Verbal all-in Out-of-turn

[Martin L. Waller]

Help me out with this one.

In a Hold’em tournament, before the cards are dealt the big blind says he is all-in and pushes his chips out. The cards are dealt. The action is fold, fold, all-in over the big blinds chip stack, another all-in more than the big blinds but less than the second all-in.

When action returns to the big blind, he looks at his cards and asks the dealer if he can pull his chips back. The Floor comes over and tells him that the action has changed with the all-in call so he was allowed to bring back his chips except for the big blind.

He was then given a 10 hand penalty for acting out of turn.

The people I talk to are split between “verbal is binding” and “action changed” I don’t really see a problem with either call. But, only one can be right. Which one?

[chet]

Interesting martin, interesting!!  Oh what the television has wrought upon us!

Just to stimulate the discussion, here is my initial thought.  The BB acted out of turn, so the question is has the action to him changed?

I am of the opinion that since he announced he was all-in prior to the deal there is nothing any following players can do that would be 'action changing' to him.  TDA rule #29 (last sentence) says, "A check, call or fold is not considered action changing."

The floor said, "...the action has changed with the all-in call", which is incorrect IMHO.  I would hold him to the all-in and the cards fall where they may.  A 10 hand penalty for acting out of turn is pretty much nothing, his only chip loss is the Small Blind.

All this said, I believe one has to take into account the experience level of the player.  If this person is a total newbie and has no clue about tournament poker, I can understand the floor's decision, so I might be inclined to invoke TDA Rule #1.  On the other hand, if this player 'knows the ropes', I would be much less understanding and make the all-in stand.  I have no room for angle shooters.

Now lets see what others have to say.

[Nick C]

Martin,
 I have to agree with Chet when he said that he might be inclined to invokeTDA rule #1. There are so many rules violated here that, it would be rediculous to list them all #43 Ethical #44 Etiquette. Let's start with the last player to act on the first betting round (the BB) a.) acting first.....b.) raising with no bet in front of him......c.) going all-in etc,etc. I will first tell you that there is no way he retracts even one chip in my card room. His action of going all-in, probably caused players to fold. If we look at TDA Rule #29 you will see that it was intended for a player that acted out of turn by mistake, only to realize that there were one or more players that he skipped. If the action is backed-up to the proper player and the action does not change, the out of turn bettor could be held to his action. In this case, it is intentional and it is out of turn. A clear and deliberate violation.
 I also like the reference that chet makes when he talks about the experience of the player. When a player is a seasoned player, we have to assume he is compitent enough to understand that he can not go all-in in that position. The dealer, or any player, should have called the floor, or objected before the first card came off the deck.
 It might be difficult at times, to know the intentions of a player. It has been my experience, unless it is a "newbie," that the same players take these "shots" too often. I would hate to be a player eliminated by that guy in a later round. Bad call, at least that's the way I see it.

Nick C

[MikeB]

In a Hold’em tournament, before the cards are dealt the big blind says he is all-in and pushes his chips out. The cards are dealt. The action is fold, fold, all-in over the big blinds chip stack, another all-in more than the big blinds but less than the second all-in.When action returns to the big blind, he looks at his cards and asks the dealer if he can pull his chips back. The Floor comes over and tells him that the action has changed with the all-in call so he was allowed to bring back his chips except for the big blind. He was then given a 10 hand penalty for acting out of turn.  The people I talk to are split between “verbal is binding” and “action changed” I don’t really see a problem with either call. But, only one can be right. Which one?

I don't see how the action could have changed to the BB because it appears from your description he is the rightful first actor in this round. Is the SB still in the hand ? It doesn't appear so, because in that case the dealer would have stopped the action right when the BB pushed his chips out and told him he was out of turn and the action would be backed up to the SB. Because this didn't happen I presume either the SB folded or checked the action in the dark to the BB who then jumped out ahead of the deal and went all-in himself in the dark. Any action AFTER the BB does not "change the action" for the purpose of allowing him to retracxt his bet. The only player who can change it is a rightful actor BEFORE the BB who was skipped over. But that doesn't seem to be the case here unless something is missing in the original post. This sounds for all the world like a bet in the dark by the BB either after the SB had checked in the dark (because the action wasn't backed up to the SB), or the SB is out of the hand and this point, again because action wasn't backed up to the SB, it just kept going around the table as though the SB wasn't there or had somehow checked.... So, long story short, I don't think he should have been allowed to pull his bet back in this situation. Further, lets say for example that the BB had just blurted out an all-in before whatever round this is. He has skipped over the SB. At the point where the BB declares all in there is no acxtion by the SB. So if when the cards are dealt the SB checks, then the BB bet is binding because a check by the SB would not change the action. If the SB does initiate a bet in his rightful first action, then THAT would be action-changing to the BB. Again, that doesn't seem to be the case here.

