Author Topic: Checking out of turn, then raising  (Read 5355 times)

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Checking out of turn, then raising
« on: July 27, 2012, 09:36:33 AM »
Hi all:

A quick poll regarding actions out of turn.  

Note the current TDA Rule:

35: Action Out of Turn
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.


I recently came across a situation where in heads-up play after the flop, the player on the button checked out of turn, and when the action went back to the first player who bet out, the button then attempted to raise.  I did not allow him to raise (nor did I permit him to fold because he had committed himself at least to call IMO), so basically he had to call.  This has always been the standard ruling for me (and I think many other TDs), primarily relying on Robert's Rules:

Quote
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.

1. [In Tournaments] Whenever possible, all rules are the same as those that apply to live games.

Most of the earlier threads are consistent with this, although I did come across one thread where some members suggested that applying the current TDA Rule 35 strictly would mean that ALL options would be open to the player who initially checked out of turn.  The Rule is a bit confusing though because the third sentence does explicitly say "out of turn BET", so there is some ambiguity here if the rule was intended to apply to all out-of-turn actions, such as a check.

Notwithstanding the fact that I have been ruling in a manner consistent with RROP, like, forever, I do think that the principle behind the RROP provision is sound. I would like to suggest that the TDA rule be amended to clarify what happens when the out-of-turn action is not a bet (or raise), but is instead a passive action like check (or call).

Thoughts?

« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 09:37:48 AM by K-Lo »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2012, 12:34:00 PM »
K:
I vaguely recall that the topic of whether there should be limitations imposed on what the OOT actor can do when action is backed up and the rightful player acts was brought up at the 2011 Summit and it didn't get any traction (i.e. it was left that all options would be open for the OOT actor if action changed), but I'm not quite 100% on this memory, will dig through the records...

It certainly is worthy of re-consideration at the next Summit.

As for the idea that the OOT actor can neither raise nor fold, and must call whatever the rightful player bets, I have a problem with this giving just too much control to the rightful actor. As it stands the rightful actor can lock in the OOT actor by not changing the action. Do we then want to extend to the rightful actor the incredible privledge of getting a guaranteed call to whatever he bets?  Update: In re-reading your post I see this isn't exactly the example... in your example the OOT guy attempts to re-raise and he's held to a call.... again, even in this variation the rightful player can bet with some impunity, knowing he can't be re-raised, it's just giving a very unusual amount of control to the rightful actor who already has plenty of control just being able to lock the OOT guy into his action by not changing the action. Food for thought... OOT action is always discussed at the Summit so undoubtedly it will be again.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 12:38:05 PM by MikeB »

diz475

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2012, 12:50:56 PM »
i would like to see something along the lines of, once heads up all out of turn action is binding.

if you want to give up your positional advantage so be it

i think the current rules are to protect someone from a player hiding cards or something but when heads up no excuse for acting out of turn.

i also belive in a multi way pot all options open is becouse a player in the hand i didnt see (because his cards cant be seen) changes the situation

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2012, 01:03:38 PM »
Quote
In re-reading your post I see this isn't exactly the example... in your example the OOT guy attempts to re-raise and he's held to a call.... again, even in this variation the rightful player can bet with some impunity, knowing he can't be re-raised, it's just giving a very unusual amount of control to the rightful actor who already has plenty of control just being able to lock the OOT guy into his action by not changing the action.

I see your point, although I don't have too much sympathy for the player who attempts to take control of the action from the button by feigning weakness by checking out of turn, and then surprise! comes in with a raise.  The "call only" scenario only arises when the check-er attempts to re-raise.  

I raise the issue only because the third sentence in the TDA rule currently explicitly says out-of-turn "bet", rather than an out of turn action in general.  I could live with amending the TDA rule to clarify that it applies to any OOT action, not just a bet, but I think people should be aware that this directly contradicts RROP.  I'd rather see that we remain consistent with RROP.

Then of course, there is the related issue about an out-of-turn "call", when the OOT actor is not even facing a bet.  I think we had a thread where we discussed this, and whether you would interpret this statement as "whatever you bet, I will call".  Is that binding?  Technically, a bet is "action-changing" but is it really the case when the OOT action assumes there is going to be a bet?

Probably good just to clarify the rule for each type of OOT action.

Quote
i would like to see something along the lines of, once heads up all out of turn action is binding.

