Author Topic: OOT Situation?  (Read 6001 times)

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
OOT Situation?
« on: December 29, 2013, 10:07:26 PM »
Player A is BB for 24,000
Player B (10 seat) says "Raise" and puts out 24,000 for the call and starts reaching for their raise amount.
Player C (1 seat) immediately places out 70,000
All other players have folded (single BB scenario).

Questions:

(Hypothetical)
If Player B min raises to 48,000, do you hold Player C to the 70k? 
If so, do you make the 70k a 48k call, or do you make it a min raise to 72k opening it back up to Player B when it comes back around?
If not, do you allow Player C to retract and have all options?

If Player B goes all-in, do you bind the 70k from Player C and give them the option to chip up and fold?

(Real)
What do you do if Player C then pulls the 70k back, Player B makes it 74k to go, and then Player C says "all-in"?
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2013, 06:47:34 AM »
Hi Tristan,

 Your scenario raises a couple questions for me: the first is Player C putting out 70K on an unknown raise amount that could be a min total of 48K, as you stated. What possible denomination/combination of chips could he have pushed into the pot, without the intent to raise? And what player, without going all-in, would assume any amount?

 The more I read of these situations, the more I like my suggestion of "freezing" the action until the intended amount is finalized.

 The question of whether to hold Player C accountable for a raise to 72K (even though he is 2000 short) could depend on a number of factors. Let's say that the raise from Player B is 3000 more bringing the total to 54K? Player C's 70K would still equate to over 50%...would you hold him to a total of 84K?...it's the same situation.

 I know of a casino that will not allow any raise that is not 100% of the bet. They do not follow the 50% raise rule for tournaments. If a player bets 5K and the next player pushes 9,900 into the pot (not all-in)...the 4,900 is not allowed and is pushed back to the intended raiser! I don't care for the ruling, but it's out there. Without a clear verbal, or exact amount, your raise might not count.

 One more note: If Player B decided to make his raise to 170K and not the minimum, there is no way I would allow Player C to retract any of his (premature) call of 70K. His options would be surrender his 70K, call the 170K, or raise.

Happy Year End!

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2013, 09:16:53 AM »
My inclination would be to hold 70K as a binding bet, because action hasn't technically changed.

I agree with Nick that ideally the Dealer should definitely try to prevent the OOT action from occurring, and instruct subsequent players to wait until the raise is completed before further action is permitted.  Let's assume the Dealer didn't do that though.

Since I would hold 70K as a binding bet, I would deem it to be a raise (based on the amount) and have C top it up to 72K.

If Player B goes all-in, then I would treat this as an undercall situation. In this particular multi-way situation, I think we have the latitude to allow top-up or fold (and lose the 70K) under the new rules, and I'm good with that.

In the "real" scenario, I am holding C to a call (as noted above), so I wouldn't allow him to go all-in. 

I just think that treating the 70K "OOT" bet as an actual bet in turn is the easiest way to deal with the different possibilities and will yield the most consistent results.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2013, 09:52:59 AM »
Fair answers.  Would it change your decision if you were pretty certain that Player C did not hear Player B say "raise" and was raising what he thought was a limp?

Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2013, 10:17:49 AM »
Happy Year End!

To you as well!

I agree with Nick that ideally the Dealer should definitely try to prevent the OOT action from occurring, and instruct subsequent players to wait until the raise is completed before further action is permitted.

Totally agree as well.

Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2013, 11:40:09 AM »
Tristan,

 Any way you look at it, Player C's 70k stays in the pot. If he missed the raise from Player B, his intent was to raise anyway. You might insist that Player C top it off to 72K (if the min raise were made), as Ken mentioned. Player C is the offending player, therefore his premature action does not change my opinion.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2013, 11:58:17 PM »
FYI, I did not rule that way.

The main factors in my decision were that there were three players in the hand, intent, and if action was truly in turn or not.

Three players in the hand.  If it is known that Player C's 70k bet is committed to the pot and I will treat it as an call if the total bet by Player B is 55k or higher, or a raise if it is between 48 and 54k, Player B will have an opportunity to raise knowing he can raise again.  How could this possibly be fair to the third player involved in the hand?  Player B has way too much of an advantage.

