PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Guillaume Gleize on May 04, 2010, 06:23:40 AM
-
Hello,
This famous sentence from the RRoP (to "lose the right to act" if 3 players acted after you before you act) seems to be still dividing the american TDs!
Exemple:
5 players at the turn - pot of 2500 (each one allready bet 500 in the middle)
Player A bet 1000
Player B (with the nuts) is forgotten by player C
Player C folds
Player D call 1000
Player E raise 4000
Player B stops the action, ask for the floor and claim for his right to play!
On the forums: most will say his hand his DEAD (!) ... come on: BE SINCERE: WILL YOU REALLY DO THAT DURING A BIG SHOW? OK: he should have react quicker ... but the other players are also responsable for not knowing who is in the hand ... (?!) ... both didn't pay enought attention !
Some will only let him fold or call (obvious call here) but what about his rights when the turn to bet comes back to him ? ... BECAUSE HE WILL CERTAINLY RERAISE THE 4000 RAISE TO (let say) 15000 !!!
My solution: I NEVER KILL A HAND in this situation (I think Bob Ciaffone never mean "dead hand" with "lose the right to act") ... BUT I FORBID THE PLAYER TO ACT (change the situation: open bet or raise) DURING ALL THE BETTING ROUND IN QUESTION!
That is in this exemple: I only allow player B to FOLD or CALL the intitial bet (1000) and to only FOLD or CALL ALL THE FOLLOWING BETS in this round (he only can fold or call the raise of 4000 or any other reraise in this round).
PS1: in the next betting round (the river): he will be free again.
PS2: if caught in the same situation again later: he will be penalized
Why I apply the rule this way? Because it seems to me to be "in the best interest of the game":
1- I don't want to choose to kill a hand or not depending on the "feeling of angling or not" from a dealer or floor manager.
2- With this method the following players are really not disadvantaged (or so few but remember they also forgot a player in the hand)!
Waiting for your precious advises ... with best regards,
GG
-
Hi,
yeh I agree IMO RROP was never designed to kill the hand in the situation. Loosing your right to act does not mean your hand is dead - it means you cannot change the action, so you can only call or fold any bet.
Once the betting round is complete the player IS released from this 'bind' so yes, he has all options available to him on the next round of betting. I WOULD issue a penalty if the same player misses his turn or fails to call time, as he must protect his right to act in turn, I would also issue a warning to the player on this occasion if I felt he had failed to pay attention, but I would never kill his hand.
Regards
Stu
-
Hello Stuart,
Thanks for this quick answer!
So in this case ... and admitting Player B (obviously) choosed to call the initial 1000: do you agree like me to FORBID HIM TO RERAISE THE RAISE OF 4000 (remember he has the nuts)?
If YES: you will be a precious allies to me to fight all thoses "everything or nothing" who will either KILL his hand or COMPLETLY FREE HIM after the initial obliged call of the 1000 (and let him reraise the 4000)!
;)
-
Ok so now you have got me thinking!
Robert's Rules:
11. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. A player who has called out of turn may not change his wager to a raise on the next turn to act. 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.
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. 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. Therefore, if you wait for someone whose turn comes before you, and three or more players act behind you, this still does not hinder your right to act.
So he has lost his right to act in the situation, I have always said that he looses his rights during the round of betting, so IMO the raise after him although action changing has not lifted his rights again so I would say he can only call the raise to 4000, as this raise has already occurred before he called time, yeh the more I think about this the more I say he is bound during the whole round of betting so he can only keep calling or fold.
I am however not certain, what would happen if for example he called time, called the 500 and then additional player still to act raised then to 4000 total, this would be action changing after he had called time and I am not sure if this would release him to act freely, I would say probably not but I am not sure! Hopefully someone else will chime in with the required technical knowledge on this issue!
Stu
-
This hand is never dead.... unless it's a repeated situation. Agreed he can't change the action. The next street is an entirely new situation and he has all options open to him. If D re raises I would allow him any actions....
