the player behind to his action IF action has not changed in front of him.
BUT if one more player folds, calls or raises behind here..... DEAD HAND.
-
Just to be clear since this has got my attention. The debate on substantial action was to leave it as is or change it.
Meaning defined as:
R.O.P.E. - Substantial Action is: A) any two actions in turn that involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any bet and call or 2 calls or raise and a call in turn); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).
WSOP - Substantial action is considered: three folds, three checks, two or more calls, a fold and a call, or a bet and or a raise or a call and or a fold.
Chuck Ferry's Rules of Poker - Three or more players have checked or two or more players have called (extremely vague but similar idea)
RRoP and TDA did not define Substantial Action or Significant Action prior to 2011 Summit.
After the Summit TDA adopted Rule 33 (2011) - Substantial Action is defined as either: A) any two actions involving two player each putting chips in the pot (bet, raise or call); or B) any combination of three actions (Check, Bet, Raise, Call or Fold). Which albeit not entirely clear, goes along the same lines as the first two definitions above.
HOW DID IT GET TO A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold) ????????????????????? ???
The other proposed change in 2011 was to have it be clearly defined as Three Actions.
-
Meaning defined as:
R.O.P.E. - Substantial Action is: A) any two actions in turn that involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any bet and call or 2 calls or raise and a call in turn); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).
WSOP - Substantial action is considered: three folds, three checks, two or more calls, a fold and a call, or a bet and or a raise or a call and or a fold.
Chuck Ferry's Rules of Poker - Three or more players have checked or two or more players have called (extremely vague but similar idea)
RRoP and TDA did not define Substantial Action or Significant Action prior to 2011 Summit.
After the Summit TDA adopted Rule 33 (2011) - Substantial Action is defined as either: A) any two actions involving two player each putting chips in the pot (bet, raise or call); or B) any combination of three actions (Check, Bet, Raise, Call or Fold). Which albeit not entirely clear, goes along the same lines as the first two definitions above.
HOW DID IT GET TO A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold) ????????????????????? ???
I was confused by this too. The original premise isn't substantial...
In any case I think we're dealing with the matter of what knowledge is gained by the OOT action. Killing the hand may be harsh but it doesn't change the actions of the OOT bettor based upon the knowledge they had at the time of incident. What I mean is that the OOT person acted as if there was no player there or it was a folded hand. The next person following is making those assumptions as well. If we then back it to the player who was missed he does have some advantage on the hand. If it means he can sneak in and claim the pot due to foreseeable odds then I'm a little uncomfortable with that.
But really... SPEAK UP!
-
I don't know why we are all over the layout on this but I thought I'd bring this over from the same, or at least very related, discussion.
WWW
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #4 on: Today at 06:10:52 AM »
Gentlemen:
In regards to Substantial Action...At the 2011 Summit the rule that was decided was NOT the current rule.
http://www.pokertda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Poker_TDA_Rules_2011_Version_1.0_Handout_docx_redline_changes.pdf
If you go to the TDA Summit 2011 Day 2 you will hear Matt Savage clarify what we decided the day before. There are other treads from way back (2011) that covered this error. As Thomas stated, somewhere between Versions 1 & 2, it got changed. You can listen to Matt on Day 2 about 8:30 into the discussion. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC56txeJd5M
One other note: A fold and a call would only pertain to pre-flop...
« Last Edit: Today at 07:38:21 AM by Nick C » Logged