[Stuart Murray]

Given that this is pre-flop two situations can occur for the BB to retract his all-in statement, Before the cards are dealt he can retract his chips and then if the action changes to him.  The BB is the last person to act pre-flop so therfore all other players will have to act on their hands before his out of turn action.

The TDA rule is VERY specific : A Check, call or fold is not action changing, therefore a 'full' raise upto an all-in by a player does change the action to the BB and he may re-tract his statement and re-consider his actions.

had the other players merely called the big blind forced bet (eg 100/200) he would have no other choice but to continue with his all-in out of turn wager, but by the other two players changing the action by going all-iin themselves, this has released him from his actions.

Given the information you have given IMO the TD was correct in releasing him and then issuing a penalty.

Best Regards
Stuart

[Martin L. Waller]

See why this is such a question?
Chet, this wasn’t TV it was at The Beau this month. He was an experienced player, no newbie, he was also intoxicated.
Mike, the SB issue doesn’t enter into this since it was all pre-flop.
Now I have three opinions that the action should stand and one that the Floor was right.
Personally I would still go with action stands.
First of all his all-in pre-deal affected the players behind him.
The player that went all-in after the BB didn’t change the BB’s action since he couldn’t raise, he had no more chips.
Since the BB affected the action of the entire table and he couldn’t be raised his verbal should have been binding.
I was told that this joker ended up wining the tournament.

[Stuart Murray]

Martin,

The ruling can be governed by rule #1, but along with killing hands that has went out the window now, TDA TD's should not involve themselves too much in the outcome of a particular hand, but rather focus on the Best interests of the game as a whole.

By the book his bet does not stand, but then between the lines, we can take a different approach.

TDA Rule 29 below

29.   Verbal Declarations / Acting in Turn Verbal declarations in turn are binding.  Players are required to act in turn.  Action out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed.  A check, call or fold is not considered action changing.

Regards
Stuart

[Martin L. Waller]

Stuart,
when an all-in is raised the action to the all-in doesn't change because he can't call the raise any way.
Wouldn't a raise to an all-in be the same as a call to him?
That wouldn't constatute a change to his action.
Just a thought.
Martin

[chet]

Given that this is pre-flop two situations can occur for the BB to retract his all-in statement, Before the cards are dealt he can retract his chips and then if the action changes to him.  The BB is the last person to act pre-flop so therfore all other players will have to act on their hands before his out of turn action.

The TDA rule is VERY specific : A Check, call or fold is not action changing, therefore a 'full' raise upto an all-in by a player does change the action to the BB and he may re-tract his statement and re-consider his actions.

had the other players merely called the big blind forced bet (eg 100/200) he would have no other choice but to continue with his all-in out of turn wager, but by the other two players changing the action by going all-iin themselves, this has released him from his actions.

Given the information you have given IMO the TD was correct in releasing him and then issuing a penalty.

Best Regards
Stuart

Stuart:  So are you saying that the players starting with UTG would have to either Call (only the amount of the BB) or Fold around to the BB in order for his angle shot at going all in out of turn to be binding?  I think that is asking a lot of technical expertise from those players.  If you take a table full of experienced Pro's, I wonder what they would say.  My opinion is that since the BB said he is 'all-in' prior to the deal, any subsequent action, regardless of whether it is a Call of his All-In amount, a Raise or a larger All-In, is effectively only a call since those actions cannot have any affect on what portion of the pot he is eligible for, hence the action has not changed..  Any Raise or All-In subsequent to the BB creates a side pot in which he does not participate. 

Now had the BB said "Raise" pre-deal and not "All-In" (hence he/she has chips remaining), and a subsequent player re-raised or gone "All-In" for a larger amount, then I would tend to agree that the action had changed and the BB player would have to put more of his/her chips at risk.  In this case I can better understand the decision of the floor.  I just don't agree that he should be able to get off 'scott-free'.

Martin: My comment about the television was not meant to imply the event was on TV.  It is just a comment in general about how player behavior has changed since the onslaught of TV poker.

Chet

[Nick C]

Martin,
 I have to agree with you, as I stated on my earlier reply. I really think that some of our decisions are based too much on technicalities. Stuart, I agree with most of your input, but this one is not what Rule #29 is directed to. IMO, there is no way that rediculous bet can be allowed initially. It has no bearing whatsoever on the SB. The intent of the (intoxicated) offender was deliberate and violates poker etiquette, is highly unethical and clearly covered by Rule #29 on both counts; Verbal and Out of turn. How can anyone even consider letting this "clown" retract his bet?