Intent.  I know it is not desirable to judge intent.  To me, though, there is a distinction here.  It was clear to me that Player C meant to raise the 24k, so for me to hold them to a call in this situation seems to be a mistake.  If C had said "raise" it would be easy to hold him to a raise, and I'm sure that most of us would have allowed anywhere from a min-raise to an all-in bet out of C.  So why in this situation, when it appears that C was trying to raise would we entertain the thought that C could be held to a call?

In turn or OOT?  We have collectively decided that players need to wait for action to be complete.  The fact that they need to wait means that the action is not on them...so anything they do is technically OOT.  Does the action change though?  Hmm...

My final thoughts, because I was convinced that this was not an angle-shot, I decided to allow C to pull back and had Player B finish their action and then I allowed all actions from Player C.  I figured that Player B is still gaining an edge because they had a big 'tell' out of Player C and I felt this was the best way to protect Player A.  I also feel that this ruling made the hand play out the most 'correctly'.

Had I thought this was an angle, or even if I thought it might be, I would have held C to at least a call and allowed them the option to raise.

This, to me, was a good situation to think about.  I get completely random answers whenever I ask another poker supervisor...but I think that all of the calls have valid reasons why they are correct!  :D  
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 12:24:33 PM by Tristan »
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2013, 08:31:36 AM »
I think your decision is well thought out and is certainly defensible.  Actually, the fact that it is possible for different TDs to come to different defensible decisions probably acts to discourage angle-shooting somewhat, as like you said, if the players know that the call will always be one way, they may take advantage of that. This is also why, if I am asked by a player (e.g. B) "What happens to C's 70k if I do X", I don't entertain those questions and ask that he complete his action before providing a ruling or an explanation.

The part of your reasoning that I am struggling with is: "[If there is no angle] allow C to pull back and had Player B finish their action and then I allowed all actions from Player C."  This seems to suggest that there is nothing that B could do that would bind C's bet to the pot.  This seems somewhat lopsided to me, and not really within the spirit of the rule on OOT betting or undercalls. I understand that we don't want to give B too much control, but he really hasn't done anything wrong here, and we don't know for sure whether A or B would actually want C's bet bound to the pot.  This leads us to a guessing game.

The other issue is: "when it appears that C was trying to raise would we entertain the thought that C could be held to a call?"  This happens quite often in regular play, and we tend to go with the lesser action, followed up with an encouragement to the player to verbalize "raise".  Is the situation that much different?

As you know, my personal inclination would be to treat the 70k as a bet in turn.  I would lean towards giving the option to top up and fold most times, but still reserve the right to allow C all options under "gross misunderstanding"-like circumstances.  For me, I'm not sure that the mere fact that there is an extra player warrants that though.  If, after the hand is complete, I think B has gained more than his fair share of an advantage over A, I'd be more inclined to penalize C heavily, although I concede that this may not fully compensate A directly for damage done to him.

But like you said - I think you can give good reasons for both approaches -- I just don't think I could have worked it all out like you have, at the table, in the moment - in particular to confidently conclude that there was or was no angle-shooting involved.  But as the old saying goes "You had to be there..." :)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2013, 08:40:44 AM »
Tristan,

 It might change the way rules are enforced when action involves more than two players...and I agree that most of the time it should. However, how do you justify, or assume, the intent of Player C was not to raise? He either missed Player B's raise entirely or...what? I also wonder if putting this in a category of out of turn is appropriate. Player C did act in turn but, he acted before Player B completed his raise.

 I am always trying to stay ahead of any angle shooters that are out there...but to think Player B intentionally said raise (without a specific amount) in hopes that Player C would put out extra chips so he could re-raise is really stretching it, don't you think?

 Player B did nothing wrong.  Player C is the guilty party...I would never allow him an option to retract any part of his 70K. His intent was to raise. The only scenario that would have worked perfectly would have been if Player B's raise was actually to 70K.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 05:58:08 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2013, 12:04:13 PM »
I think your decision is well thought out and is certainly defensible.  Actually, the fact that it is possible for different TDs to come to different defensible decisions probably acts to discourage angle-shooting somewhat, as like you said, if the players know that the call will always be one way, they may take advantage of that. This is also why, if I am asked by a player (e.g. B) "What happens to C's 70k if I do X", I don't entertain those questions and ask that he complete his action before providing a ruling or an explanation.

IMO when action is backed up, the rightful action player has a right to know the ramifications of his action on the the OOT player.

