One topic about the rule 40: Action Out of Turn (OOT)
I have some trouble to understand exactly what should be decided in some cases
In those situations, what can Player C do?
Let say blinds 200/400
In a multipot game, post flop
1) C bets 800 OOT, then A makes an open bet 400
2) C bets 800 OOT, then A makes an open bet 1000
3) C bets 800 OOT, then A bets 800 to call the previous bet from C
4) C is all in 2500 OOT, then A makes an open bet 400
5) C is all in 2500 OOT, then A makes an open bet 3000
6) C is all in 2500 OOT, then A raises to 6000
If it happens in heads'up situation, would you rule it the same way?
Thank you
What does Player B do?
Player B in each case folds or calls the action made by A
In fact what can C do considering the action of A
This is very simple and the answer is the same for all of your examples.
If "C" bets out of turn, that bet will stay unless "A" or "B" make an aggressive action.
So in all your examples "C" bets out of turn and "A" makes a bet. As soon as "A" bets, "C" takes their bet back and has all of their options. Call, raise, fold.
If "C" bets out of turn and "A" and "B" do passive actions (check/call/fold), then the out of turn bet stays.
Your last example isn't worded correctly though.
You have "C" going all in out of turn and then "A" raising.
"A" cannot raise, it's their turn to check or bet. "C" 's action is out of turn. The only way "A" can raise, is if they CHECK (passive), which means the out of turn stays, then "A" can raise (but who is A raising?)
In fact, whatever the amount of the open bet made by A (lower ou higher than the OOT bet), it gives C the opportunity to disengage and he is free to any action? Even an OOT all in can have all his chips back?
In that case you give a warning/penalty to C i guess
In fact i was told that the only possibility for C to disengage is if A makes a bet higher than C's bet. According to your answer it seems this is not what you use to rule.
Brooks,
I'm having a tough time understanding your example, when you say: If C bets OOT and A and B are passive...why can't A raise C?
I guess Nick understands what i wrote.
The idea is A bets a higher amount than C's all in
Ash...I've always thought this rule much too confusing. I was always against letting the OOT bettor "off the hook" so to speak. I always felt the OOT was the offender...and then the TDA comes out with a ruling where the OOT might not be the true offender because the skipped players should speak up, to defend their right to act!!?? :o I still don't like that rule...and I still don't fully understand "action changing to the OOT bettor...sorry, I just don't get it.
Quote from: BROOKS on June 14, 2017, 09:24:38 PM
This is very simple and the answer is the same for all of your examples.
If "C" bets out of turn, that bet will stay unless "A" or "B" make an aggressive action.
So in all your examples "C" bets out of turn and "A" makes a bet. As soon as "A" bets, "C" takes their bet back and has all of their options. Call, raise, fold.
If "C" bets out of turn and "A" and "B" do passive actions (check/call/fold), then the out of turn bet stays.
Your last example isn't worded correctly though.
You have "C" going all in out of turn and then "A" raising.
"A" cannot raise, it's their turn to check or bet. "C" 's action is out of turn. The only way "A" can raise, is if they CHECK (passive), which means the out of turn stays, then "A" can raise (but who is A raising?)
Ash: See Brooks' answer above. This is all found in 2015 TDA Rule 40.
Also, in answer to your last question, it's currently treated the same whether the OOT occurs multi-way or heads-up. This rule will be up for review in 2017. In the past 2 or 3 Summits there has been a contingent that would like to limit C's options in some way. This year there has also been discussion of limiting C in heads-up play. So that will all be debated.
Good thing if they debate and clarify the rule
Quote from: Nick C on June 14, 2017, 11:29:56 PM
Brooks,
I'm having a tough time understanding your example, when you say: If C bets OOT and A and B are passive...why can't A raise C?
It's his last example :
6) C is all in 2500 OOT, then A raises to 6000
It just didn't make sense because the OOT person C has gone all in. Then he says A raises.
