Author Topic: Action out of turn (2 checks) on the river, then players tabled their cards  (Read 510 times)

Luca P.

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • Alea Casino Nottingham
Hi all, I had this situation on a PLO tournament.

Player A was watching his cards, then two players acted out of turn, checking both of them. Then they tabled their card, at which point, Player A said he didn't check and the action should be still on him, but the OOT actions happend in few seconds he had not time to declare this.. He hasn't tabled his cards.

I declare his hand dead.

What would you do?
Regards

#EDIT
I now recognize that the hand can be rolled backward to him and he has all the actions available.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 02:43:14 PM by Luca P. »
Card Room Manager

Alea Casino
108 Upper Parliament Street
Nottingham
NG1 6LF
Tel 0115 871 7288

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Luca,

 Yes...your correction is a better solution. This is because two checks does not constitute substantial action, plus the fact that you mentioned the OOT checks occurred in a few seconds. The only way to kill the skipped players hand would be if an unusual amount of time lapsed before the skipped (proper bettor) spoke up to defend his right to act.

Killing the hand was a little harsh...hopefully he didn't have the winner.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Player A was watching his cards, then two players acted out of turn, checking both of them. Then they tabled their card, at which point, Player A said he didn't check and the action should be still on him, but the OOT actions happend in few seconds he had not time to declare this.. He hasn't tabled his cards.

I declare his hand dead.

What would you do?
Hi Luca, thanks for presenting the great case. Here are the salient points I've picked up:
1: 2 players check to Player A's left... that's not substantial action
2: The 2 player's checks were very fast... Player A didn't have reasonable time to act
3: I have no idea why the 2 players turned their cards up... they check fast and turn cards up? why? Perhaps because they wish they didn't have to face a bet?

For me: Player A had no time to act, substantial action hasn't occured, 2 players have made the poor decision to expose their cards... AND they probably knew A hadn't acted...
1: Back the action up to player A... he can bet raise or check.

Thanks for very interesting case.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Mike,

 I'd say we agree on most but I have a difficult time allowing the skipped player an option to bet after seeing his opponents cards. If he were skipped by both players and it was brought to the attention of the dealer before any cards were tabled, then I would back up the action and allow his option to bet or check.

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Unless the dealer made a mistake and asked for hands to be tabled, player A should still have the option to bet. Of course players B & C can grab their cards preventing A from getting a good look, and have the option to raise if A bets.


On a side note, as often as I see this happen, the player with the option hardly ever makes a bet - even if they have a winning hand! I usually comment that it was a great bluffing opportunity: "Hmmm, yeah I can beat that. I bet X..."
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
I have a difficult time allowing the skipped player an option to bet after seeing his opponents cards.
The OP says the 2 players exposed their cards in a few seconds too fast for A to speak up. Why penalize A and not allow him to bet, he didn't do anything wrong. That would be a great angle, if you don't want your opponent to bet, just expose your hand out of turn.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Wow...I finally found a way to get some support for the "skipped" player. It's quite a stretch from trying to kill his hand because he didn't speak up quick enough to stop the out of turn action!

Adam is UTG...Billy Bob and Carly both decide to check OOT. The action shall be backed up to the proper bettor, Adam.  Adam may check or bet (he can not raise). If Adam bets, our current rules allow Billy Bob and Carly every option...call, fold or raise.

 Mike, your example for angle shooting can also be applied here. Let's say that Adam deliberately allows the players to act out of turn only to check and then raise! I guess I'm overthinking this situation...of course Adam can't check raise...there is no bet to raise.

 That's another topic for discussion. Adam is skipped by Billy Bob and Carly, they both table their cards...Adam says: "Hey, it was my turn to act, you both skipped me!" DEALER: "Okay, what do you want to do?" Adam: "I check-raise"...Is that allowed? Of course not. My question should have been if Player's bet out of turn, not check...Sorry for any confusion.

According to the current rules I would say, YES. Think there's a possibility that Adam is angle shooting? Perhaps if the OOT players bet, instead of check.