That's my call.
Nick C

[Stuart Murray]

Chet, Martin & Nick,

I wholehartedly agree that the player should not get away with this action but 'by the book' his announcment is not binding as the action has changed TDA and RROP are quite specific about the subject, whilst I agree that it is not ideal that players have to be aware that the all-in announcement is only binding if the action has not changed but that is the way it has been written.

RROP states this which is untimately the same as the TDA rule 29 on the subject:

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.

Interesting I came in memory of a write up on the Hendon Mob Website with input from some of the 'greats' - bear in mind this series in particular was some time ago before a lot of the rule improvements were made.

You are the Tournament Director Series 2: When is Verbal Action Valid?

During the 2005 Monte Carlo Millions it was approaching the end of the day and Achilleas Kallakis had just lost a big pot. As the dealer started to shuffle he announced that he was going to go all in whatever saying, ‘When it gets to me I am all in whatever happens’. He still had quite a decent stack by the way.

He said it again as the dealer finished shuffling,
Again after the cut,
Again after the first card had been dealt,
Again after everyone had one card and finally just after the last card had been dealt. What are his options when the action gets to him?
In any event it passed to him, he moved all in and everyone behind him passed.

Danny
When he said his statment after the last card was dealt I would call it as action out of turn and ask him to place his all in bet out in front of him. At the end of the hand I would caution him that if he acts out of turn again I would give him a time penalty.

Thomas
If he says: “All-in” when the deal was finished, he has to go All-in if no other player raises in front of him.

Matt
I would make it clear to him that it is bad etiquette to do this but if the action had not changed to him when it was his turn I would make him go all-in.

Roy
He has to go all in. As soon as he has made the declaration. The minute the first card is in his hand and he makes a declaration he's all-in it's binding.

Luke
His verbal statement only counts after the last player has received his full hand, everything that went before is ignored as the hand had not been completely dealt. He is now bound to go all in (declaring out of turn), he should be cautioned about acting out of turn deliberately and may be penalised for doing so.

Mel
After the last card was dealt (not before) and he says “all in” it is binding.

Mob Verdict

All our Tournament Directors agree with the exception of Roy that the all in declaration in valid as ‘out of turn’ action as soon as the last card has been dealt. We think that between Luke and Matt we have it covered. The only thing that Luke misses out is if the action changes before it gets to him then he can change his action. If a player raises before him then he doesn’t have to go all in as action has changed whereas if all players acting before him have only folded or called then his all in stands.

http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director2/when_is_verbal_action_valid


The information you get from this, the TDA and RROP is a check, call or fold before the player means he has to complete, a raise and the announcement can be retracted.  
I don't like it much either but thats poker rules, and that's why they are there - for the best interests of the game.

I would give DSQ / Round Penalties where necessary but I will not make that player go all-in if the action has changed to him.  I would also consider removing him from the tourney anyway because he is intoxicated.  In fact, TBA he should not of been allowed to play in the first instance!

Best Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

Stuart,

  The situations that you describe are different than the original posting by Martin. In addition to his verbal, he pushed his chips out. I still have to blame the dealer for continuing the hand before calling the floor. That's what I would have done. Nice debate.

Nick C

[Stuart Murray]

Indeed Nick, very good situation once again,

Whether physical or verbal it is the same however IMO, it is still action out of turn.  I agree Nick, that the dealer should have been in better control of the situation.

Best Regards
Stu

[Martin L. Waller]

Nick, OK, let’s try this, in this situation the dealer should have at least notified the BB that his action was out of turn and had him pull his chips back.

The dealer may have also notified the Floor to support his call and in turn allow the Floor to give the BB a warning.

Since the dealer was negligent then the problem escalated to where it was. By the time the Floor was called the action had been allowed to continue and change to where the BB could retrieve his chips. Is that about right?

I’ll go for that.

Thanks everyone.

[Nick C]

Martin,
 
 I would have to say no. The player knew what he was doing when he went all-in. It was with intent and deliberate. In my card room he has to leave the chips in the pot. Period! I think that sometimes we look a little to close to the technical side of these rules, and we forget what they were initially written for. I gave a brief example of what I would have done if I were dealing that hand. I could take it a step further; My example would have been something like this. "Sir, your raise is out of turn and if you deliberatly insist on pushing your chips, they must stay in the pot." I repeat, that inciident that you described breaks rules of etiquette and ethics, before the verbal and out of turn. I keep repeating my feelings on many of these rulings, because I believe that they were intended for accidental actions; skipping an intervening player because you didn't know he was still in the hand or you thought it was your turn to act and it wasn't. Beyond that, the action would have to be deliberate and intentional so the offender should be punished to the fullest extent.

That's how I see it.