Author Topic: OOT Revisited: Players checks OOT, then raises  (Read 2833 times)

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
OOT Revisited: Players checks OOT, then raises
« on: February 05, 2014, 04:03:36 AM »
Mike, Tristan:

Do you recall where the TDA stands on this issue?  I can't clearly remember whether this issue was resolved or confirmed at the 2013 Summit.

Here's an example of the issue at hand -

Play is heads-up, say on the turn.  Player A is first to act, player B is on the button.

Player B checks (OOT).  The dealer redirects action to A, who bets.  Player B calls.

On the river, Player B checks, out of turn again.  The dealer redirects action to A, who bets.  Player B now * surprise * wakes up with raise! 

Essentially, player B appears to have feigned weakness, possibly in order to induce a bet from A.  This is somewhat opposite to the other common 'angle' in which a player last to act will make an aggressive action out of turn to deter the opponent who was supposed to act first from betting on the river.

Strictly speaking, according to Rule 38, B's raise would be permitted, as A's bet was action-changing. A penalty would most likely be assessed to player B at the end of the hand. I believe this is where the rule currently stands, if I'm not mistaken.

For those of you who remember me bringing this issue up pre-summit though, many old-school TDs, like me, were happy applying the Robert's Rule version of this rule to tournaments, that effectively limit what player B may do in this situation. More specifically, since B has made a "passive" action OOT, he loses the right to take aggressive action on the same street when action properly returns to him:

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.

Am I correct in assuming that the current stance of the TDA is NOT to adopt RR's clarification (i.e. B will always have all options open in this situation)? Would you ever consider making an exception under Rule 1 to limit B's range of acceptable actions (especially in this case where there have been repeated OOT actions in the same hand)?  What would be your standard penalty for B here, assuming no prior history (e.g. 1 round?)


Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: OOT Revisited: Players checks OOT, then raises
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2014, 10:27:08 AM »
I don't remember that subject either.

Just my personal opinion, but I don't really see it as that necessary to add.  I don't see it happen that often, Player A still has control over Player B's action on the river, and with a stern penalty it should help deter it.

If I felt it was clear that B was intentionally acting out of turn, I would give them an orbit. 

Side note: To be honest, I don't give any missed hand penalties.  I give warnings for the most part, but when I feel the need to penalize, I go right to an orbit.  I feel that missed hand penalties are too inconsistent...it's more severe if they are in the blinds or even the button than it is to others.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: OOT Revisited: Players checks OOT, then raises
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2014, 11:20:42 AM »
I can't clearly remember whether this issue was resolved or confirmed at the 2013 Summit.

Here's an example of the issue at hand -

Play is heads-up, say on the turn.  Player A is first to act, player B is on the button.

Player B checks (OOT).  The dealer redirects action to A, who bets.  Player B calls.

On the river, Player B checks, out of turn again.  The dealer redirects action to A, who bets.  Player B now * surprise * wakes up with raise!  

Essentially, player B appears to have feigned weakness, possibly in order to induce a bet from A.  This is somewhat opposite to the other common 'angle' in which a player last to act will make an aggressive action out of turn to deter the opponent who was supposed to act first from betting on the river.

K: The general topic of whether to leave the rule as-is or to add the "limiting" RRoP language definitely came up at the 2013 Summit and was discussed at some length. There is definitely a camp that would like to add the limitation. At the end of the day the rule stood unchanged for stated and un-stated reasons that include:

1. In general the majority of action OOT is accidental, as Tristan mentions he doesn't see intentional OOT that often.

2. When Action OOT happens, the rightful players have alot of information and control over the OOT player: A) they know what he'd like to do in the situation; and B) they can lock him into his action by not changing anything. The majority camp (or a sizeable enough contingent) at Summit 2013 felt that going further and allowing the rightful player to be able to bet without fear of raise (or with a pre-defined raise limit) was giving too much control to the skipped player (in typical situations).

3. Some version of this rule has been in force since at least 2007 (?) without major reported problems, everyone is pretty familiar with it by now (see history below)

That's a summary from memory on the 2013 Summit. It should be noted that the discussion was on OOT Action in general, not specifically OOT action heads-up as in your example.

To look at the rule itself, it does begin with the language "Action out of turn is subject to penalty". Holding this guy to a call here could be considered a form of penalty but absolutely you could use Rule 1 here to limit him to a call. TDA rules are not intended to be "technicalities" that players can use to perpetrate an angle.

It's interesting to look at how this rule has evolved:

2007 language: Action out of turn may be binding and will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call, or fold is not considered action-changing.

So this rule says OOTA is binding if the action doesn't change, but what if it does change? "may" be binding... this leaves questions as to when or when it isn't, is it left to TD discretion... how can we have a uniform rule with such language?

2009 language: Players are required to act in turn. 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.

Note the 2009 language got rid of the "may be binding" intro, more on that in a bit. Again it's clear about when the action will be binding, but isn't clear as to what happens when action changes...

2011 language: 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 & is returned to the out of turn player who has all options: calling, raising, or folding. An out-of-turn fold is binding.