-
Thanks for the input Jan,
interesting you say you would free C if D raises, does this include this case where he called time after E had raised?
Stu
-
I am lost now who is ABCD but I would only allow him to non aggressively react to actions that are made before he says something. I think I was inferring that I'd allow him to RR if a player acting after his call RR'd....
-
ah yeh that's what I was looking for
for example a player raises to 4000 and then he calls time you would only allow passive action, but if the player calls time, calls the bet and then a player to act raises you would allow aggressive action?
my original post was that I would keep it passive but I was not sure:
I am however not certain, what would happen if for example he called time, called the 500 and then additional player still to act raised then to 4000 total, this would be action changing after he had called time and I am not sure if this would release him to act freely, I would say probably not but I am not sure! Hopefully someone else will chime in with the required technical knowledge on this issue!
Thanks
Stu
-
I think it boils down to his timing of calling attention to his missed action, was it preventable, did he gain knowledge, etc. Whatever action he knew was going to occur, I would not now give him the chance to check raise that.... however, if he calls this raise he knows is coming and another player reopens the betting to the entire table, IMO it would include him now and all of his options would be open.
-
Sweet yeh, I agree with your reasoning Jan, seems perfectly acceptable to go down that line.
Cheers
Stu
-
I got it: let's make it clear:
6 players at the turn for ex:
Player A bets 1000
Player B is forgotten
Player C folds
Player D calls 1000
Player E raises 4000
---> then Player B stops the action before Player F act ...
Player F waits for the floor decision ...
For me (as says the rules) Player B must be punished to have reacted too late (3 players acted after him): SO NOW HE CAN'T CHANGE THE SITUATION ANYMORE ON EVERYTHING ALLREADY DONE BEFORE HE REACTED (here he can only fold or call the 1000 to only call the 4000 when it's back to him) ... BUT IF SOMEONE RAISE AFTER HIS DECISION (for exemple Player F reraise at 15000) ... THEN THE PLAYER B IS ABSOLUTELELY FREE AGAIN ON THE 3 OPTIONS (for exemple he can reraise to 40000!)!
It sound to me the most fair: let's punish Player B on his PAST ERROR and protect the other players ... but we can't punish him ON THE FUTUR ACTIONS! Let's explain the situation clearly to all the players and let them know that if they raise AGAIN in the actual betting round ... they will END the penalty and FREE the "guilty" player!
GG
-
yeh, he would need to call the 1,000 then wait for it to come back to him on the 4,000, which he would only be able to call. If player F now raises after this we are of the view that this would free him to take aggressive action again, but it would be determined by the situation.
It would really be a rule #1 in the situation whether you released that player to take aggressive action again. But on the 1,000 and 4,000 he is bound to passive action only as this all occurred before he called time. I believe you could bind him regardless throughout the betting round if you deemed his inaction grave enough, for example if people were pushing all-in behind him and then someone pushed all-in again this would be more serious, and would require some kind of considerable penalty after the hand was finished as 'heavy' action has occurred before he has called time.
Stu
-
Thanks for your advices. For sure I desesperatly tried to establish an unique rule in (another) spot where only the human manager will decide ... !
Let's say my conclusion was the "general" line ... but I would definitively kill the hand of a player letting a full table reraise ans re-reraise each-others bets before calling for time to call everybody with the nuts ...
;)
So if not 3 players ... let's write "Hand dead if 4 players act after him" ... or more ? ... 5? 6? 7? ...
(JOOOKE: some rules can't be written black on white. That's why we managers get our salaries: to make the decision!)
-
Guillaume,
In my eyes and I think it is now the consensus with the TDA his hand would never be dead, even if it was a 10 handed with a family pot, he was in the big blind and didn't call time until after the button had acted, he would not have a dead hand, the killing of hands by a TD is no longer in the best interests of the game unless there is serious reason to kill the hand. Round penalties etc are now more favourable.
Regards
Stuart
-
I agree.