In most OOT situations this is in fact spelled out in the rules; in the situation in the OP we have a vague situation not precisely set forth in the rules (as yet) because the OOT player interjected before the rightful player could establish the amount of his bet. In this situation also, I think the rightful player is entitled to know the ramifications of his betting options.

In fact I think it's the most important issue... however you are going to rule in this situation, the rightful bettor is entitled to know before he acts. If you min raise, this is what happens.... if you raise up to 70k, here's what happens, if you raise in excess of 70k total, here's what happens....  as a player I absolutely want to know this, otherwise I will proceed under one assumption only to find out my assumption is incorrect. It's the OOT player who put himself in this situation.

FWIW, this is a different subject than giving the rightful player "undue control" over the OOT player. For example, in classic OOT action I'm in the camp that doesn't support limiting the OOT player's maximum action to what he bet before action changed (i.e. if he called OOT, he can only call if the action is raised when it's backed up)... but I do support the rightful player knowing the effects of each of his options in this situation.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 12:49:38 PM by MikeB »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #10 on: December 31, 2013, 01:28:53 PM »
IMO when action is backed up, the rightful action player has a right to know the ramifications of his action on the the OOT player.

In most OOT situations this is in fact spelled out in the rules; in the situation in the OP we have a vague situation not precisely set forth in the rules (as yet) because the OOT player interjected before the rightful player could establish the amount of his bet. In this situation also, I think the rightful player is entitled to know the ramifications of his betting options.

In fact I think it's the most important issue... however you are going to rule in this situation, the rightful bettor is entitled to know before he acts. If you min raise, this is what happens.... if you raise up to 70k, here's what happens, if you raise in excess of 70k total, here's what happens....

I agree with that.  That is what made this decision more difficult imo.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #11 on: December 31, 2013, 01:37:43 PM »
A comprehensive solution needs to address not only the example at hand (OOT player silently pushes out 70k)  but also:

1: What if the OOT player says "raise.... seventy thousand".

2: What if the OOT player just says "raise" but no amount....

3: What if the OOT player just says "call"... is he obligated to call any raise amount, or just a min raise or ?

BTW: as the rules are currently written, IMO these are Rule 1 decisions. The current OOT language presumes that there is a clearly established prior action amount and in this case the prior action has not been established with a certain amount.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 01:46:09 PM by MikeB »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2014, 08:32:24 AM »
IMO when action is backed up, the rightful action player has a right to know the ramifications of his action on the the OOT player.

In most OOT situations this is in fact spelled out in the rules; in the situation in the OP we have a vague situation not precisely set forth in the rules (as yet) because the OOT player interjected before the rightful player could establish the amount of his bet. In this situation also, I think the rightful player is entitled to know the ramifications of his betting options.

In fact I think it's the most important issue... however you are going to rule in this situation, the rightful bettor is entitled to know before he acts. If you min raise, this is what happens.... if you raise up to 70k, here's what happens, if you raise in excess of 70k total, here's what happens....

I agree with that.  That is what made this decision more difficult imo.

Not meaning to sidetrack the OOT discussion of the original post, but I do want to challenge the thinking on this one. It's something that's come up a few times, but because it's really a procedural issue, we've left it alone.  Maybe it should be the topic of a new thread.

I am pretty sure that the stance on this new issue -- whether or not the TD should explain all available options in detail if asked -- is not unanimous amongst TDs, one way or the other.  Based on our previous discussions in other threads, I know that amongst the handful of the regular contributors to this Forum that I am in the minority on this one, but I've yet to be turned over to the dark side. :-)

As a procedural point, this is how I learned to deal with the OOT rulings at the table; I'm not 100% sure of the origin, but I do know that at least a couple of respectable "big tour" TDs approach the issue in the same way -- i.e. the 'missed' player whose turn it is, is simply to be directed to complete his or her action, before ruling on what options are available to subsequent players.  

As I understand it, the most basic reasoning supporting this approach is that as TD, we should not be coaching players, particularly while a hand is in progress. Generally speaking, the players ought to know what the rules are.

If, as a TD, you were asked by a player:  "If I have the Ace of Spades in my hand (the board is showing Ah-Kh-Qc-Jc-Td), would I win the pot?", how many of us would think that it is OK to answer that?  

