Author Topic: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet  (Read 4401 times)

badbarrypoker

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« on: June 04, 2014, 07:36:14 PM »
Heads-up on the river, player A cuts out chips in his staging area.  Player B states "call" however Player A had not made any forward motion towards the pot with his chips.  While you don't want to dismiss Player B's potential angling of A, can you bind B to any amount Player A now chooses to bet?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2014, 04:43:18 AM »
Good question. In a no limit game, I'd say it would be tough to make the call stick. Of course, there are other factors to consider. The history of the player might affect your decision. A cautionary warning for sure.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2014, 07:54:17 AM »
This is a good question and perhaps headway can be made on it at the 2015 Summit. Several things can be said with certainty:

1: First and foremost this is very non-standard so Rule 1 applies; the TD must make the fairest decision under the circumstances.

2: Regardless of the decision, B only has himself to blame; player's are solely responsible for their actions. TDs can't guarantee the "right" ruling when a player makes such a wrong action, only that they will follow Rule 1.

3: The TD certainly may bind B to any bet using an interpretation (albeit perhaps a liberal one) of TDA Rule 51 on conditional statements.

However, let's say blinds are 5-10, Player B has 600 and A has a total stack of 800. A has initially cut out a clearly separated stack of 120 when B says call.... will we automatically bind B to committing his entire stack if A then declares all-in? A TD needs latitude in this situation.

4: Definitely subject to warning or penalty.

Great topic for Summit VII, thanks again!
« Last Edit: June 05, 2014, 08:07:08 AM by MikeB »

badbarrypoker

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2014, 08:45:53 PM »
Can you consider chips placed in the staging area at all when determining what amount to hold B liable for if, in fact, you determine B to be bound by his statement.  If this becomes an accepted practice, B may say "I call" when a minor amount of chips are cut out in an effort to bind A to a smaller than intended bet.  
Furthermore, if the amount cut out is considered a determining factor as to the intent of the players, and that amount is added to after the call but before the actual bet, then could that then be construed as a form of changing the action thus releasing B from the OOT statement he made.  
Does B deserve defending here; should he be liable for any amount A chooses to bet; is it an if/then bet; or should we immediately stop the action, clarify the OOT statement is not binding and warn and/or penalize B at the end of the hand?

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2014, 09:46:09 PM »
Again all great questions, would really be nice to get some consensus on this, if possible...

Can you consider chips placed in the staging area at all when determining what amount to hold B liable for if, in fact, you determine B to be bound by his statement.

Personally I wouldn't say you can just consider the amount cut only, but rather the totality of A's actions.... besides the initial stack cut out was there any other gesturing or utterance that might reasonably have led B to believe that was A's bet?

If this becomes an accepted practice, B may say "I call" when a minor amount of chips are cut out in an effort to bind A to a smaller than intended bet.

Right and obviously that's not acceptable.

Furthermore, if the amount cut out is considered a determining factor as to the intent of the players, and that amount is added to after the call but before the actual bet, then could that then be construed as a form of changing the action thus releasing B from the OOT statement he made.  
In this case I don't think it's going that far... either:

A: The TD will bind B to whatever A eventually declares
B: The TD will rule that B had reasonable expectation that the amount staged was A's bet and B thus calls OR
C: B has essentially "called" no bet OOT (similar to calling a check), thus B isn't obligated to call anything because there was no bet at the time he "called".

I don't think we would have another scenario where the amount staged will be declared the prior action and A will have a chance to change it at which time B will be released.


Does B deserve defending here; should he be liable for any amount A chooses to bet (Scenario A above); is it an if/then bet (TDA Rule 51 Conditional statement applies); or should we immediately stop the action, clarify the OOT statement is not binding and warn and/or penalize B at the end of the hand (Scenario C above)...?

There's at least one other tangent issue, that being whether it's fundamentally fair to allow A to have a "fish on the hook here"... i.e. to allow A to totally control B's action at whatever level A chooses, considering of course that B's statement may not be (strictly interpreted), an open-ended conditional offer to call anything. Is that punishment in excess of the crime, and a potential windfall for A beyond what he reasonably "deserves" in this situation.

A great exploration of the subject. This does happen and hopefully we can find some consensus on it.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2014, 12:21:09 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2014, 05:34:13 AM »
badbarrypoker,

 I think you will find that sticking to the fundamentals of the game; Act in Turn, will be the best rule that applies. In your original situation, Player B must wait until it's his turn to act. Period!
Placing chips in a "staging area" is not a complete action. The only controversy I could imagine is if the "staging area" was considered to be too far forward (this is why I prefer a bet line), and thought to be the amount wagered. If that occurs, we would also not allow more chips to be added to the original chips...a string bet.