My first conclusion (and "general line") was writen before. "Killing the hand" was the ultimate exemple against a rare and extreme situation ... but to be true I would better have chosen any other penalty but coudn't have really killed it.
Best regards.
GG
-
I'm not sure I understand the exact situation. Why was Player B skipped? If the dealer bypassed him and went to player C then I think the dealer has to assume some responsibility. I always thought that substantial action was defined as three people checking or two people betting after the missed player. The only way that player B would have a dead hand is if the betting round was completed and the dealer burned and turned the river card before Player B called the required amount from the last betting round. The dealer and the players all have a responsibility to stop the action when a player is skipped, or any irregularity is noticed. If player B intentionally let the action go by him, of course he should be reprimanded and he certainly could not raise. The ideal situation would have Player B bring it to the attention of the table as soon as Player C acted out of turn. Then the action could be backed up to the proper player and the hand should play-out with no problem. I really need to know why the player was skipped, because in my estimation this is exactly why this rule was written, to protect players in the game from being taken advantage of by any deceptive play. I would also like to add that if the action were backed-up to the proper player (player B calls the $1000) before Player E acts, (after C folds and D called). Would that be considered action changing to player D? I think it is and because of it he could retract his premature $1000 call. I guess my question is; Do the rule-makers consider only the dollar amount or the intervening players bet only when they raise?, or the fact that a player (in this case Player B) Calls the $1000. Can D retract his bet because player B called?
Maybe I can simplify my question without rambling on.
If the proper intervening player calls (changing the number of players in the hand) is that considered action changing? or does that only apply if he raises? Example; John bets $1000, Fred is skipped, Sally folds and Jason calls $1000. The action is corrected to the proper player (Fred), What options are open to Jason?
I hope this isn't too confusing.
Nick C
-
Hi Nick, nice to hear from you!
took a bit of reading but not confusing!
B missed his turn to act, and for some reason C acted (perhaps not realising B was still in the hand) and then confounded the issue by not calling time before 3 more people had acted. Therefore B has lost his right to action on his hand - which could be described as no longer being able to take aggressive action (Call, Fold or Check Behind)
Backing up the action to B who can only call $1000 then wait for it to go back round facing $4000 does not change the action to E so his raise to $4000 must stand, and D's call of $1000 must also - in this situation they are not acting out of turn as player B has lost his rights.
I would add that the turn card being prematurely dealt would not cause player B to have a dead hand - that is not the best interests of the game, it would be treated as a premature board card as normal (as he has not put the required call portion of any bet faced in the card cannot stand.)
So: the action goes back to Fred, he can either call or fold, he calls and it now goes to Jason +1, as Jason's action is complete. The number of players in the hand has not been changed at any time apart from the voluntary fold of Sally.
Action changing is when the total bet has legally changed via a full raise not the pot size or player number. Action only is when a player calls or raises all-in for less than a full raise.
I hope this helps!
Stu
-
Stuart, It's good to hear from you, too.
I would not consider the action of the dealer burning and turning a card as premature. The exception I think would be if all players checked. In a situation where the proper player was skipped (for whatever reason), and three or more players have called all bets on that round, the skipped player is holding a dead hand once the dealer burns and turns. It is not premature. Obviously the players don't even know he is in the hand.
That's the way I see it. Thanks for your feedback.
Nick C
-
I got it: let's make it clear:
6 players at the turn for ex: Player A bets 1000; Player B is forgotten; Player C folds; Player D calls 1000; Player E raises 4000; ---> then Player B stops the action before Player F act ...; Player F waits for the floor decision ...
For me (as says the rules) Player B must be punished to have reacted too late (3 players acted after him): SO NOW HE CAN'T CHANGE THE SITUATION ANYMORE ON EVERYTHING ALLREADY DONE BEFORE HE REACTED (here he can only fold or call the 1000 to only call the 4000 when it's back to him) ... BUT IF SOMEONE RAISE AFTER HIS DECISION (for exemple Player F reraise at 15000) ... THEN THE PLAYER B IS ABSOLUTELELY FREE AGAIN ON THE 3 OPTIONS (for exemple he can reraise to 40000!)!