I could get on board with this change, but it makes the most sense when the OOT action is an aggressive action, like a bet or raise.  My point is what about an action like a check?  It can't really be binding if someone then bets in turn, and check is no longer an option.  That's where I think RROP still must come into play.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2012, 03:16:51 PM »
K: I checked the 2011 Summit powerpoints. The day 2 powerpoint on pages 8 through 12 raises 8+ questions / clarifications on the issue of OOT Action. Page 11, item 7 most directly discusses your topic of interest by posing this question to the membership:

7: Should OOT Action Set Action Limit: Rule 29 [in the 2009 TDA Rules ] releases an OOT player & allows them to take any action if action to them changes. Should they be limited to only acting “up to their OOT declaration”? Example 1: Checked to Player A & B Bets 3k OOT. Back up to A who bets 1k, changing the action. Should B be limited to only raising up to 3k, calling, or folding, but not raising more than 3k? Example 2: Checked to Player A & B checks OOT. Back up to A who bets 1k. Should Player B be limited to a call or fold because he checked OOT?

From memory, several things happened here. First I don't recall much groundswell of interest in imposing these limits, but perhaps more importantly I recall that the wording of the then-current WSOP Rule language was presented as a clarifying framework for new TDA language. In the 2011 WSOP rules the language of Rule 83 read:

"Verbal declarations in turn regarding wagers are binding. Players must act in turn at all times. 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. If a player acts out of turn and the action changes, the person who acted out of turn may change their action by calling, raising or folding and may have their chips returned. Players may not intentionally act out of turn to influence play before them. Violators will receive a penalty in accordance with Rule No. 96."   This is essentially the same language of the current WSOP 2012 Rule 88...

You can see from the WSOP language that strictly interpreted the language refers to all action, not just betting by the OOT actor. Again, from memory I recall that the TDA membership in attendance liked the cliarification in the WSOP language which specifically spelled out that chips of an OOT bet can be returned if the action changes when it's backed up. This specific language about returning bet chips was not included in the 2009 TDA Rule 29: "Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Players are required to act in turn. Action out of turn is binding if the action to the player has not changed. A check, call or fold is not considered action changing."  So the WSOP language was an important part of the lineage of the current 2011 TDA rule 35 b/c it spells out in unmistakable detail that all options are open including return of all bet chips.  

Note also in TDA 35 that an out of turn caller is not held to a subsequent call if action changes (he "has all options including calling, raising, or folding"). I take from this that it also applies to the out of turn checker (which the WSOP language explicitly does, b/c it refers only to "acts out of turn", which would include checking). Why would we allow an OOT caller to subsequently raise but not an OOT checker?

Your point that this is in contrast to RROP is well noted.  The RROP was part of the inspiration for having this clarification on the Agenda of the 2011 Summit in the first place.  One consideration that must be included is manageability. It is just simply easier to have a blanket policy that if action changes the OOT actor is released and can take any action. Once we start imposing limitations we have more ruling variables to take into consideration and importantly more room to get it wrong...  Leaving it that if action changes the player is released is very black and white: either action changes or it doesn't. If we decide that the OOT player needs limitations then we have to parse whether he checked, called, bet, or raised, and if so how much, etc... as the limitations may be different in every case.

As to your concern that an unethical player might use an OOT check as a ruse to invite an in-turn bet, note the WSOP language specifically prohibits this.

Undoubtedly this will all be brought up again at the next Summit. At the least it seems some clarification that the TDA language does include OOT checkers as well as bettors / raisers should be considered as well as including specific penalty language for OOT abusers. THanks for the post.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 11:47:00 PM by MikeB »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2012, 04:16:47 PM »
Thanks, Mike.  Either the RROP or WSOP way is fine, I think, as long as we get some certainty. Hopefully people will agree one way or another.

Note also in TDA 35 that an out of turn caller is not held to a subsequent call if action changes (he "has all options including calling, raising, or folding"). I take from this that it also applies to the out of turn checker (which the WSOP language explicitly does, b/c it refers only to "acts out of turn", which would include checking). Why would we allow an OOT caller to subsequently raise but not an OOT checker?

I guess my point was a subtle one...

Example.  If action is three-way:  A bets, it is B's turn, but C calls OOT.   If B raises, then all options are open to C.  Standard ruling, applying TDA 35.

