Author Topic: Verbal declaration Out of Turn  (Read 3314 times)

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
    • The R.O.P.E.
Verbal declaration Out of Turn
« on: June 08, 2015, 01:08:53 PM »
So this happened yesterday in Razz.

Two players heads up on 4th street.

First player to act does nothing. Second player to act makes a verbal declaration, "I call if you bet". Secondarily after his verbal declaration he puts in chips to call.

Floor is called.

What would you rule and why.

There are 2 WSOP rules that cover this situation, #90 and #89. I don't see any specific TDA rule that covers the topic. I think it needs to be addressed. Rule #37 covers Action in Turn and Verbal declarations but not Out of Turn. Nor does rule #38 cover verbal actions Out of Turn.

@wsopmcgee on Twitter

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Verbal declaration Out of Turn
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2015, 06:39:24 PM »
So this happened yesterday in Razz.

Two players heads up on 4th street.

First player to act does nothing. Second player to act makes a verbal declaration, "I call if you bet". Secondarily after his verbal declaration he puts in chips to call.

Floor is called.

What would you rule and why.

There are 2 WSOP rules that cover this situation, #90 and #89. I don't see any specific TDA rule that covers the topic. I think it needs to be addressed. Rule #37 covers Action in Turn and Verbal declarations but not Out of Turn. Nor does rule #38 cover verbal actions Out of Turn.

Thomas: Very nice catch on 37. I'd say the intent where "verbal declaration" is mentioned is to apply to all betting action, verbal or silent chips. i.e. probably should read: "Players must act in turn. Bets in turn are binding and must stay in the pot" The original intent of singling out "verbal declaration" I believe was referencing blanket declarations such as "Call" and "Raise" as binding to full action.

Rule 38 applies to all betting action out of turn, and Rule 51 may be applicable here re: conditional statements.

The example has alot of non-standard action. As I read it, player 2 makes a conditional statement followed by an out-of-turn bet by push of chips. The out of turn bet is unquestionable, he's bound to it if the action to him isn't changed. The main question is whether you would bind the conditional statement here or not under rule 51. If you would, then Player 2 is limited to a call if Player 1 bets. So the options here under current rules seem to be:

Back up the action to Player 1:
If player 1 bets, Player 2 is released from his out-of-turn bet, but may still be locked into a call at TDs discretion using Rule 51.
If player 1 checks, Player 2 is definitely locked into his out of turn bet by Rule 38.

Definitely a warning against this type of betting.

Lastly, your example also involves the question of whether out of turn action heads-up should be binding. Some interesting viewpoints on this are likely come up at the Summit.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 06:13:10 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: Verbal declaration Out of Turn
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2015, 08:07:28 PM »
Mike,
 I'd really appreciate it if you would clarify "action changing" to the proper bettor, after the out of turn. i.e. Player A is skipped, Player B bets 500...If the action were backed up, and Player A bet 500 (the same as the OOT) Is Player B obligated to 500? Or, after the out of turn, must Player A check to allow the OOT to stand? If it is the later, can Player A check raise?

 I know how I would rule, and I'll explain in a minute. First, I'd like to say that TDA #'s 50 & 51 are too weak. Folding without facing a bet is one of the worst actions any poker player should ever make. It offers no protection to other players in multi-way hands, and raises suspicion of collusion or chip dumping with any number of players.

 The way I see rules 50 & 51, they can both be replaced by #1.

 Nearly 5 years ago I suggested that action OOT be treated the same as action in turn...Players need to wait their turn, it's simple. For all the talk of poker being a game of observation, it seems to me, there are too many rules that contradict the simplest rules of the game. In TDA #51 saying conditional statements are "strongly discouraged" and "may" be binding and subject to penalty at the "TD's discretion"....means what?

 To answer Thomas McGee's original question...The out of turn bettor can not retract his bet and is even subjected to a raise. We can't allow a deliberate out of turn the option to retract anything. They don't like my rule, next time they'll wait their turn. There are too many devious players that stay awake at night, just trying to figure out ways to screw a lesser experienced player...let's see if we can discourage them, instead of giving them new ideas. ::)

« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 05:51:13 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Verbal declaration Out of Turn
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2015, 06:23:08 AM »
Mike,
 I'd really appreciate it if you would clarify "action changing" to the proper bettor, after the out of turn. i.e. Player A is skipped, Player B bets 500...If the action were backed up, and Player A bet 500 (the same as the OOT) Is Player B obligated to 500? Or, after the out of turn, must Player A check to allow the OOT to stand? If it is the later, can Player A check raise?
Rule 38 clarifies what is action changing. Under current Rule 38 he technically does have to check. He is able to check-raise, yes.