Technically A can't raise because there's nothing to raise yet. It's his turn to check or bet. That all in out of turn only stays if A checks. So I was just saying A has to check, and then I guess he can raise, but raise who? C is all in. If there are other players involved in the hand, then I guess A could be raising them.
Quote from: Ash on June 15, 2017, 01:37:44 AM
I guess Nick understands what i wrote.
The idea is A bets a higher amount than C's all in
If we're taking about your 6th example
6) C is all in 2500 OOT, then A raises to 6000
Then that's not what you said.
You said A RAISES to a higher amount than the OOT all in, which is what made it confusing.
But either way, if OOT bets 2500, then A - who's turn it really is, decides to Bet 6000, that all in OOT is still taken back and he gets all his options.
The amount of A's bet will never change that.
If someone bets out of turn, and then a made is bet (aggressive action), the out of turn is always taken back, and player is given all their options.
This is the same with raising.
A bets 2k, C OOT raises to 6k
That 6k stays unless B does an aggressive action.
B calls (passive) - OOT 6k stays
B folds (passive) - OOT 6k stays
B raises (to any amount 4k,5k 10k irrelevant) - OOT 6k comes back and C has all options - call, raise, fold
Ash,
I'm with you on this one. Let's take a look at what happens in a fixed limit game...let's say on a 100 betting round, Player C bets 100 out of turn. Once the incorrect bet is addressed, the action is directed to the proper bettor...Player A.
According to our rule, Player A's options are: bet $100...(which for some strange reason is defined as action changing). Or check. If Player A checks, then Player C's out of turn must stand...unless Player B raises to 200...this is where the confusion gets more complicated. Even though the action has changed, why should the OOT Player C have an option to remove his 100?
Same scenario: Player A decides to check after Player C's OOT. Player B also checks...now we know that Player C's OOT stands. If Player B folds, Player C's bet also stands...correct?
The way I understand the current rule: when facing no wager the OOT bettor's wager must stand ONLY when the proper bettors decide to check. Mike, I hope you help me out with this one. If I'm correct, then perhaps the rule needs some added language that clarifies the proper bettor, or bettors, must check to the OOT in order for his OOT to be valid.
When facing a bet, any skipped players must call the exact bet they were facing when the OOT occurred or the OOT can be retracted.
I sure hope someone follows me on this because I've asked for these answers in the past and got more confused.
One other thought: If Player's A or B decide to raise the OOT after they check, it should be allowed. How do we proceed? Player C bets 100...Player A says, "it's my turn to bet!" The dealer says "what do you want to do?" Player A says, "Check." Player B say's "Check." The OOT now stands, but what if Player A (or, B) wants to raise? Do they have to call first and then the action goes back to them?
I won't be at the Summit this year but I'll be watching and I hope you bring this post with you! :D
Thank you Nick for the clarification, glad tout see i am not alone to be a bit confused by all those situations that can occur !
But given that the rule says a call does not change the action, could we consider if A ou B calls the oot bet, it is not an agressive move and then the oot bet should remain engaged?
Really tricky situation
Ash...that's exactly where the confusion lies. Betting the same as the OOT is changing the action, according to the current rule. That's what's wrong with it! If a Player bets OOT and the action is returned to the proper bettor, if that player does anything but check...the action has changed! Ridiculously worded, in my opinion.
I'm not sure where the confusion regarding the rule is... unless Ash and Nick are just saying they disagree with the rule.
If a player acts OOT, his action is only binding if the decision to him is the same when the action rightfully gets to him. If anyone bets/raises prior to the true action returns to the OOT player, his OOT action does not count. So, if the OOT player opened the betting, his OOT action is only binding if everyone else checks to him.
In response to Nick's last post, even if someone bets the same amount as the OOT tried to bet, the action has changed. He is no longer facing the same decision so his bet is returned. Assuming he is not trying to influence action via his OOT bet (in which case a penalty should be in order), why should he not have the option to fold or raise?
The only exception is if a Player C acts OOT and Player D acts (in ANY way... calls/raises/folds), then the OOT action is binding.
gregg,
I'm glad you joined the discussion. What you echoed is exactly what's missing from the rule, you said: "his OOT action is only binding if everyone else checks to him." That's what needs to be added to the existing rule.