Some might say that the situation in our example is different, because it doesn't involve actions of another player.  So, what if the question was instead:  "If I bet X here, and player Y goes all-in, will I be able to re-raise when the action gets back to me?" Or, "if I call here, is that OOT raise binding, and if so, does the button have a chance to raise again, and if he calls, will I get to raise then"?  At one point, we get on this slippery slope...

Back to our original example:  if I am asked "what are my options, and what will happen to [the OOT player's] bet?", I have no problem telling the player that he must complete his raise (because he has announced "raise") and that what will happen to the OOT bet will depend on what he does.  In the more general OOT scenario, if the skipped player has not yet acted, I may tell the player that he can do whatever he wants, and that the OOT bet may or may not be binding depending on what the action is. This is as far as I will go now. I know some TDs who will be even vaguer (and I took this approach myself for a long time): "Complete your action and then I'll tell you".

Mike, you mention that "however you are going to rule in this situation, the rightful bettor is entitled to know before he acts". You are of the view that "the rightful action player has a right to know the ramifications of his action on the the OOT player". Although this is certainly an understandable position because the missed bettor was not at fault, I am curious to know what you rely on as the basis for this "right" as there really isn't a basis for this level of protection for players explicitly or implicitly set out in the rules. I should note that educating the missed player so that he knows the effects of each of his options actually goes one step further, and I think it is arguable that one can take this too far. I think it is wise to consider the possibility that even if such a "right" to an explanation exists, there must be some boundaries on that.  Does the missed player really have a right to get each and every option, each and every branch of his potential decision tree, spelled out for him?

While it can be argued that the missed player should have some protection because the OOT player was at fault and the missed player was the innocent player, from the missed player's perspective with respect to everyone else at the table, he is and would still have only been obliged to complete his action in turn anyways... so why not let him complete his action as he would have, without creating potentially more damage to the situation by explaining every single option in detail and potentially further affecting what would have been the natural course of the hand, and then assess the probable damage done by the OOT action and penalize that OOT player accordingly at the end of the hand?  

I could be swayed to the dark side, I suppose. ;-)  But I just wanted to put it out there that I don't think all TDs think that the same "right" exists, so I certainly would welcome a discussion on this issue.

Oh, and p.s., Happy New Year, my friends!
« Last Edit: January 01, 2014, 08:41:25 AM by K-Lo »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2014, 06:06:55 PM »

Mike, you mention that "however you are going to rule in this situation, the rightful bettor is entitled to know before he acts". You are of the view that "the rightful action player has a right to know the ramifications of his action on the the OOT player". Although this is certainly an understandable position because the missed bettor was not at fault, I am curious to know what you rely on as the basis for this "right" as there really isn't a basis for this level of protection for players explicitly or implicitly set out in the rules.

I'm not aware of any rule that specifically says you should or shouldn't alert a player as to what may happen here. My position on it I guess has a couple reasons:

1: As a player, if I announce raise, and someone to my left pushes out X amount of chips, there's no rule I can point to to guide me as to what may happen to his OOT "bet". I know that in a standard OOT situation, the fate of his bet really depends on my action. So for strategic reasons I want to know the same here.

2: As a TD, I want to pre-empt a predictable argument by informing the players prior to their action.

and 3: From the player education POV, OOT play in general is one area where IMO alot of players just don't understand the effects of their actions, even under the current rules much less an outlier situation like this. It's one area where I try to clarify what the ramifications are ahead of time, so they can act with a clearer understanding of the rules.

Definitely agree that any "coaching", i.e. directing a player towards one action or the other.... should be strictly avoided.

BTW: Nothing in this is meant to say that the other camp is wrong in it's position. In full disclosure I think the best argument against informing the bettor here is the disruptive effect of a mini-lecture on the rules while action is pending. But in this and similar cases I think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2014, 10:10:12 PM by MikeB »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2014, 08:16:04 AM »
Most of the benefits to providing the detailed explanation(s) is of an educational nature - the player would like to know what is possible, the players wants to understand the rules better.  However, these goals can also be achieved by explaining how the OOT rule applied after the hand is done.  If the TD is required to know how the OOT rule is to be applied in various circumstances, then the player can certainly, as part of his her or preparation, think about these issues before the tournament begins.  The players may want a lot of things, but this detailed information is not something I think he is entitled to have right then and there.  The line between "teaching" and "coaching" (as you've defined it) is blurry.