PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Suggestions for New TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre 2017 Summit => Topic started by: BillM16 on June 29, 2017, 07:09:23 PM
-
Rule #22 says a new hand begins on the first riffle.
Rule #40 says any action OOT is subject to penalty and is binding if the action doesn't change to the OOT player.
Scenario #1: NLHE, blinds 100 & 200. The dealer riffles. UTG raises to 600. Is this considered OOT? Is it binding? Is it subject to penalty?
Scenario #2: NLHE, blinds 100 & 200. The dealer riffles. UTG+1 raises to 600. UTG+2 raises to 1000. After the cards are dealt, UTG raises to 400. Action changed to UTG+1, he takes his 600 back and folds. Is the raise by UTG+2 binding? If so, what is the bet (800 or 1000)?
Regards,
B~
-
1: Binding, no penalty.
2: Not binding. He can fold, call or reraise any amount, min 600.
-
Hi Bill,
First I'd like to say that TDA #22 is primarily used for "disputed pots" from the prior hand.
Scenario #1: NLHE, blinds 100 & 200. The dealer riffles. UTG raises to 600. Is this considered OOT? I'd say NO. I'd call it a blind raise but it was his turn to act so I don't know how it would be ruled out of turn. Is it binding? I'd say YES. Is it subject to penalty? I'd say NO so I would not consider rule #40 as applicable here either.
Scenario #2: NLHE, blinds 100 & 200. The dealer riffles. UTG+1 raises to 600. UTG+2 raises to 1000. After the cards are dealt, UTG raises to 400. Action changed to UTG+1, he takes his 600 back and folds. Is the raise by UTG+2 binding? If so, what is the bet (800 or 1000)? I think this one is much more complicated than Scenario #1. UTG+1 was OOT but once the action proceeded to UTG+2 substantial action has occurred. I'm not sure the OOT can be retracted. I would say that the action must proceed around the table and the skipped player can only call or fold. The bet would be 1000.
I'm curios how Mike B would rule on this scenario. I'd also like to know if the "blind action" has any bearing on a decision. Interesting situation.
-
Come on guys...surely someone has an answer. Gregg...Bill...Dave...Mike...Ralph...anybody? Do you back up the action to the proper bettor, or do you allow the action to proceed because of substantial action? I'm sure this is a more common occurrence than many others that we discuss on a regular basis.
Happy 4TH too all !!! :D
-
If I understand the question, these sound like bets in the dark. If not, my apologies.
I think this is an important enough issue to get into the TDA Rules, however many feel that dark bets are so infrequent that they don't need to be mentioned...
Regardless, of the persons I polled here at the 2017 Summit a clear majority felt that dark bets would not be included in substantial action. If you had a dark bet and a dark call, for example, and they were considered part of SA then anything short of a proven fouled deck would have to stand on the deal... Seat 6 is dealt 1 card, too bad, SA has occurred. So it makes no sense to include them in substantial action.
-
Mike,
Thanks for your reply. I would respectfully disagree. A misdeal would override all bets. I actually believe it would be easier to hold the "blind bettors" to the same action on the redeal. I don't understand how the blind action especially in turn, can be ignored. What about the players that fold, or are induced to fold by a bet in front of them? I just don't like the idea of allowing these characters the chance to withdraw their deliberate action. We need to think this one out a little more. Whats wrong with allowing the action to continue and the "skipped" player can only fold or call? That's the way it used to be, at least that's the way we used to handle that situation.
What constitutes a "blind bet"? Not much different than a straddle, is it? If I don't look at my cards, and act on my hand, in turn...is that a blind bet? Or will we come up with a rule that will not allow any action at all, until the last card is dealt to the button?
To answer another important question. When a player is skipped, the way it was described in the original post, without betting blind...do we continue as I suggested, or do you back up the bet to the proper bettor?
-
I'm not allowing the blind bettors to withdraw their action, just not counting it as substantial action
-
Okay, Mike. Now it seems as if we're looking to expand the "substantial action" rule. Substantial action can only be recognized after the last card is dealt on the initial deal?
I know it's nothing new but, I don't like it.
I'm going back to my original question...When Adam is skipped and Billy Bob and Carly bet out of turn...is the action backed up to Adam? Or does the action proceed, and return to Adam allowing him two options: Fold or call?
-
Okay, Mike. Now it seems as if we're looking to expand the "substantial action" rule. Substantial action can only be recognized after the last card is dealt on the initial deal?
Think of it... if you recognize SA even before the last card is dealt, then you lock someone who was dealt the wrong number of cards into a dead hand... once SA occurs you can't have a misdeal... so of course we would only want to recognize SA after the last card is pitched AND after SA has occurred after that pitch. This is so basic to poker I'm surprised it has to be explained.
I'm going back to my original question...When Adam is skipped and Billy Bob and Carly bet out of turn...is the action backed up to Adam? Or does the action proceed, and return to Adam allowing him two options: Fold or call?
Rather than answering that directly, I'll refer you to the rule that covers the issue... 2015 Rule 40 A, for one OOT action, and Rule B for multiples. Also I would suggest you read the Illustration Addendum on Rule 40-B
-
Okay Mike I'll take a look at it soon...thanks.
-
Mike,
I looked the addendum...I see no answer to my simple question. The example given only makes mention as to the fate of the skipped player.
I'm surprised, that you feel my question was so basic to poker, that you had to explain it. Really, if I had a dollar for every ridiculous question I responded to in my 3,000 plus posts, I'd have a nice buy-in for a high stake tournament!
Still no answer to my simple question.
-
Mike,
I looked the addendum...I see no answer to my simple question. The example given only makes mention as to the fate of the skipped player.
I'm surprised, that you feel my question was so basic to poker, that you had to explain it. Really, if I had a dollar for every ridiculous question I responded to in my 3,000 plus posts, I'd have a nice buy-in for a high stake tournament!
Still no answer to my simple question.
3000 posts and you don't know how OOT action works ?
-
Mike,
I promise I won't be embarrassed if you tell me. 1822 members and I have to get a response like this. How about something from one of the silent 1810 members that never participate? That includes the five star board of directors.
150 years of poker 101 and the TDA comes along and wants to punish the skipped player! Unbelievable!
Simple answer, Mike...do you back it up, or proceed around the table?