PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Skylight on December 02, 2009, 10:29:50 AM
-
Hello everybody,
I'm new and french speaking, said me if my question is not good writing/ not clear to understand.
29. Verbal Declarations / Acting in Turn
Verbal declarations in turn are binding. 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.
Is a Bet to be considered same as a "Call" or a "Raise" ?
when to consider a bet to be a raise ? minimal amount BB or more, but less of the double of the BB of the played level, is still a Bet ?
Exemple : blinds 200/400, on the turn, player A fold, player B fold, player C want to play, but player D speak instantly and said 1'000. Player C ask to play and bet 700.
Player D could raise to 1'400 or just "Call" ?
-
Ta question est très claire, Skylight ;)
Il ne faut pas considérer un bet comme un raise, mais plutôt comme n'étant ni un check, ni un call, ni un fold.
Dans ce cas, la parole du joueur qui agit prématurément est donc "libérée" si un bet est effectué.
Dans ton exemple, le joueur D n'est plus obligé de miser 1.000 ou même 700. Il peut jeter sa main, caller 700 ou relancer à 1.400 minimum.
Stratégie :
Imagine un joueur expérimenté (A) qui veut faire tapis avec ce qu'il pense être la meilleure main.
Si un joueur après lui (B) parle avant son tour et dit "all-in", alors le joueur A à tout intérêt à ne faire que checker, afin d'obliger B à faire tapis pour pouvoir ensuite le caller.
Si A fais tapis, alors B n'est plus obligé de pousser tout ses jetons et peut jeter sa main, ce qui est bien entendu, une perte pour le joueur A.
Translation for everyone ;)
Your question is very clear, Skylight.
You must not consider the bet as a raise, but rather as a non-check, a non-call and a non-fold.
In that case, the player is released from his early action if a bet is done.
In your example, player D is no more bound to bet 1.000 or even 700. He can now fold his hand, call 700 or raise to 1.400 minimum.
Strategy :
Imagine an advanced player (A) who wants to go all-in with he thinks is the best hand.
If a later player (B) speaks before his turn and says "all-in", then, player A's interest is to check only, in order to oblige B to go all-in and then call him.
If A says all-in, then B is no more bound to push all his chips and can fold his hand, which is, of course, less value for A.
-
Bonjour LeScribe,
Merci pour le translation.... ma Francais est comci comca.... guess I just proved it>? Your assisting and translating is very much appreciated by us all.
Merci Beaucoup,
toujours,
Jan Fisher
-
Skylight et LeScribe,
LeScribe...Il y a un problem avec l'exemple. Dans ce cas avec les blinds de 200-400... le premiere person qui veux raiser est oblige de miser au moins 800... deux fois le grand blind (not 700).
Translation: There is a problem with the example. In this case with blinds of 200-400, the first person who wants to raise must bet at least 800....two times the big blind (not 700).
Linda Johnson
-
showoff!
:)
-
Skylight et LeScribe,
LeScribe...Il y a un problem avec l'exemple. Dans ce cas avec les blinds de 200-400... le premiere person qui veux raiser est oblige de miser au moins 800... deux fois le grand blind (not 700).
Translation: There is a problem with the example. In this case with blinds of 200-400, the first person who wants to raise must bet at least 800....two times the big blind (not 700).
Linda Johnson
Sorry Linda, but it's an action made on the thurn, so the initial bet can be 700, no ?
By the way, congrats Linda for the very good French speaking ! :)
Did you learn with "our" Patrick Bruel ?
(he always say nice things about you when he comments the WPT on french TV ;)
-
Surely, rule 29# in it's current form is open to abuse?
What is to stop a player going all in every turn, in turn or out of turn?
In a cash game this could spoil the game and give the biggest wallet an unfair advantage?
In my games i use 'forced check and forced call'.
If a player utg raises say 3xbb and sb raises to 10xbb but there are still players to act inbetween, the players inbetween have a choice, if they either just call the 3xbb or fold, if this happens all the way around then sb MUST call and cannot raise or fold! However if a player inbetween raises the 3xbet knowing the sb's intention then betting is open again.
Same as after the flop, say 5 players have paid to see the flop but player 3 out of turn raises, the players before have the option to check in which case player 3 is forced to check, again if one of those players knowing player 3s intention bets then betting is open again.
This has improved play and betting out of turn has stopped nearly completely!
It has stopped any chance of abuse!
-
Surely, rule 29# in it's current form is open to abuse?
What is to stop a player going all in every turn, in turn or out of turn?
In a cash game this could spoil the game and give the biggest wallet an unfair advantage?
In my games i use 'forced check and forced call'.
