POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Discussion of Rules by Specific Game Types
Verbal "all in" bet out of turn
officer_obe:
This gets a little confusing and I will try my best to explain everything that went down at our weekly game. We were down to two players in this particular hand with betting pre–flop and after the flop. Immediately after the turn card Player 2 calls “all in” out of turn. Player 2 apologizes and Player 1 says “that’s okay I call”. The hand is played out and Player 2 wins the hand.
Now the discussion started…
A group of people stated that by Player 2 calling “all in” out of turn there is technically no bet. By Player 1 saying that’s okay I call, Player 1 is calling a non bet because there was no bet. Because of this Player 2 should only receive the winnings up to and including the flop betting as there was “no action” after the flop.
Another group states that Player’s 2 “all in” is a verbal bet whether in turn or not and Player 2 wins the entire hand.
The discussion went round and round and basically sat upon the “all in” bet. Is the bet, out of turn, a binding bet? If the bet is non-binding than the statement from Player 1 “That’s okay I’ll call” is a non-binding call.
If the “all in” bet out of turn is binding, what stops a player from using this as a strategic tactic to use all the time?
We all agree the intention of Player 1 was to call an “all in” bet, that is not in question here. What is in question are the technical “rules” and what needs to be done in future games if this issue repeats itself.
Thank you
Officer_obe
chet:
Officer _obe: Welcome first of all. Now to your question.
In my opinion, the TDA Rule we are talking about is Rule 35, "Action out of Turn", which reads as follows, "Action out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call or fold does not change action. If action changes, the out of turn bet is not binding and is returned to the out of turn player who has all options including calling, raising, or folding. An out of turn fold is binding.
Based on my interpretation, I believe that one could construe Player 1's statement of "that's okay I call" to be a bet equal to the size of Player 2's chip stack. Based on the above TDA Rule, the action now proceeds to Player 2 who can fold or call. Obviously, Player 2 chose to call.
Granted in most cases verbal statements are binding. However, under TDA Rule 34, a verbal statement is binding ONLY IF MADE IN TURN. Therefore, in this case it is NOT binding.
Now in a more perfect world, it would have been better if Player 1's statement of "that's okay, I call" had been clarified by the dealer to ensure he was in fact making a bet of sufficient size to put Player 2 "all-in". But as it is, I see nothing wrong with the way this ended up.
Chet
officer_obe:
Chet,
Thank you for your quick response though I'm more confused now than before...
Your 1st paragraph states the action out of turn is binding unless the action changes and Player one takes the hand.
Your 2nd Paragraph says Players 1 statement "that's okay I call" to be a bet (action) and the action goes back to player 2. If this is the case we have a problem as Player 2 didn't say anything. The action was player 2 went "all in" out of turn and when player 1 said "okay I call" cards were laid down face up and the hands were played out with player 2 winning the hand. There was no response from player 2 when player 1 said "that's okay I call"
Your 3rd paragraph talks about TDA rule 34, a verbal statement is binding ONLY IF MADE IN TURN. Therefor, in this case it is NOT binding.
I apologize for taking more time than is probably warranted and our club is a little confused.
Thank you for your help.
Officer_obe
chet:
Officer _obe: Now you are providing more information upon which to base a decision. Your original post did not say what Player 2 did (if anything) following the statement by Player 1. In my opinion, the lack of action by Player 2 following the Player 1 statement can be interpreted to be call of the in-turn action by Player 1. It does not appear that Player 2 took ANY action to reverse the hand playing out. He/She did not object to the hand being played out (or action continuing), so I can make the case that there was an implied call.
There are a number of things here that should have been clarified by the dealer, first, the meaning of the statement by Player 1 and second, the lack of any statement by Player 2. It is the dealers responsibility to ensure that players act in order and that their action/intentions are clear and unambiguous, obviously that did not happen in this case.
This is a good case for making someone the TD in your weekly game. This can rotate around, if you choose, and I don't have any real objection to the "TD for the night" being allowed to play (but that brings up another whole set if potential issues).
I don't think there are any particular "rules" that can be applied to this situation. If there was a clear and concise set of rules that covered each and every situation, we wouldn't need TD's and the rule book would be hundreds, if not thousands, of pages long.
Chet
officer_obe:
Chet,
Thank you for taking the time to explain the rules and implications concerning our situation. I can't tell you how gratifying it is to ask a question and get such a quick reply. Really, THANK YOU !
Officer_obe
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version