I know how I would rule, and I'll explain in a minute. First, I'd like to say that TDA #'s 50 & 51 are too weak. Folding without facing a bet is one of the worst actions any poker player should ever make. It offers no protection to other players in multi-way hands, and raises suspicion of collusion or chip dumping with any number of players.

 The way I see rules 50 & 51, they can both be replaced by #1.

Rule 51 incorporates Rule 1: it specifically says "at TDs discretion", which is Rule 1. But it goes further than that and says Conditional Statements are strongly discouraged and subject to penalty. How is that weak?

Rule 50 makes non-standard folds binding: you want that at TDs discretion (Rule 1) rather than a blanket rule that all folds are binding?


 Nearly 5 years ago I suggested that action OOT be treated the same as action in turn...Players need to wait their turn, it's simple. For all the talk of poker being a game of observation, it seems to me, there are too many rules that contradict the simplest rules of the game. In TDA #51 saying conditional statements are "strongly discouraged" and "may" be binding and subject to penalty at the "TD's discretion"....means what?
  It means what it says: conditional statements can be very confusing: "I'll do this if you do that, otherwise, blah blah". The rule means: 1) such statements are strongly discouraged; 2) they are subject to penalty; and 3) will be interpreted as the TD sees fit, which is Rule 1 TDs discretion which is what you say you want.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Verbal declaration Out of Turn
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2015, 06:44:59 AM »
Mike, Thanks for taking your valuable time to respond to my questions. I do appreciate it.

 I finally understand what "action changing means !"  :D So...when a player is skipped, if there were a bet that preceded him (the skipped player), when the OOT acts, he (the OOT) is locked in as long as the skipped player bets the amount he was facing. In the event there is no bet, (in front of the skipped player), when action is backed up to him, he must check to make the OOT amount binding. That's clear, thanks. I still don't like that the OOT can retract his bet.

 Now as far as 50 & 51, what you wrote only confirms what I said. Both rules are vague (in my opinion) and are governed by Rule #1.

 One other important topic: Backing up the action is rarely talked about. This is the first time in a long time that we've discussed it. In the situations when a player is skipped, is it true that action can only be backed up, as long as substantial action has not occurred? i.e. Skipped player followed by 3 actions or 2 at least one with chips.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 06:51:23 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Verbal declaration Out of Turn
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2015, 07:22:17 AM »
I finally understand what "action changing means !"  :D So...when a player is skipped, if there were a bet that preceded him (the skipped player), when the OOT acts, he (the OOT) is locked in as long as the skipped player bets the amount he was facing. In the event there is no bet, (in front of the skipped player), when action is backed up to him, he must check to make the OOT amount binding. That's clear, thanks. I still don't like that the OOT can retract his bet.
There are arguments for it and against it as there are for all out-of-turn schemes. There are also arguments that the out of turn action "limits" the actor, etc. But at this point, that is Rule 38.

Now as far as 50 & 51, what you wrote only confirms what I said. Both rules are vague (in my opinion) and are governed by Rule #1.
Well they would be even more vague if you just say "See Rule 1 if a conditional statement is made" or "See rule 1 if a player folds out of turn". Rule 50 makes it clear those folds are binding (nothing vague there) and Rule 51 makes it clear conditional statements are strongly discouraged and subject to penalty. It's impossible to write a conditional statement rule that covers every possible conditional declaration, that's why it has to be at TDs discretion.

One other important topic: Backing up the action is rarely talked about. In the situations when a player is skipped, is it true that action can only be backed up, as long as substantial action has not occurred? i.e. Skipped player followed by 3 actions or 2 at least one with chips.
Definitely true, that's what Rule 38-B covers: Substantial Action out of Turn.

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Verbal declaration Out of Turn
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2015, 07:53:44 AM »
Mike summed this up really nicely in his first response.  Conditional statements are unlikely to go away anytime soon and having a specific rule for them - even if it does closely relate to Rule #1 - I feel is a necessity.  It's these kinds of things that people are looking for when they read our rules.  While we don't want to be overly verbose and we definitely can't write a rule for absolutely everything conditional statements happen often enough to garner the need for a specific rule.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: Verbal declaration Out of Turn
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2015, 10:43:39 AM »
Please see proposed change to TDA #38A http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1155.0