PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: The Hitman on March 22, 2011, 04:57:40 PM
-
What would you do in that case?
MTT, full ring tables (10 handed), blinds: not important
Player A is seated on 10 (UTG in that hand), he looks at his hand and takes a short time of reflexion, but player B (seat 1) thinks he's also UTG because he can't see his opponent.
What happens? While A is thinking, B folds, C calls and D announces "raise", so there's three actions and A hasn't talked!
At this time, A says "I didn't talk!"
Is the hand dead?
Thank you!
-
dogzy,
No, the hand is live unless the dealer burns and turns before the 10 seat draws attention to being skipped. When the action returns to the 10 seat, he can only fold or call.
-
Actually Nick, I thought we had decided in a different thread that the hand would be dead? Three players have acted and player A has lost the right to act therefore his hand is dead.
Though this particular situation may be slightly different because Player D simply SAID raise rather than putting chips in the pot. So perhaps you could back the action up to player A since he is yelling at the same time that player D is calling a raise but that one is a little thin.
go back to this thread: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=342.15
-
Jasper,
I never agreed that a hand would be dead unless the next card were played and he hadn't called the previous bet. I will take a look at the thread when I have time.
-
Presumably this was not a lightning fast action by all three players, if it was, go to rule # 1. It is the responsibility of A (the first player in the example) to stop the action to preserve his right to act. Once substantial action occurs, without a protest from A, the hand is dead.
In this example, the player that SAID raise is obligated to do just as if the chips had been placed into the pot.
-
Dave,
Are you saying that a skipped player has a dead hand once three people act after him? I must be missing something.
-
Yes, Nick,
A player that allows three players to act behind him has a dead hand.
-
The player lost his right to act. Dave you're right about the verbal action being binding so that should play into the decision for substantial action. The this situation was described anyway....
Nick, this is a quote from you from the other thread on an almost identical scenario:
The hand is absolutely DEAD.
-
My deciding factor would be Substantial Action, which I would gauge as more than three players acting or three players acting where an intervening raise had occurred, it is the players responsibility to protect their right to act in a hand which must be done by calling 'time' or another similar phrase. In this circumstance I would rule the hand dead also as IMO substantial action has occurred, in order that backing up the action or limiting the player to passive action to the betting round would be more detrimental than killing his hand.
Regards
Stu
-
Jasper,
Read the post that you are talking about and you will see the difference. They are two completely different situations. The dealer taps, burns, and turns before the player speaks up. That makes it a little different, don't you think?
Stuart, Are you telling me that in a full table, if a player bets out of turn and skips the proper bettor, and two other players follow with five other players still to act, *that the action can't be backed-up to the proper player?******* NO IT CAN NOT, WHAT I MEANT TO SAY WAS; WHEN THE ACTION RETURNS TO THE SKIPPED PLAYER, HE CAN ONLY FOLD OR CALL. Plus Some of us have defined significant action as only two players. What right do we have to kill that players hand?
*I made a mistake on this post and I want to draw attention to it before I confuse anyone that reads this for the first time.
-
Jasper,
Read the post that you are talking about and you will see the difference. They are two completely different situations. The dealer taps, burns, and turns before the player speaks up. That makes it a little different, don't you think? No I don't because our argument is that the dealer is part of the action so he was being counted as part of the significant action. I like Thomas' definition of substantial action the best, but even the rule in RROP that says the player loses his right to act specifically says '3 players have acted'....
Stuart, Are you telling me that in a full table, if a player bets out of turn and skips the proper bettor, and two other players follow with five other players still to act, that the action can't be backed-up to the proper player? That's rediculous! Plus Some of us have defined significant action as only two players. What right do we have to kill that players hand?
-
Jasper,
He loses his right to act, that does NOT mean he has a dead hand. If that's what they were getting at, they would have said the damn hand was dead, and not beat around the bush.
-
Jasper,
He loses his right to act, that does NOT mean he has a dead hand. If that's what they were getting at, they would have said the damn hand was dead, and not beat around the bush.
You would have thought so wouldn't you. However, I believe that if you lose the right to act then you just don't get to act period. Which would mean not after all the action comes around to you and not before the action goes any further. In a cash game I could see letting the player call whatever comes around to him if you really wanted to, though not my first choice. It just lets the sly ones angle a bit by not acting and not saying anything and waiting to see if the aggressive guy three seats down is raising the pot for the 5th time this round or not. And this is particularly true in tournaments.
I guess we are going to have to disagree on this one... the hand is dead.
-
I thought the example given on the forum was about a player who allows players to act (getting information) and fails to protect his right to act. Before the flop, I rule that a dead hand.