But what if it goes like this:  A checks, it is B's turn, but C announces "call" OOT.  If B bets here, can C fold here?  The subtlety here is that the OOT "call" is not a call of any bet in particular --  No bet has yet been made.  So any bet by B here is going to be considered "action-changing" that would give C all options back... or is it action changing?   Should C be held to call anything that B bets here?  I think I recall Matt saying at one point that he would make C's "call" binding (but I could be wrong) presumably because the call assumes a bet is going to be made and therefore nothing has actually changed when the bet is actually made - I think we had also discussed whether the "call" is essentially a conditional statement "If you bet here, I will call" that could be enforced based on the new conditional statements rule.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 04:19:56 PM by K-Lo »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2012, 06:22:38 PM »
Mike & K-Lo,

 I'm trying to follow all of the different scenarios that you have discussed. I do recall conversation at the Summit that mentioned backing up the bet to the proper player before substantial action takes place. I was never in favor of giving any option to the out of turn player. The OOT is the offender in these situations. I don't know which category you'd put me in but, I'm in favor of holding them responsible for their OOT. If they bet less than the proper bet in front of them (after it's backed-up), they may call, raise, or surrender their OOT bet.

 There are far too many different situations to cover, so I will try to express how I feel with 1 example: Player A checks, Player B is skipped, Player C bets OOT, (if the action is not corrected immediately substantial action will occur). Once Player D reacts, it is too late to back-up the bet (I think). Now what do we do?

 Looking at the example: Player A did nothing wrong. Player B did nothing wrong, and Player D reacted to the action in front of him, so he did nothing wrong. The only guilty party was Player C...I would not be in favor of allowing him any slack at all. He should be locked-in to his action.

 As always, my feelings are even stronger against an intentional out of turn. So there you have it, another rule I'd like changed.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2012, 11:33:12 PM »

But what if it goes like this:  A checks, it is B's turn, but C announces "call" OOT.  If B bets here, can C fold here?  The subtlety here is that the OOT "call" is not a call of any bet in particular --  No bet has yet been made.  So any bet by B here is going to be considered "action-changing" that would give C all options back... or is it action changing?   Should C be held to call anything that B bets here?  

Another way to look at it is to ask what B's bet would be if A checked and B said "call".  My instinct here is to call that a cutesy way of "calling the check" (i.e. calling a bet of zero). If I thought it was unintentional I'd just give a quick admonishment to use proper language. If I thought it was intentional it would be at least one strike towards a possible penalty.  But in either case my preferred ruling is it's a check by B in turn.  My second preferred ruling is that it's a min bet.  I suppose that for those who feel "I call" must indicate a bet of a definite amount then if that's the rule then it would seem appropriate to ask Player B to either declare an amount or push an amount forward in a single motion...  The key is: I think the way you would rule on a "call" to a check in turn should affect how you would rule on "call" to a check OOT.

So then the question is why would it be any different bet OOT? If I'm prone to rule it a check in-turn then I'd most likely rule it a check OOT also... with the add-on that a penalty is possible if I think it's deliberate.  My second-most preferable ruling would be to say C has min-bet OOT, and if B checks then C will be held to a min-bet.   Barring either of those, then the "fairest" method I feel is to ask C how much he is betting OOT. He can either declare an amount or push the stack he intends to bet out. If B does not change the action (i.e. B checks), then C will be held to the amount of his bet. This latter method while it would make sense in turn seems like a whole lot of recognition for a bet OOT that is already shaky... but thinking further I could see this remedy if you insist "call" when facing a check is a bet of some amount rather than a call of nothing.

Again in this situation I don't like requiring C to call anything that B bets... that's just giving way too much power over C to B.  B already has some insight into C's position, going further and allowing B to declare any amount and C has to match it is a bit much... the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime.... and most importantly at the time he declares call the action is zero. ANY bet by B by definition changes the action, how can C be held to an OOT amount if the action changes?

At the end of the day, declaring "call" to a check is totally non-standard procedure, and is worse when OOT... non-standard action by it's nature at this point requires the fairest Rule 1 remedy you can fashion given the situation at hand (making the punishment most fit the crime in your ruling). Two TD's could see this one differently IMO, and still base it on relevant logic... because strictly speaking "calling" a check is not defined anywhere.  I've added this twist to the new rules suggestion thread on OOT action issues listed in this topic at: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=722.msg6279#msg6279   The new rules suggestion thread on OOT action is at: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=723.0

Last but not least, I agree 100% that if C's OOT declaration "call" is in the form of a conditional offer to "call whatever B bets", (rather than mistakenly calling what he thought was already a bet by A or B), then the new TDA Rule 46 gives the TD the latitude to make that declaration binding, again in the discretion of the TD... usually such truly conditional statements are more lengthy than merely saying "call" so based on the OP I'm figuring this specific example is not a conditional bet.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2012, 10:59:31 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2012, 01:41:26 AM »
Mike,

