Author Topic: Losing the right to act!  (Read 9012 times)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3176
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Losing the right to act!
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2010, 03:04:06 PM »
 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

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
Re: Losing the right to act!
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2010, 03:32:52 PM »
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 Murray
The Nuts Poker League
South Scotland &
National Tournament Director

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3176
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Losing the right to act!
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2010, 03:57:14 PM »
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

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Losing the right to act!
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2010, 08:55:19 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 11:09:33 AM by MikeB »

Martin L. Waller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
Re: Losing the right to act!
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2010, 10:24:01 AM »
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

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3176
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Losing the right to act!
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2010, 11:22:32 AM »
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

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Losing the right to act!
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2010, 09:12:40 PM »
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.

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: Losing the right to act!
« Reply #22 on: May 07, 2010, 03:48:23 AM »
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?)

 ;)

 
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 04:08:52 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3176
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Losing the right to act!
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2010, 06:09:44 AM »
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
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 07:46:30 PM by Nick C »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: Losing the right to act!
« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2010, 08:04:43 AM »
Thank you Nick: now it's clear!

I might have been confused in some of the answers (sorry for my english).

GG