There are actually several variations of not acting on your hand when it is your turn, here are some:
If the player has money in the pot and it is after the flop, we may go to "the loss of aggressive action."
If the player continues to somehow hide the cards or we believe an angle is being taken, he may be penalized after a warning.
If the player is facing a bet and lets substantial action occur behind them, that is dead.
I agree that it would be a great topic for discussion at the Summit. Whether it makes sense to try and encompass all the possibilties in the form of a new rule, that is another debate.
-
Dave,
I'm glad we at least are opening this up for further discussion. The frustrating part about this subject to me is; everyone is looking at the skipped player like he is deliberately hiding his cards, or allowing the action to pass him by. If that is the case, then of course he should be reprimanded. If you look back at all of my posts, I try to focus on why the player was skipped. Remember this; ONLY THE ACTION OF AN OUT-OF-TURN BETTOR CAN BEGIN SUBSTANTIAL ACTION. So, once again I will say that we must always consider the intent of the player, and every situation is different. To try to enforce a rule that kills a player's hand because another player broke Rule #29, and then to compound it, by having the dealer allow the next one or two bettors to follow is hard for me to comprehend.
Jasper,
What in the heck are you writting all of that in red for? For your information, I consider substantial action as only two people acting because a good dealer will correct the out of turn before it gets that far....consider this a smiley face....Also remember that I don't agree with killing the hand either. So what's your point?
-
Red shows up best, it has no other meaning for me.
I think I was trying to say that the second example doesn't change my opinion about the hand being dead. We probably disagree on what substantial action is (though Thomas has the best definition I've seen).. but in both these examples substantial action occurred by my definition. Therefore, I say the hand is dead.
I think we can only assume that since the action became substantial that the missed player was not doing HIS job of watching the action and acting in turn to preserve his right to act. I can also get behind the fact that the DEALER could have controlled the action a bit too but that is part of the assumption that the missed player was even less involved in the action than the dealer (nothing happening at that seat, dealer missed it along with two or three players, that kind of thing)
The smiley faces are at the top of the message dialog, click them to add them, but pick the right mood! :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(
-
Jasper,
We may disagree on what substantial action is but, I'm saying that substantial action alone does not kill the skipped players hand. I am in the minority, I know but, I don't recall ever seeing that unless the dealer burned and turned before it was noticed. The intent of the player must be considered.
Did the skipped player let the action pass him by intentionally? Why did the next player bet out of turn? Was that intentional? Why did the dealer let things get that far? To tell a player that his hand is dead because; the clown on his left bet out of turn, and the dealer didn't stop the next player from calling, is a little hard for me to take. Some of you had better hand out a warning, or post one at the entrance to your card room to let new players know that they had better be up on all of your rules, or they might be in for a few surprises if some irregularity takes place at their table.
-
Hi All,
I am working as a floorman in Europe and my interpretation of this rule is as follows.
1) The player is facing bet and let 3 or more players to act after him/her.............DEAD HAND
2) The player is NOT facing a bet and let 3 or more players to act after him/her...............He/she has lost his/her right to act, but his/her hand is live and he/she is assumed to "check" in turn.
regards
RK
-
RobinK,
What rule are you refering to? There is a rule for ACTING OUT OF TURN (TDA #29), but I know of no such rule for killing a players hand unless the next card is played before they act, or they did not call the final round of betting before the showdown. When you say that the player is facing a bet, and lets 3 players act after him, what do you mean? Did the dealer tell him it was his bet and he refused? Why did he let the action go by him? Tell me what rule kills his hand.
One of the biggest problems IMO, too many of us look at the rules as PUNISHMENT for irregularities when we should be looking to offer more PROTECTION for damage to non offending players.
How does a player not facing a bet, let players act after him. I don't understand.
-
Ah Nick, have ye not 'erd 'bout MP3 players, earphones, music players and the like. I have seen players so 'into their tunes', that they hardly know where they are much less what they are doing or supposed to be doing. Not to mention alcohol.
I don't have much sympathy for players who are not paying attention. Players who are mislead or given incorrect information are entirely another matter.
Chet
-
HI nick,
I was refering to your previous conversation with Dave.
If the player in turn does not pay attention and other players on the table and the dealer are not aware, that he is still in the hand and the action carries on with 3 or more players acting then the player lost the right to act on that betting round.
Ergo, if the player was facing a bet and lost his right to act then He/she can not make a call or raise to stay in the hand. = Dead hand
If it is after flop and the player does not face any bet and same situation occurs, then he/she lost the right to act (make a bet in this case) and he/she is assumed to "check" his option, but remains in the hand with a live hand.