Madkiwi: I think you are missing the point of rule #29. In my interpretation, this rule is not intended to cover the situation you describe, a player repeatedly acting out of turn. I believe the intent of this rule is to cover, what I will call, the "single instance" of a player acting out of turn. There are other TDA rules that you can use in the situation where you have players who repeatedly 'act out of turn', ie., #43 Ethical Play, #44 Etiquette Violations and you can always use the good old standby rule #1.
Hope this Helps!!
-
Hello Skylight,
I will assume you are describing a no-limit game. The blinds are $200/$400. On the turn you said that players A and B folded. This is where the problems begin. Folding when it is your turn to act, without a bet in front of you, violates rules #43 Ethical Play and #44 Etiquette Violations (as stated by chet). The next problem is defining the $700 wager by player C as a raise. Initiating a bet is not a raise. The next problem is why would player D attempt to make a bet unless there were other players behind him, or he thought that player C checked in front of him, right?
I'm a little late with this response, but it's the first time I've seen it. It might need to be translated but, I think it is worthy of mention. My interpretation of Rule 29 is different than others. I will zero in on the part in question; 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. This takes a little too much thought the way it is written. This might explain it better; In other words, the only action that would negate a verbal bet out of turn is a bet or a raise by the proper player. period. Example given; player A folds, player B folds (both violate rule #44) and before player C acts, Player D wagers $1400 but the correct player announces that he wants to wager $700 (which is a legal wager). The issue here is, should player D be obligated to his $1400 bet? The answer can be simple if it was an accident because player D did not know player C was in the hand and more importantly, there was no substantial action, then player D should not be held to his $1400 wager and every option should be open to Player D, fold raise or call......Remember, we must always consider the intent of the player. A caution or a warning to the player that he must wait his turn, should be enough. If the player repeats the action after being warned, then he should be held liable to any "out of turn" wager that he announced! I was confused on this ruling myself on a prior discussion. Another example player A bets, player C raises and skips player B, if the action can be corrected before another player reacts to the incorrect bet, then the action should be backed up to the proper player. If the bet out of turn is followed by another player acting (because he was misled by the wrong bettor), this is considered substantial action.
Nick C
-
Sorry Linda, but it's an action made on the thurn, so the initial bet can be 700, no ?
By the way, congrats Linda for the very good French speaking ! :)
Did you learn with "our" Patrick Bruel ?
(he always say nice things about you when he comments the WPT on french TV ;)
Hey, I speak French too, tres bien meme !! (Very well I mean, and not show off. :D)
So yes, 700 bet is valid, as it's a first bet, and not a raise. ;-) The rule says that a bet should be of 'minimum' the BB.
==>Now I have some questions on this topic:
With BB at 400, what is the minimum re-raise?
# Situation one:
Player A bets 400, player B raise to 800, can player C re-raise to 1200 (i.e + minimum BB) or should he re-raise to 1600 (i.e + minimum Previous Bet/raise)
# Situation two:
Player A bets 700, can player B raise to 1100 (i.e + minimum BB) or should he raise twice the previous bet, i.e 1400... and can player C re-raise with minimum BB or should he re-raise twice the Previous Bet/raise.
I thank you in advance.
NupZ..
-
Nupz,
Both situations are governed by TDA rule #31:
31. Raises
A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round
so situation 1:
bet 400, raise of 400 to 800, the previous bet or raise faced by player c is 400(800 total) so the minimum is 1,200 total (a raise of 400)
situation 2:
700 bet, the size of the previous bet or raise so the minimum is therefore 1,400 total (a raise of 700 more), player c would be governed by the size of player b's bet so for example:
player a bets 700, b raises to 1,850 total (a raise of 1,150) player C must now raise by 1,150 minimum to 3,000 total.
Hope this helps!
Stuart
-
You just made that so easy. ;-)
Thank you, NupZ.
-
re re..
just one last one to eat your brains a bit, please, thank you, here:
BB is at 400.
Player A bets 400, B goes all in with 900. Technically, Player C can re-raise to 1400 (minimum re-raise being 500 of previous bet/all in)..
???(i) am I right?
Question is: What if B went all in 700 only... can Player C re-raise.. since B's all in wasn't a real raise actual, lack of respect towards rule # 31. ;-)
Some people says no, you can only call.. which i agree with.. Others say that only option for C to raise is to go all-in..
???(ii) what's your opinion please ?
I understood, but don't remember how, and finally got mixed up .. that there's one situation where a Player (having a bigger stack than the other players in the active hand) who wants to raise, absolutely have to go all-in, else, to just call the previous bet..
