Out of turn betting examples

[W0lfster]

Ok, now I understand this topic has been covered quite a lot in this forum but I am still not satisfied. That is why I am going to put examples on instead to really clear things up. Although OOT betting can be confusing for lots of people in particular depending on the house you play.

So to settle things lets just stick to the TDA ways of handling these examples.

NL Holdem Tournament.

1. Flop is dealt SB first to act bets, UTG thinks its his go and calls OOT. Action goes immediately back to the BB who just calls the SB's bet.
Now I know that the BB just called which is not action changing which means the UTG cannot take his bet back. However can if the BB was to bet or raise.
What would happen if the BB underraised all in? Can the UTG take his bet back and reconsider his action, is this action binding?

2. Same situation flop is dealt and this time the player left of the UTG not paying attention thinks its his go and bets. The player left of him also not paying attention then raises behind him. Can the player left of the UTG take his bet back even though the player has raised behind him?
The Action is halted after the OOT raise and it is immediately back to the SB's turn. What are the actions of the SB? Can they bet any amount at this point, raise the OOT raise or are they binded to only calling the OOT raise?

I Hope Ive made myself clear on this one phew!

[DCJ001]

You said:
1. Flop is dealt SB first to act bets, UTG thinks its his go and calls OOT. Action goes immediately back to the BB who just calls the SB's bet...
However can if the BB was to bet or raise.

If, after the flop, the small blind bets, the big blind does not have the option to "bet," as you said. After the flop, after a player bets, the next player can call, raise, or fold. I am not answering your hypothetical. I am merely clarifying  the possible actions.

I recommend, before you ask any questions, that you look through all of the rules, and see which ones apply to your situation. Asking questions and getting answers will not be a solution for you. Because, in the future, there will be a situation that you may not have heard of. Then what? In the future, if you ask real world questions, I recommend that you post your answers that have come from your research and thought process. If you are handed the answers, you probably will not learn.

If you hand a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But, if you teach a man how to fish, you'll feed him for a lifetime.

Andy, you need real world practice. Your understanding of the game is limited. I am not trying to be critical of you or insult you. But, sometimes, your questions remind me of a three-year-old asking his father how a car works.

Well, you turn the key, that starts the engine, you step on the gas, and you go.

But what makes the engine work?

Gasoline.

But what makes the wheels turn?

The steering wheel.

But how does it do it?

And on, and on, and on.

[MikeB]

1: In situation 1, as the rules now read, IMO if the BB raises anything, including an under-raise, it is action changing and therefore the UTG could reconsider his bet.

2: In situation 2, with 2 OOT actors, when the action is backed up to the SB, IMO he can take any action he wants: check or bet or fold. If he checks or folds then the action isn't changed to the 2 OOT actors and they are bound by their action.  If he bets then he changes the action and they are released.

NOW, what about 3 OOT actors? RRoP Section 3 > Betting & Raising > Rule 12 is the most often-cited rule pertaining to this. IMO it needs to be revisited to clarify what is meant by "lose the right to act". Is that a dead hand to the SB or merely lost the right to take aggressive action? Personally I support the idea that it's losing the right to take aggressive action (i.e. initiate a bet or raise), not that the hand is dead.... but regardless this is an issue that may come up at the June TDA Summit and perhaps we can have a standard for when substantial action has occured in OOT betting situations.

[W0lfster]

Listen to yourself DCJ, you are being critical and you know what, theres nothign wrong in asking lots of questions this is what this forum is for. Just be glad that there is someone in this forum who raises lots of questions that even you cant answer, I really dont need a lecture what I can or cant post on here. The fact people find it sometimes difficult to answer my questions I wouldve thought it would make everyone more intrigued but it seems for some people that I should not post here anymore and Im wasting my time. Well Im sorry that I am keen to learn, if you have nothing nice to say and you do not attempt to answer my question fully then why post? Please you must see my line of reasoning. I never see Stuart, Mike B or Nick go down to your level so please jjust respect my posts and treat them as a learning tool for everyone else not to be criticised as an invalid post.

[W0lfster]

Thanks Mike, glad there are people willing to help me. I dont need you to patronise me either DCJ, I am a full time degree student. Anyway Mike, on the second example, if the SB checks or folds you say that the action is not changing therefore the OOT raise stands. If that is so does that mean if the SB checks then the BB cant check? If he can can the UTG also?

[Nick C]

Andy,
 I guess your question needed to be asked because my answer would be different on your second question. IMO, the SB (skipped) could only call the out of turn raise because substantial action has taken place (two bettors). I don't think the SB should have an option to check. I also interpret "loosing the right to act" means that the hand is not dead but can only fold or call.
 Allowing the OOT bettor (UTG) to retract, or release him of his action, does not comply with the intent of the rule (IMO). There is no way that I would release him from his action. His only option would be to call, raise, or surrender his OOT bet. He was the guilty party (initial), he induced the second OOT bettor to act prematurely, so why would he be allowed to take back his bet?.... How could the action be backed up to the proper bettor, with any option? The way I understand it, he may fold, or call. Period.
 I can agree with Mike on this one when he says that this is an issue for the June Summit.

[MikeB]

Thanks Mike, glad there are people willing to help me. I dont need you to patronise me either DCJ, I am a full time degree student. Anyway Mike, on the second example, if the SB checks or folds you say that the action is not changing therefore the OOT raise stands. If that is so does that mean if the SB checks then the BB cant check? If he can can the UTG also?

 I'm sorry, I forgot there's a BB in there too...