This is why our rules need some work, in my opinion.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 01:04:54 PM by Nick C »

GreggPath

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
That's another topic for discussion. Adam is skipped by Billy Bob and Carly, they both table their cards...Adam says: "Hey, it was my turn to act, you both skipped me!" DEALER: "Okay, what do you want to do?" Adam: "I check-raise"...Is that allowed?

According to the current rules I would say, YES. Think there's a possibility that Adam is angle shooting?

This is why our rules need some work, in my opinion.

Well, he can't "check-raise" because the action is being backed up to him so he can only bet or check (if he checks, B and C's checks stand... if he bets, all options are open to them). There is no bet to raise. I don't see how Adam can angle shoot in this situation. He is first-to-act. Unless he hid his cards (which is a violation of the rules), he can't force B and C to act out of turn.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Thanks for correcting me, Gregg.

 I'm going a little goofy on this one. What I was trying to establish is a similar situation where Adam is skipped and Billy Bob bets 100 and  Carly calls out of turn...action is backed up to Adam...he must check in order for the OOT action to stand. My question is: Can Adam check raise after the OOT?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 01:06:11 PM by Nick C »

GreggPath

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
Thanks for correcting me, Gregg.

 I'm going a little goofy on this one. What I was trying to establish is a similar situation where Adam is skipped and Billy Bob bets 100 and  Carly calls out of turn...action is backed up to Adam...he must check in order for the OOT action to stand. My question is: Can Adam check raise after the OOT?

Well, it's up to the floor. According to Rule 40-B, the OOT action stands and the floor decides what to do with the skipped hand. I've actually never seen it happen in person so I'm not sure what the floor would normally rule. If B bets 100 and C quickly calls before A announces he was skipped, I'd allow A to call/raise/fold. If A had plenty of time between B's bet and C's call, but didn't say anything (possibly angle-shooting to see what C does first), then I would kill his hand maybe?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Gregg,

 Don't you think killing the hand is a little severe? I would allow him to either call or fold. Anyway, it's a judgement call for sure. I know of some older rule sets that suggest we consider the reputation of the player when making a decision.

 Always puzzling to hear so many instances of skipped players. How does it get that far? The proper bettor says nothing, the dealer says nothing, the other players say nothing and, oh yeah...the OOT bettor also messes up!

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Thanks for correcting me, Gregg.

 I'm going a little goofy on this one. What I was trying to establish is a similar situation where Adam is skipped and Billy Bob bets 100 and  Carly calls out of turn...action is backed up to Adam...he must check in order for the OOT action to stand. My question is: Can Adam check raise after the OOT?
Check raise? Absolutely.

Why punish a player who did nothing wrong and knows the rules?
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

GreggPath

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
Thanks for correcting me, Gregg.

 I'm going a little goofy on this one. What I was trying to establish is a similar situation where Adam is skipped and Billy Bob bets 100 and  Carly calls out of turn...action is backed up to Adam...he must check in order for the OOT action to stand. My question is: Can Adam check raise after the OOT?
Check raise? Absolutely.

Why punish a player who did nothing wrong and knows the rules?

It's just semantics. You can't check-raise when there has been no action (since action has been backed up to the proper player). It would just be a bet.

GreggPath

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
Don't you think killing the hand is a little severe? I would allow him to either call or fold.

I guess it would depend on the whole situation (was there a distraction that caused A not to notice the OOT bets?)... but I would definitely keep my options open in cases of possible angle-shooting.

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Thanks for correcting me, Gregg.

 I'm going a little goofy on this one. What I was trying to establish is a similar situation where Adam is skipped and Billy Bob bets 100 and  Carly calls out of turn...action is backed up to Adam...he must check in order for the OOT action to stand. My question is: Can Adam check raise after the OOT?
Check raise? Absolutely.

Why punish a player who did nothing wrong and knows the rules?

It's just semantics. You can't check-raise when there has been no action (since action has been backed up to the proper player). It would just be a bet.
Semantics? Hardly.

Knowing the rules, Adam checks, which forces the OOT action to stand. Adam then exercises his option to raise.

That, my friend, is called a check-raise.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?