You also went on to say: "If someone bets the same amount as the OOT tried to bet, the action has changed."I don't like the fact that the OOT can retract anything. He screwed up by not waiting his turn. You also went on to confirm what's wrong with returning his bet...you said: "Assuming he is not trying to influence action via his OOT bet...."Sometimes a penalty is not enough. Wait your damn turn before you bet...and if the proper bettor bets, the OOT should not be allowed to retract anything. The only exception would be if the OOT were mislead by another player or the dealer. That's the way I see it and to me it makes the most sense.
"In response to Nick's last post, even if someone bets the same amount as the OOT tried to bet, the action has changed"
I understand the idea but here is the limit :
I'm player B, C bets OOT, A folds, then I call the OOT bet, finally C decides to take his chips back and fold.
So i invested some chips and the first agressor C is not in the game anymore, whereas i would have checked without the OOT bet, and I can't disengage...
For me, the only exception should be : if a player calls the OOT bet, it can't be free of any actions and the bet remains.
Ash...I understand exactly how you feel, and I know where the confusion is coming from. First, you need to understand that Player A or B is NOT calling the OOT. The action is backed up to the proper bettor and his action will determine whether the OOT bet will stand. Before I continue, I agree with you that the OOT should not be allowed all options if either bettor, A or B, decides to bet.
The confusion comes from the way the rule is written. I may or may not agree with allowing an OOT player all options, but the rule is obviously confusing... which is evident throughout this post.
Unless I'm wrong again, the OOT should not prevent a check raise from either Player A or B if they choose to raise.
Out of turn means just that...wait your turn. If you fail to wait for your proper turn to act, you will be penalized and your OOT bet may not be retracted...that's what I'd like to see.
Just realized that we need a couple illustrations of Rule 40-A in the Illustration Addendum. Anyone who has worked any length of time with this rule knows exactly how to apply it, but a couple illustrations wouldn't hurt for those familiarizing themselves with it. It's one of those rules no matter how you word it you need some illustrations. Thanks for the discussion.
Ash you're not understanding.
When C acts out of turn, A and B are not acting based on C's OOT bet. They are acting on their own, doing whatever they want to do because it's their turn first. Pretending C's OOT didn't even happen.
You stated :
"I'm player B, C bets OOT, A folds, then I call the OOT bet, finally C decides to take his chips back and fold.
So i invested some chips and the first agressor C is not in the game anymore, whereas i would have checked without the OOT bet, and I can't disengage..."
There is no way that YOU as player B can CALL C's OOT bet unless you have checked first. A and B both have to act, because it's their turn before it is C's.
Once A and B have acted, then we determine what happens with C's OOT bet.
It is not possible for you to call C and then C gets the option of taking his bet back.
When C went out of turn, it was A's turn.
If A and B both CHECK, then C's out of turn bet stays. Then action comes back to A and B and they either call, raise or fold.
So whenever there is OOT action, you act like it hasn't happened. Let everyone else who's turn it actually is act, then use the rule to determine whether OOT bet stays or gets pulled back.
I guess most players don't know exactly how the rule works.
In a real situation, if A or B wants to call, he will do it immediatly, without checking first knowing C's bet is engaged and waiting for his second turn to finally call.
I hope they modify or clarify this rule this year
My Idea : You bet oot? Ok it's my turn I call you now so you can't disengage, and you are punished that way
Mike...Yeah illustrations would be helpful and, obviously necessary. :)
In head's up, is it an exception for which the OOT bet is maintained whatever the action of the other player is?
Ash,
I always thought that we should have a separate set of rules for head to head, but I believe the same rule applies.
Quote from: Ash on June 16, 2017, 03:06:03 PM
In head's up, is it an exception for which the OOT bet is maintained whatever the action of the other player is?
Hi Ash: Not at the moment. This issue will be discussed at the Summit.
Hi Ash: Not at the moment. This issue will be discussed at the Summit.
[/quote]
good news!