Regards,
RK
-
RobinK,
I understand that a player in a later round who is skipped, and two or three players checked after him, it is assumed that he also checked, and he can not bet, but only fold or call if someone else bets in front of him. I agree that the hand is still live. So are you telling me that if three players check past the skipped player, the hand is live, but if three players bet after him his hand is automatically dead? I don't agree. If the dealer acts and turns another board card before it is discovered that a player was skipped, then his hand is dead. If three players act after the skipped player and it is caught in time, I say that the player still has a live hand, and can only fold or call.
Chet,
If a player is deliberate in his action by hiding his cards, or not paying attention, or listening to his MP3 player, or staring at the cocktail waitress then he is the offending player. There has to be a time when it is noticed that the player did not participate in all betting, if this happens, then the hand is dead. Substantial action alone will not kill the players hand.
Show me the rule.
-
I'm more in favor of this:
*If there is substantial action past a player who has not acted, and the dealer has put out the next community cards(s) without anyone bringing attention to the skipped player, then the hand is dead.
*If there is substantial action past a player who has not acted, and the dealer has NOT put out the next community cards(s), then that player may not take aggressive action during that betting round but his hand is still live. (He may call check or fold only).
-
Brian,
Thank you, where have you been? Take a look at all of my posts on this subject and that is exactly what I've been saying. Now we just have to convince the other 1200 or so, that don't see it our way. Perfect. Substantial action alone, does not kill a skipped player's hand. I rest my case.
-
I was posting on the other thread that's just like this one ;)
-
Hi Nick,
Have a look again on my previous post please. If you read carefully, you will see that I wrote "player who is facing a bet".
example 1. After the flop was dealt, there is still 6 players in the hand. A,B,C,D,E,F
A- bets 100
B- is not paying attention, does not make any statement or action
C- folds
D-calls 100
E- raises to 400
At this moment the player B says" wait! I did not acted yet", dealer calls me to the table to make ruling. I rule that player B has a DEAD HAND.
example 2. After the flop was dealt, there is still 6 players in the hand. A,B,C,D,E,F
A- checks
B- is not paying attention, does not make any statement or action
C- bet 100
D-calls 100
E- raises to 400
At this moment the player B says" wait! I did not acted yet", dealer calls me to the table to make ruling. I rule that player B has "checked", his hand is live
and when the action comes back to him He has all the options(fold,call,raise).
Your opinions please.
Regards,
RK
-
RobinK
I'm sorry but I still feel strongly against killing the players hand in your example:
Hi Nick,
Have a look again on my previous post please. If you read carefully, you will see that I wrote "player who is facing a bet".
example 1. After the flop was dealt, there is still 6 players in the hand. A,B,C,D,E,F
A- bets 100
B- is not paying attention, does not make any statement or action
C- folds
D-calls 100
E- raises to 400
At this moment the player B says" wait! I did not act yet", dealer calls me to the table to make a ruling. I rule that player B has a DEAD HAND.
-
If the next card is put out it's a no brainer. Dead hand. It gets touchy if it hasn't been put out yet. Did the player call attention to being missed quickly and 3 people had already acted because they were very quick to act? Or did the players act at a normal pace (whatever that is) and then the missed player speaks up? It's somewhat of a judgement call which puts a TD to the test but if you rule his hand live it's to fold or call only. I would lean that way with a stern warning to the missed player to pay attention and speak up quickly.
-
Amazing! Everyboby is still blaming the poor bastard that got skipped! ......"Oh Mr Jones, your hand is dead because Freddy bet out of turn and then the dealer let Sally raise Freddy's bet." I'm smiling, but it really isn't that funny.
-
I'm not so sure Mr Jones was born of 'Dubious Parentage' though ;-)
edit: Actually now that I think of it I did not realize Bastard was a term used outside of (predominately) England, we use it colloquially in Scotland as a derogatory term, how is it used stateside?
Stu
-
On this side of the pond 'Bastard' can have degrees of meaning depending on it use.
The one you are likely use to is the simple "You Bastard" which is derogatory and disparages the persons heritage.
then there is "you sneaky Bastard, you" which depending on who is using it is more likely to be a sideways sort of compliment.
And Nicks use of it; "the poor, bastard" just references a terribly put upon fellow and generally does not refer to his heritage.
and then there is "what a bastard" which references a persons bad (read evil or ornery) behavior in certain situations. this one may or may not reference a persons heritage. That depends on the users mood and tone I suppose.
I have even heard "you beautiful Bastard" I imagine is along the same lines as you sneaky bastard but if the user is a woman in the right context, well....whatever... ::)
-
The term is not appropriate in civilized company, unless it is clear that the context is one of obvious humor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhaap42I2sc