It sound to me the most fair: let's punish Player B on his PAST ERROR and protect the other players ... but we can't punish him ON THE FUTUR ACTIONS! Let's explain the situation clearly to all the players and let them know that if they raise AGAIN in the actual betting round ... they will END the penalty and FREE the "guilty" player!
GG
GG: What I find a bit difficult here is the idea that through D, when we back up, B can do anything. Then all of a sudden we have E acting and not only can B now only call the original action, but now he can only call the subsequent raise. What's the magic about the 3rd player ? But then to further complicate it, if a 4th or 5th player re-raises, then he can raise them. This sounds like a potential management problem at the least... arbitrary and difficult to enforce (or even remember) in practice.
Backing up to Roberts Rules, keep in mind that his Rule 3-12 states "...Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you MAY cause you to lose the right to act..." Note the word "May". I interpret this as an option the TD may invoke. With less than 3, we absolutely back it up, and if the skipped player changes the action, then that releases everyone else who's already acted to his left. The purpose of the limit at 3, IMO, is to avoid a "cascade of releases". B changes it so C. D, E, F, can all reconsider what they've done... That turns out to be more disruptive than just locking in B to merely calling or folding to the original action to him. In other words, it's less messy and arguably gives us more integrity to the game. But I'm not that persuaded that B should also lose his right to respond to any RAISE of the acxtion to his left, once it comes back to him. He could certainly do so if only two had acted, but now since we have the 3rd actor suddenly he can't, the argument just isn't that strong... and remember Robert's wording "may" lose his right. I still think that pertains to his initial right to act on the initial action that had skipped him, not new action when it comes fully back around the table. In this situation I prefer holding him to the call of a 1,000 initially, but once it comes back to him, if it's raised I'd let him re-raise it here. I definitely agree the rule language on this could use revisiting... Perhaps this is a topic for the next TDA Summit, thanks for bringing it up.
-
Guillaume,
You surely have us talking on this one.
Nick, maybe I deal too much but I have to wonder not only where Player B’s attention was but where was the dealer? I know this stuff happens but the dealer has to be the one that knows what is going on and it shouldn’t have gotten to the third player.
The action should have gone back to Player B and if he calls Player D‘s call stands. When the action gets back to Player B he should be able to raise. There is no “change of action” in this.
Some of you mention that Player B had the nuts and the amounts of the bets and raises. These can not enter into our decisions. First, we wouldn’t know he had the winning hand and second, bet amounts shouldn’t cloud our judgment.
As far as a penalty, we don’t know if this was intentional or just sloppy. There can not be a penalty unless it is reoccurring.
Next time let’s invite The Coach for better clarification of his rules.
Good luck,
Martin
-
I want to pass this along to everyone. I have found that the rules used in Las Vegas back in the late 70's and 80's (the Las vegas Hilton Rule Book) set the standards for RRoP and any other rules that followed. I will submit this portion exactly as written (only a small portion).
A 13. ACTION OUT OF TURN
A player has a right to act on his hand, and an obligation to notify the other players that he has not yet acted when the
betting action bypasses him. Therefore, the following rules apply when the betting action bypasses a player who has
not yet acted:
a.) IF SUBSTANTIAL ACTION TAKES PLACE BEHIND A PLAYER WHOSE TURN HAS COME TO ACT AND HAS NOT YET ACTED, THE ACTIONS STAND.
THE PLAYER MUST CHECK IF THERE HAS NOT BEEN A BET TO HIM, AND MAY ONLY CALL OR FOLD IF THERE WAS A BET TO HIM.