Note: The 2011 language was made very specific: exactly what happens IF the action changes. The 2007 and 2009 language was vague on what would happen if the action changed, and there were many questions as to what exactly the options are: "...does that mean he can retract his OOT bet, does that mean he can fold, etc. etc.". From memory, the WSOP rules had this extra specificity in place before the 2011 Summit, spelling out unmistakably what happens... I vaguely recall the WSOP rule being a starting point for the 2011 TDA language but could be wrong on that.

2013 language: A: Action out of turn is subject to penalty and is binding if the action to the OOT player has not changed. A check, call or fold does not change action. If action changes, the OOT bet is not binding and is returned to the OOT player who has all options including: calling, raising, or folding. An OOT fold is binding.

Note the 2013 language adds the line "is subject to penalty". Dave Lamb has made the point that by definition violations of ALL TDA rules are subject to penalty, but when it's specifically mentioned in the rules that indicates a particularly egregious violation.

Strictly speaking, according to Rule 38, B's raise would be permitted, as A's bet was action-changing. A penalty would most likely be assessed to player B at the end of the hand. I believe this is where the rule currently stands, if I'm not mistaken.
K: that's definitely a true literal interpretation. However as you point out below, Rule 1 is always present.

In fact that's the objection to having Rule 1 specifically cited under the Accepted Action language... it's always present, why point it out? (and of course there's reasons for pointing it out under Accepted Action as have been extensively discussed). Further, just massaging the concept of "penalty" a bit it's not hard to arrive at the idea that this rule is not intended to be abused as a technicality to support angles.

For those of you who remember me bringing this issue up pre-summit though, many old-school TDs, like me, were happy applying the Robert's Rule version of this rule to tournaments, that effectively limit what player B may do in this situation. More specifically, since B has made a "passive" action OOT, he loses the right to take aggressive action on the same street when action properly returns to him:

You're definitely not alone. There's a solid camp of support for this approach and it was well-represented at the 2013 Summit, just didn't carry the day on the final vote largely for the reasons mentioned above. This really is one of those "philosophical divides" in the industry (like whether the winning hand must always be shown, or whether a hand skipped by substantial action OOT is always dead, or when a request to see a hand must be honored) that may be around for awhile.

The challenge at 2015 Summit will be to see if we can bring these views a bit closer together. Just thinking out loud, if we could retain the essence of the rule that's been in place for some years, but add clearly stated protection for cases of obvious angles such as your example, or revisit the "may be binding" language....

Here's the RRoP language

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.

Am I correct in assuming that the current stance of the TDA is NOT to adopt RR's clarification (i.e. B will always have all options open in this situation)? Would you ever consider making an exception under Rule 1 to limit B's range of acceptable actions (especially in this case where there have been repeated OOT actions in the same hand)?  What would be your standard penalty for B here, assuming no prior history (e.g. 1 round?)



Correct, the TDA did not adopt the RRoP limitation in 2013 and had not for several summits prior. Personally I would definitely consider Rule 1 here and would encourage discussion of how that might be formalized into the rules at Summit 2015. Penalty here: I would almost certainly limit the guy to a call and then probably a 2-missed-hand penalty for first offense (regardless of number of players at the table)... for deliberate action out of turn.

Thanks for the great post, let's link this to suggestions for the 2015 Summit: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=989.0
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 02:09:38 PM by MikeB »

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: OOT Revisited: Players checks OOT, then raises
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2014, 03:25:28 AM »
I know I'm not part of the this question K-Lo, so sorry for butting in.... What Mike said makes me think of the movie "My Cousin Vinny". That part where the expert witness from the FBI is put on the stand.

========================================================================================================
FBI Guy: I'm a special automotive instructor|of forensic studies for the FBI.
Prosecutor: How long you been in that position?
FBI Guy: 18 years.
Vinny: Your Honor. May we approach the bench, please?
Judge: If you wish.
Vinny: I object to this witness being called at this time. We've been given no prior notice he'd testify, no discovery of any tests he's conducted,...
..and the defence is entitIed to advance notice of any witness who will testify,.....particularly those giving scientific evidence, so we can prepare for cross-examination and to give the defence an opportunity to have reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.
Judge: Mr Gambini.
Vinny: Yes, sir.
Judge: That is a lucid, intelligent... well thought-out objection.
Vinny: Thank you, Your Honor.
Judge: Overruled.
========================================================================================================

I couldn't help but look back at the 2002 TDA summit rule proposals and found these two different rule proposals regarding nearly the same thing - which has led to what is now Rule 37A and 38A. The proposals were:
  • Players actions out of turn may be binding
  • Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Action out of turn may be binding and if the out of turn action is still possible when it that players turn to act,f then the action is binding
These are listed as separate proposed additions to the TDA rules, when they both say nearly identical statements regarding out of turn action. Since the rules inception the phrase "may be binding" was used. While the phrase "may be binding" has been removed, the truth of the matter is the wording now still says the same thing. The new phrase from Rule 38A "is binding if" is just another way to say, "may be binding". Which means the floor person is still going to come over an enforce the rule as directed, "may be binding" and "is binding if" a call, fold or check is the preceding action, which was spelled out in 2007. Then spelled out differently again in 2009. Then differently again in 2011 and again in 2013.