??? (iii) would you please be kind and provide some food for thought here..
I thank you in advance,
NupZ..
-
The example that you gave is for no-limit. The answer is player C should be able to raise because the all-in wager was not a complete raise (100% is what I would prefer). Player C could fold, call the $700 or raise to a total of $800 or more. The important part of rule #31 that is not mentioned; When the all-in player (B) makes the action only raise of $300 for a total bet of $700, it will not reopen the betting to player A (the initial bettor) unless player C completes the raise. I hope I am making this a little clearer. Bottom line, this rule will be addressed at the next meeting per Jan Fisher.
Nick C
-
Nupz,
in the 400/900 situation player c faces a riase of 500 to 900, has not had action yet so can do anything, raise 500 more min, fold, call.
in the 300 more situation player c still can raise again (a minimum of 400 to 1100).
The important thing to remember is that player c has not yet acted in the hand so can do what he wants. Heres a situation where the action only bet does not reopen the betting round:
blinds 200/400
on the flop player a checks, player b pushes all-in for 350, player c calls 350, action goes back to A. He can only call 350 or fold as he has given up his right to raise by checking the flop
example 2
blinds 200/400
player A checks the flop, player b bets 1000, player c pushes all-in for 1800, action goes back to a (who can raise this time) who calls, player b wants to raise but is not permitted to do so as the 1800 all-in is action only (not a complete raise). (had player a raised b could of went over the top again)
At no point in time is a player required if raising to go all-in if they can raise the pot.
hope this helps!
-
To all
At some point in this heated discussion we shifted from Rule #29 over to rule #31. Perhaps we can separate the two especially with the title; Question about Rule 29
-
All clear. ;-)
I've also been through the other topic 'Under Raise' that helped a lot.
Thank you so much,
Cheers,
NupZ..
-
hi all
first of all i apologize for my bad english.
short summary:
nl, sb 200, bb 400.
utg 2 announces raise but utg 1 hasnt act.
so utg 1 all in with 700.
a) ut2 has still to raise because it wasnt a full raise from utg1, seems clear to me
b) is a little tricky for me. whats the minimum raise from utg 2. 800, 1100, 1400...
hm, i think minimum raise is 1100.
thx for answers
-
Lushin,
I make the presumption that we are pre-flop and action has just started on the hand.
In this situation UTG1 was facing a forced bet of 400 (the BB) so the minimum raise would be 400 to 800 total.
UTG+2 announced raise before UTG+1 acted on his hand, since UTG+2 has acted out of turn and the action has not changed (700 all-in from +1 is action only and does not change the action) he must now complete his verbal declaration by raising.
The minimum he must raise in your scenario is as follows:
BB 400 + all-in 300 + Minimum riase again of 400 = 1,100 total, as you thought.
Had UTG+1 had enough for a full raise UTG+2 could of retracted his raise statement and re-considered his actions as the action had changed to him.
I quote:
29. Verbal Declarations / Acting in Turn
Verbal declarations in turn are binding. 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.
IMO Given the previous discussions we have held the action has not changed by going all-in for 700 total.
Hope this helps
Stuart
-
Stuamurr,
This is where I get real confused. I agree completely until you get to the part about the action not changing to UTG 2. Obviously he was not aware of UTG 1 being in the hand. I will now Quote rule #29 in part; 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.
I can only assume that the other two options would change the action, right? Eliminate check, call and fold and we have a bet or a raise. In this case I consider the action did change to UTG 2 and he should have the option to just call. In fact, I would allow him to call or make his original minimal raise of $400 to a total bet of $800. In that example, it could be possible that the UTG 2 might not be obligated to his raise when UTG 1 goes in for $700. He might even have the right to fold. Why did the player skip the player in front of him? We have to consider the intent of the UTG 2; Intentional (according to Webster;done with intention, or on purpose). Give him a warning and if he does it again he will be subjected to any consequences of his out of turn action.
That's how I see it.
Nick Ciavarella
-
Nick: I happen to agree with you on this one. I really need someone to explain why the all-in of 700, which is more than a call, but less than a full raise, does not change the action. I could understand if the all-in was for 300 total, which would be less than a call, but not when the total amount of the all-in is more than a call.
My position is that UTG2 can 'raise' to 800 total, which would at that point in time create a side pot of 100. The next player can call the 800, 700 of which goes into the main pot, fold or raise (the minimum raise would be another 400 to 1200).
Since no player "officially" acted prior to the all-in by UTG1, I do not believe rule 31 applies to this example.
As Nick said, I would give UTG2 a warning, etc.