"SUBSTANTIAL ACTION" MEANS EITHER THREE PLAYERS ACTING, OR TWO PLAYERS ACTING BY PUTTING MONEY IN THE POT. THE DEALER
COUNTS AS A PERSON IF HE HAS CONDONED THE ACTION, AND IS CONSIDERED HAVING ACTED IF HE HAS DEALT THE BURNCARD OFF THE
DECK OR PUSHED THE ACTION PAST THE PROPER PLAYER.
b.) IF SUBSTANTIAL ACTION HAS TAKEN PLACE AFTER A PLAYER WHO HAS NOT YET ACTED, AND THE DEALER DEALS ANY CARDS FOR THE NEXT
ROUND, THE PLAYER WHO HAS NOT CALLED ALL BETS HAS A DEAD HAND
There is more, but I think this covers our topic for today. I have used the LVH POKER RULE BOOK as the bible of poker rules from the first time I saw it.
If some of my decisions don't sound right or outdated, maybe they are because I used the LVH rules forever. For your information Robert Ciaffone (author Roberts Rules of Poker) has done extensive work on rules for the Las Vegas Hilton back in the day.
I hope this explains why I feel that three people acting after the skipped player is too many to back up the action. Consider the part about the dealer counting as one of the players. That means when Player A bets, and B is skipped, and C acts and D is directed to act by the dealer, it's already substantial action.
Thought I would share this with you.
Nick C
-
Ditto on the The LVH Book of Poker Rules... I still have a dog-eared copy from GBS in 1989. Last I checked it was out of print but is still as useful today as ever.
-
First thanks everybody to try to give me a clear explanation here.
I'm ready to follow you ... but sorry I really think it's unfair and not logical in my exemple to let player B RERAISE the 4000 of player E when it's back to him: TOO EASY FOR HIM! That means if the "forgotten" player has the chance to have the pot been raised (and not only called) after him (and before he react and call for the time & floor):
THE PENALTY IS CANCELLED AND HE WILL BE FREE TO RAISE AGAIN ??? ... WOW ... Some angle playing possible there I think ... IMAO!
Once again: I'm very respectuous of your experience and advices and I WILL FOLLOW THEM if the majority of you tell me so ... BUT SO SADLY :-[ ... Because I used to love my interpretation of the rule to ONLY free the guilty player B if someone raise AFTER his reaction (call of the time & floor) and decision (to call the 1000 and stay in the hand)!
Come on ... I pay you a drink at the bar ... and let's speak about it again!
Please Stuart: come back to help me convince them (you pay half the bottle?)
;)
-
Guillaume,
I don't know why you are having a problem with this issue. I read over your initial question and I think you had it right. Somewhere along the way you are getting confused. If you go back to your reply #10 your example; using six players. Consider this; when Player B is skipped and two players act after him (three if you count the dealer) Player B can only CALL or FOLD, it's too late for him to raise no matter what happens.
Player A bets 1000
B skipped
C folds
D calls 1000
THE NEXT PLAYER IS WHERE IT BECOMES TOO LATE TO CORRECT THE ACTION, SO;
E raises to 4000 (this is another issue, did he raise up to 4000 or 4000 more?) Your response indicates that the total is 4000.
F raises to 8000 total
G calls
H raises to 45000 total
Now we are back to B. He can FOLD or CALL the 45000 ONLY....HE CAN NOT RAISE>
If the skipped player were noticed before substantial action took place (Before E acted) then the action would be backed-up to Player B. This would open all options to Player B when the betting returns to him on that round. In other words after H raised to 45000, Player B could fold, call or RAISE.
I hope this explains the situation properly.
I also want to explain how Player B's hand would be ruled dead; If the betting round were completed, and it wasn't noticed that B was skipped and the dealer burned and placed the river card on the table (remember all of the other players that were in the hand put 45000 in the pot except Player B who put nothing in the pot) Player B's hand is DEAD !
If the action is backed-up in time, everything is fine. If three players act after the skipped player, he can only call or fold. That's it! Simple, isn't it.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the hot topic.
Nick C
-
Thank you Nick: now it's clear!
I might have been confused in some of the answers (sorry for my english).
GG