I appeal to the congregation here; If the ruling for OOT is the same in 2002, 2005(?), 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013 for all OOT instances where the preceding action is a 1)Check, 2)Call, 3)Fold and such ruling is always the action is then binding in those circumstances, wouldn't logic stand to reason that the opposite be true if the preceding action was a raise? And if its not black or white, wouldn't it at the very least be grey? Leaving it up to TD discretion? Which by the way, as point out by Mike and K-Lo, is "Always Present" because of Rule #1. I'm beginning to that think some of you might be trying to suggest that we eliminate Rule #1?

Mike in response to your 2007 TDA rule post where you say:
2007 language: Action out of turn may be binding and will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call, or fold is not considered action-changing.

So this rule says OOT is binding if the action doesn't change, but what if it does change? "may" be binding... this leaves questions as to when or when it isn't, is it left to TD discretion... how can we have a uniform rule with such language?
The Bold part of your response is quite alarming to me. I disagree with you when you say that it leaves questions as to when it is binding. It clearly states: will be binding if the action to that player has not changed and then explains that a "check, call or fold" is not action changing. Your right in stating it doesn't say what happens if it's determined to be not binding. Does it really have to?

I mean it's either binding or it's not. Right?

Anyway.... a lot off topic here with the movies and all. Sorry K-Lo for the small hi-jack. :)

@wsopmcgee on Twitter

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: OOT Revisited: Players checks OOT, then raises
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2014, 10:08:33 AM »

Anyway.... a lot off topic here with the movies and all. Sorry K-Lo for the small hi-jack. :)


For you, Thomas, any time.  :)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: OOT Revisited: Players checks OOT, then raises
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2014, 10:43:25 PM »

Mike in response to your 2007 TDA rule post where you say:
2007 language: Action out of turn may be binding and will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call, or fold is not considered action-changing.

So this rule says OOT is binding if the action doesn't change, but what if it does change? "may" be binding... this leaves questions as to when or when it isn't, is it left to TD discretion... how can we have a uniform rule with such language?
The Bold part of your response is quite alarming to me. I disagree with you when you say that it leaves questions as to when it is binding. It clearly states: will be binding if the action to that player has not changed and then explains that a "check, call or fold" is not action changing. Your right in stating it doesn't say what happens if it's determined to be not binding. Does it really have to?

I mean it's either binding or it's not. Right?

Anyway.... a lot off topic here with the movies and all. Sorry K-Lo for the small hi-jack. :)

Hi Thomas: Good catch on that. I see my description is imperfect, but it was intended to focus on the latter half of the question in red above "but what if it does change?". The 2007 language did not formally specify what happens if action changes. Nor did the 2009 wording...  Literally interpreted then the "may be binding" language of 2007 left the door open that action OOT could be binding even in the event of change. It also left the door open for limiting or not limiting the OOT player to no more than his OOT action which is the subject of the OP.

... Hence the revision in language in 2011 to specify exactly what happens if action changes.  Could be wrong about this, but from memory I recall the WSOP regs as a template for the 2011 language as I think WSOP had that specificity in place then?

Did this language have to be adopted? It adds specificity in the case of change of action.... but still may not cover every last outlier situation.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 01:33:59 AM by MikeB »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
Re: OOT Revisited: Players checks OOT, then raises
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2014, 03:03:56 AM »
Hello,

Our "house" rules as simple here and goes maybe slightly away or more far than TDA (ooops): If the initial player changes the situation, he free the OOT player of a number of option depending of what OOT did: If the OOT actually changed the situation himself (while playing oot): he now has the 3 options BUT ... If he didn't change the situation while playing oot: he now has only 2 options: CALL or FOLD!

 ;)


MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: OOT Revisited: Players checks OOT, then raises
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2014, 10:27:26 AM »
If the initial player changes the situation, he free the OOT player of a number of option depending of what OOT did:

If the OOT actually changed the situation himself (while playing oot): he now has the 3 options BUT ...

If he didn't change the situation while playing oot: he now has only 2 options: CALL or FOLD!

Hi G: The above reads to me like:

"If a player acts out of turn (OOT), the action will be backed up to the player who was skipped. If the skipped player does not change the action, the OOT action is binding. If the skipped player changes the action, the OOT player's options are: A) if the original OOT action was a call (or a check if no prior bet), the OOT player may only call or fold; B) if the original OOT action was a raise (or a bet if no prior bet), the OOT bet is not binding and is returned to the OOT player who has all options including: calling, raising, or folding."

Is that a correct interpretation?

If so it adds another layer of complexity in that you have to determine BOTH A) whether the OOT action was a change or not and B) whether the skipped player makes a change.

In a similar way RRoP requires you to determine: A) what the level of the OOT action was (because that becomes the "cap" on his options) and B) whether the skipped player makes a change.

With TDA you only have to determine one thing: whether the skipped player makes a change. As much as the rule itself, it's the simplicity and clarity of the TDA language that makes it appealing.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 12:36:03 PM by MikeB »