 Whatever your ruling, player B appears to be the offending player. Act in turn. Intentionally calling, before the proper bettor completes his action, could result in a costly mistake for the impatient Player B.

 Sometimes it's easier to just apply the basics of the game, without getting too technical. ;D Act in Turn !!!!

badbarrypoker

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2014, 10:09:11 PM »
Personally I wouldn't say you can just consider the amount cut only, but rather the totality of A's actions.... besides the initial stack cut out was there any other gesturing or utterance that might reasonably have led B to believe that was A's bet?

either:
A: The TD will bind B to whatever A eventually declares
B: The TD will rule that B had reasonable expectation that the amount staged was A's bet and B thus calls OR
C: B has essentially "called" no bet OOT (similar to calling a check), thus B isn't obligated to call anything because there was no bet at the time he "called".
I don't think we would have another scenario where the amount staged will be declared the prior action and A will have a chance to change it at which time B will be released.

There's at least one other tangent issue, that being whether it's fundamentally fair to allow A to have a "fish on the hook here"... i.e. to allow A to totally control B's action at whatever level A chooses, considering of course that B's statement may not be (strictly interpreted), an open-ended conditional offer to call anything. Is that punishment in excess of the crime, and a potential windfall for A beyond what he reasonably "deserves" in this situation.


Appreciate your thought process on the matter so I will offer up the details-
Yes there was a stacking and possibly a lifting of the cut chips and B obviously jumped the gun on the call.  However, when the TD investigated, A angled that he 'intended to bet more, and B was liable for any amount he bet due to his statement "I call".'  I believe the TD felt A's behavior exceeded B's offensive and released B from his statement. 
The backlash to this led to my query on this thread to determine if there was a cut and dried rule in play (obviously there almost never is in these completely random circumstances that arise) in favor of holding B liable, or is there legitimate cause for the TD to release the call.   
Based on the totality of the circumstances, since A is already admitting that wasn't the intended bet, could you personally apply option (C) ...since there was no bet at the time of the call, B wouldn't be obligated to call anything...or, until further debates are held, would you oblige B to call at least the cut out amount regardless of A's intent to harm B beyond what B reasonably "deserves."
Thx.  Cant ramble on any longer, I have a flight in 7 hours.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2014, 11:57:30 AM »
In this case I don't think it's going that far... either:

A: The TD will bind B to whatever A eventually declares
B: The TD will rule that B had reasonable expectation that the amount staged was A's bet and B thus calls OR
C: B has essentially "called" no bet OOT (similar to calling a check), thus B isn't obligated to call anything because there was no bet at the time he "called".

Good summery.  Any of these can be used, depending on the individual circumstances. 

A great exploration of the subject. This does happen and hopefully we can find some consensus on it.

I've been thinking on this...I'm thinking the best compromise would be using option C for first time offenders (possibly with a penalty), but using A for players that have already been warned.  I like this because it still leaves options A and C available for use in circumstances, but option B is removed.  Not that I don't like option B (in a certain circumstance), it's just that it's the only one that I think *could* be removed as an option.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2014, 10:46:44 AM »


Appreciate your thought process on the matter so I will offer up the details-
Yes there was a stacking and possibly a lifting of the cut chips and B obviously jumped the gun on the call.  

So there is some basis (not perfect) for B thinking A was betting the chips he had cut at that point. And importantly, there is some responsibility (perhaps not entire) on A's part for prompting B's call

However, when the TD investigated, A angled that he 'intended to bet more, and B was liable for any amount he bet due to his statement "I call".'  

Understood... I personally want to keep to a minimum  situations where one player has another completely at his mercy to call whatever bet he makes unless B had clearly used a conditional statement (even then I'm conflicted about it, but at least there's a clear basis in the rules). [/b]

I believe the TD felt A's behavior exceeded B's offensive and released B from his statement.

Personally, I think if the TD believed that A had contributed to B's bet, it seems like the best course is to rule it a bet and call at that poiint. Again, not a perfect ruling but you're not going to have perfection here. The TD may have ruled that way because he felt A's actions were "confusing", therefore B is released and the action is back to A to clarify his action.

[/b]
The backlash
Undoubtedly there's backlash because on the surface some at the table might think "well the guy 'called', he has to be held to that".... but the question for the TD is what amount if any did he call ??[/b]

to this led to my query on this thread to determine if there was a cut and dried rule in play (obviously there almost never is in these completely random circumstances that arise) in favor of holding B liable, or is there legitimate cause for the TD to release the call.

No clearly cut and dried rule at this point, obviously all these are potential remedies, the TD just has to pick what seems fairest given all the circumstances[/b]
    
Based on the totality of the circumstances, since A is already admitting that wasn't the intended bet, could you personally apply option (C) ...since there was no bet at the time of the call, B wouldn't be obligated to call anything...