Okay... in example 2 BOTH the SB and the BB were skipped when the UTG led out, right ?  SO.... first, absolutely the SB can check when it's backed up to him, there's no reason to "call" the raise because at this point the raise isn't a valid bet, nor is the UTG's bet...

SO... the SB can do anything he wants: check or bet, he's the first rightful bettor post flop. Next it's to the skipped BB. Ditto, he can do whatever he wants, check or bet (or call or raise or fold if the SB makes a bet). IMO if either the SB or the BB bet anything they change the action to the OOT's and the OOT's are released from their obligation.  

This raises an interesting sidebar question: what if the SB or the BB bet exactly what the UTG's original OOT bet was? Clearly this changes the action to the UTG and he is released but let's say he just smooth calls OR he folds... does that mean the UTG+1 is locked into his raise because theoretically he's facing the same bet amount the UTG originally made? Well I've never faced this specific question in the real world. I can make an argument both ways, my initial reaction is they are both released b/c the UTG's OOT bet is not a legitimate bet at the time the UTG+1 made the raise, and the UTG+1 had some grounds for "relying" on the validity of the UTG's bet whereas the UTG had no basis for jumping out of line. I find it a bit of skewed fairness to then release the UTG but bind the UTG+1 if the SB or BB bets the amount of the UTG's original OOT bet and then the UTG just calls or folds. But a good case can be made for binding the UTG+1 here as well, fortunately this is mostly theory I've never seen it in the real world.

[W0lfster]

I see your point Nick, I agree they should be binded by their action for not paying attention but Mike B has stated the official TDA rule for this situation which is unfortunately more Universal. I dont like it but it is by the book in most circumstances. Mike, I understand it is a very rare thing to see but Im sure it does happen on occasions and this is where the TDA summit really needs to address this exact example. So are you saying Mike, there is no real right or wrong answer to the UTG +1 example? I ask this because I know its something which hasnt been addressed and needs to be made more concrete.

Thank you for your replies guys, this'll really help me for being a croupier.

[MikeB]

Wolf: No, I think there's absolutely an answer to the 2nd situation EXCEPT in the very rare situation where the SB or BB would initiate a bet in exactly the size that the OOT  UTG originally did...

The problem with providing detailed "what if" rules for every possible permutation is that we can end up writing rules for situations that almost never happen. Personally I'm usually comfortable with leaving these outlier situations to Rule 1.  This all said, if you're not there, I'll definitely try to get you a consensus opinion at the Summit on this, it is an interesting theoretical situation.

[W0lfster]

Thank you Mike! That would be much appreciated.

[W0lfster]

BTW Mike, just one more example I think to settle.

I had a chat with someone down my local pub about this and I wasnt sure about this situation:

Flop is dealt and the BB bets 100 out of turn blinds are 25/50 NL

action is back on the SB and bets 75, one of the players down the pub told me that this is now an under raise for the BB and therefore the BB must make it up to 150 but cannot raise.

Is this true or can he/she take their 100 back and reconsider whether to call the 75 or minraise to 150 or more or all in?

[MikeB]

As the rules now stand I would say that when the action changes to the OOT bettor, the OOT can reconsider his bet. He can call the new action, raise it, or fold.

In this specific example, we're at 25/50 and the SB opens the betting for 75.  This changes the action to the OOT BB so the BB can re-consider. Per TDA rules, any raise must be at least the size of the largest bet or raise for this betting round. Right now that is 75.  the options for the BB at this point are: call the 75 raise it 75 (or more) to a total of 150 (or more), or fold.

BTW, if I could mention some of the reasoning behind the way the OOT rules are crafted. Think of it this way: when the OOT realizes he's OOT, and the bet's going to be backed up, everyone at the table is (probably) going to get some read off the guy based on his reaction. Plus you're obviously going to get a read from him just based on his OOT bet!

SO, when it's backed up to me (the rightful bettor), I already have these free reads on this guy, reads I'm honestly not "entitled" to but I got courtesy of his inattention. NOW, not only that, but I can lock this guy into this action by checking, and if my hand is super-strong then I can check-raise it when it comes back to me and maybe I've picked up some callers along the way. OR I can lead out in which case this guy is released, but I still get the free reads. What I don't get, if I decide to change the action is improved pot odds.... I get the exact pot odds I would have gotten without the OOT, except I now have the free reads on the guy.

If we were to say, okay, the OOT must leave his bet in there, now all of a sudden there's more money in the pot and I'm getting better pot odds on my bet....  How much benefit is the rightful bettor entitled to ??  I don't think we hear enough about this aspect of it, about the benefits that accrue to the rightful bettor when the action is backed up, we mostly hear about how bad the OOT bettor is and how he should be punished/held to his bet etc... but that gives alot of benefits to the rightful bettor and we need to remember that also.

[W0lfster]

So are you saying Mike, that the OOT bettor cant just leave their OOT chips there if the 100 bet stands as an underaise 50 to a total of 150? Therefore the player has to take back their chips yes?

The 75 in turn bet by the SB is a legal bet therefore 100 must be an under raise.

I get the pot odds bit and everything and I agree with you to some extent, but I still see it as an offence to the rules and they should be punished in one way or another for a possible penalty for continous offences.

If the OOT bettor was to check and the SB checked too the OOT player is skipped to the player on the OOT better's left?

[MikeB]

Wolf: Once the SB changes the action to the OOT by making it 75, the BB's original OOT bet of 100 has NO MEANING. It's not a bet, it's not an underraise, it's not anything... the BB can fully reconsider it.

Upon reconsideration, the BB has 3 options: call the 75, raise it at least 75 to 150 total or more  or fold.