Stuart: I really would like to know your thoughts on why the minimum raise would be to 1100 and not 800. For that matter, I would like to know the BOD position also.
Chet
-
wow this really is a can of worms this subject! Ok here we go remember as always the expressions and comments I make are not those of the TDA and may differ from other TD's interpretations.
In my reply I use rules 29 and 31 as reference points:
Action Changed: Given the previous discussions we have had most of you have already accepted that during a betting round: in no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. So we have already accepted thats the case during a round of betting for a player going all-in with less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to players whom have already acted right? and that this all-in is classed as action only right? We have all agreed on this. So logically speaking this is not a full raise pre-plop and action only so has the action changed any different from the player who made the same all-in movement for 700 post-flop facing a bet off 400. The original bettor in that situation is faced with action only and therefore in order to not be contradictory so is UTG+2 in this situation.
Whilst I can see Chet's and Nick's argument that the action HAS changed to UTG+2, in order for me to be most consistent I must rule the 700 as non-action changing
The Minimum raise of UTG+2: utg+2 (providing you have accepted the action has not changed) must make a full raise on on top of the TOTAL bet (not raise) of which he is facing so he is facing 700 with a minimum full raise required of 400 to 1100 (A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round) I would refer anyone with uncertainty to MikeB and my own replies to the under raise and rule 31 thread about action-only.
Best Regards
Stuart
-
Chet, Stuart and anyone else out there that is having issues with the raise rule.
POT-LIMIT
Consider this: Pot-limit is the only poker game that could dictate a different maximum bet or raise to every player on every betting round.
The number of bets combined with varied amounts alter the allowable wager, even when the bets are equal. Example; Pot size $100
Player A bets $50, Player B calls $50, Player C calls $50, Player D calls $50, etc. With each call the maximum bet and raise option changes
to each new bettor. This makes the undersized bets and raises of all-in players a relevant part of the allowable bets, because it alters the size of the pot. I would accept this as a very logical and understandable ruling for pot-limit.
Example; The accumulation of wagers including those of multiple all-in players with differing amounts will be considered when compiling a full raise amount for that round of betting.
NO-LIMIT
Unlike pot-limit: Example; blinds 10/20, pot size (irrelevant) Player A bets $50, player B calls $50 player C calls $50 and player D calls $50 etc.
The number of players should not dictate any change in options to players that follow on that round of betting, unless a full raise is made.
Any undersized bet by an all-in player shall be recognized as action only . Any undersized raise can never reopen a re-raise to the player that
initiated the first full bet for that round of betting. Any player that checked prior to a full bet followed by an all-in raise, or a full raise by an intervening player will have every option, including a re-raise.
I think we need to separate the two
Nick C
-
Hi There
Another question about acting out of turn:
If player A (never mind how many people are in the hand) said in his turn: "Raise" and before he had the chance of stating to how much he is raising the player behind him (B) said: "call".
Does player B obligated to call any amount? Even All-in or is he obligate to call only minimum raise?
Thanks
-
By the book yes, he is obligated however it would be determined for me by a number of factors, if it was someone who thought it was a small raise going in but then the player moved all-in and I believed their was a gross misunderstanding as-to the total bet then i would consider releasing the player from their verbal declaration, but I would need to be satisfied that it was in the best interests of the game.
Regards
Stuart
-
To shimi664,
I agree with Stuart. Player B, by his quick reaction, would be an indication to me that he wants in, no matter what the bet is. Stuart also goes on to say that; "unless it was a gross misunderstanding as to the total bet then I would consider releasing the player from their verbal declaration, but I would need to be satisfied that it is in the best interest of the game." This is very important. We always have to consider the intent of the player. A new player or an inexperienced player might make a mistake that others would not, however once they are reprimanded for their out of turn action, it should be enough to get the message across. Any player that intentionally continues to "walk the grey line" on any house rules has no re-dress (re-dress according to Webster; relief from wrong or injury, to adjust evenly again) and will be subjected to the consiquences of his actions. It has been my experience through many years of being around poker games (in casinos and house games), that any player that breaks the rules consistantly is probably someone that you don't need in your card room.
Shimi664, I feel that your example got your message across. I will also assume that this is preflop and Player A is raising the big blind.I also want you to know that other players being in the hand could have a profound effect on making the correct decision. A good example, I think, would be if after B said call (prematurely) and player C followed with "all-in" raise of his own, then player B might have no way out of his verbal out of turn action. This is what keeps us sharp!...This is how we make the right call every time (ha, ha,), right? I like to throw in a little humor when I think it fits. I hope you don't mind. I assure you, I take this Discussion Forum very serious.
Thanks for listening.
Nick C