I don't like going by A's statement after the fact... it's much preferable to try and cobble together what his actions actually were if at all possible; there's a real risk he might be trying to increase his bet now that he thinks he has "a fish on the hook". Of course you can take his statement into account.
[/b]

or, until further debates are held, would you oblige B to call at least the cut out amount regardless of A's intent to harm B beyond what B reasonably "deserves."

The TD can rule anything under Rule 1. I personally don't like this option because it's saying "chips bet OOT must stay in the pot", which isn't the case. TDA language says chips bet IN TURN must stay in the pot.

[/b]
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 10:50:43 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2014, 03:56:20 PM »
Interesting, Mike. I especially like the last line of your response. "The TD can rule anything under Rule 1. I personally don't like this option because it's saying "chips bet OOT must stay in the pot", which isn't the case. TDA language says chips bet IN TURN must stay in the pot."


 Personally, I like the idea of giving Player B his bet back, and tell him to wait his turn. His OOT means nothing. One warning should be enough, after that, penalties should follow. My ruling, using good old #1, would never benefit the OOT player.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2014, 10:43:13 AM »
My ruling, using good old #1, would never benefit the OOT player.

I'll play the devil's advocate here Nick!  Not that I think your ruling is incorrect...just that it can still benefit the OOT player.

Player A starts to cut out what looks to be 100k in the staging area.
Player B immediately says "Call!", before Player A pushes the bet out, hoping to intimidate Player A into betting less.
You back it up to Player A.
Player A reduces the amount that they were going to bet or they check since their action was not complete.
__________________________________________________
Player B (the OOT) benefited from intimidating Player A.

« Last Edit: June 11, 2014, 10:58:24 AM by Tristan »
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2014, 08:28:45 PM »
Tristan,

 Why do you assume Player B benefits? If he has the best hand, the move you described, cost him.

 How about if Player B (OOT) cuts out what appears to be a significant raise in his staging area? Isn't that intimidating, too? The point I'm trying to make is; action out of turn should be meaningless, unless you feel that the offending player's action is deliberate, or he is a repeat offender.

 Allowing any action out of turn, is the quickest way for dealers to lose control of the game. You can not bet out of turn. It is unacceptable.

 I think too many of us try to look at every possible angle for every situation...we can't figure them all.  Let's stick to the basic fundamentals of the game. If you deliberately act out of turn, there will be consequences.

badbarrypoker

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2014, 10:55:42 PM »
At the end of the day, it is safe to say there seems to be no consensus here that B's statement heads-up OOT should be considered an if/then statement binding him to any bet A wishes to make after the statement.  This is what I hoped the outcome would be. 
IMO, A's cut, stack, and lift should be within the TD's discretion to bind B to a call of that amount regardless if A now states he intended to bet more OR a release of B's call since there was no technical bet made... each decision coming with a stern warning. 
ty

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2014, 08:22:06 AM »
At the end of the day, it is safe to say there seems to be no consensus here that B's statement heads-up OOT should be considered an if/then statement binding him to any bet A wishes to make after the statement.  

Personally I agree with that. IMO the conditional statement rule should be applied narrowly to situations where there has been a clear if/then type statement OOT before the current bettor has acted. If B had said "I'll call whatever you bet", then it would be clearly conditional.... But I can assure you there are TDs who would apply it here and we can't say they would be "wrong". It's a grey area type situation.

IMO, A's cut, stack, and lift should be within the TD's discretion to bind B to a call of that amount regardless if A now states he intended to bet more
And again we have a grey area because strictly speaking the TDA follows a "chips released" standard rather than just a "forward motion" standard. The lift would fall into forward motion....

OR a release of B's call since there was no technical bet made... each decision coming with a stern warning.  
ty
That just might be the best general ruling.... no chips released, no bet declared.... so B is "calling" a bet of zero at that point. Here you could apply a slight twist and say that since A has cut out and lifted a clearly defined amount, A has the option to either: 1) go ahead and release that stack into the pot at which point B is locked in to his OOT call OR 2) A may re-consider his bet and take any action he wants, however if he bets a different amount B is released...   This really gives A alot of power because he knows B wants to call the chips cut; if A was bluffing he could just fold here.

Starting to like that solution: of course every such situation won't have a clearly cut "reference" bet you can use in a ruling, but if it does this strikes me as about as equitable as you can get. If there is no reference bet then it's closer to either: 1) B calling zero OOT  OR  2) a call of anything A bets, using the conditional statement rule. It will be interesting to see where the delegates come down on this at Summit VII.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 10:38:24 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: heads up OOT call of undeclared bet
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2015, 04:06:47 PM »
I'd like to add: The TDA currently has a rule that should cover this situation. For some reason we are all looking to the out of turn action. TDA #37 B: Players should wait for clear bet amounts before acting.