 I think we are taking this a bit too far. Calling a check a min-bet makes no sense. We need to bring the dealer back into the equation and back-up the incorrect action before the situation escalates. When a player acts out of turn, they are the single offending player. When the incorrect action proceeds, then the dealer can also be blamed for not paying attention. If a player skips a player in front of him and calls a check; Player A checks, Player C calls out of turn, he must check if action is backed-up and Player B checks. Because the player acted out of turn, I would only allow him to fold, or call, if the intervening player bets.

 I do not recall a player announcing a call when facing a check. However, the word pass, in this situation, was common and accepted. I'll save this topic for another day.

 Can we stop the OOT and back-up the action to the proper player without penalty to the offending player? That's where I thought we were headed at the Summit. IMO, we need more practical solutions to everyday situations.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2012, 07:40:16 AM »
Whoa...  Now I am really confused.   :P

I guess in my mind, the OOT call facing a check is either accidental or not;  if deemed accidental, we can take it back with no harm done and perhaps give a warning.  If intentional and deemed an "I'll call anything you bet", I may deem it as binding, and definitely will give a warning/penalty at the end of the hand.  I'm not sure I want to spend too much time asking the OOT player though to declare an amount when he probably knows it's not even his turn to act!  I'm finding more and more these days that the angly players simply are unwilling to wait their turn! 

Interesting discussion.

Just thinking aloud, I've often wondered whether we'd be better off having a blanket rule that says if you act OOT, no matter what the OOT act is, intentional or not, you lose the right to initiate any aggressive action for the remainder of the hand -- i.e. you act OOT, you can no longer bet when facing a check or raise when facing a bet, only call or fold.  That would do a lot to curb this OOT behavior, and certainly simplify things.  I think I used to see that applied in some fixed limit hold'em cash games in some venues... Not sure how realistic this is, but just another random thought on a summer Saturday. :)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2012, 08:04:57 AM »
Now we're getting somewhere. I've always lobbied for intentional action out of turn, to be as binding as action in turn. K-Lo, I like it.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2012, 09:55:39 AM »
Just thinking aloud, I've often wondered whether we'd be better off having a blanket rule that says if you act OOT, no matter what the OOT act is, intentional or not, you lose the right to initiate any aggressive action for the remainder of the hand -- i.e. you act OOT, you can no longer bet when facing a check or raise when facing a bet, only call or fold...
 That was one possible remedy considered at the 2011 Summit, the entire idea of limiting a player if action changes just didn't gain traction. It certainly will come up again at the next meeting.

Deliberate or repeated acting OOT is specifically penalizable now under TDA Rules. It should be considered that the unintentional OOT actor already has quite alot going against them: a) the preceding players now know what they want to do and b) they can be locked in by those rightful players if they just don't change the action.  I have alot of leverage if I know what a player after me wants to do, and am also able to control his action :)    If we go further and limit what the OOT actor can do we can really disarm them to the point the punishment is excessive for the crime... fft.  
« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 09:58:43 AM by MikeB »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2012, 10:26:11 AM »
Related to the subject of this thread, how would you handle it with 3 players, A B and C, post flop A is first to act and he says sincerely "I call" with no additional gesture to clarify his action?  Assume he's not a raw newbie who needs education, and assume it's an honest gaff with no angling intention:  Would you:

1) Declare that a binding check b/c there's no action at this point (i.e. the amount "to call" here is zero)?
2) Tell him that "I call" is undefined in this situation, ask if he intends to bet or check and if he intends to bet how much?
3) Tell him that "I call" seems most like an intention to bet b/c only an amount can technically be called, therefore you hold him to a bet and ask him how much.
4) Tell him that "I call" seems most like an intention to bet b/c only an amount can technically be called, therefore you hold him to a min bet
« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 10:28:25 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2012, 10:58:56 AM »
Mike,

 I say #2 is the closest to the best answer. Saying "I call" when first to act, is no different than stating you are going to raise with no bet in front of you. You can't do it.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2012, 11:57:57 PM by Nick C »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Checking out of turn, then raising
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2012, 04:33:38 PM »
I also would have to choose #2 here because it has no meaning.  Same as if player said, "yeah OK" at the same point.  Dealer should ask for clarification.