PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: W0lfster on March 28, 2011, 05:09:41 AM
-
Hi there, I just want to ask about the handling of situations to out of turn betting. I can see this topic has been discussed quite a lot in this forum but I am still not satisfied with a rule I can go by. I hear so many people tell me you can take your chips back if the player who was skipped raises your OOT betting, while others say you cant. I understand TDA rules may differ to some of the WSOP rules, so to make it simple as this is the TDA, can I please have a logical ordered explanataion of each scenario, thank you.
No limit Holdem Tournament (MTT) blinds 100/200
1. BB on the flop bets 200 out of turn before SB has had a chance to act. The action goes back immediately to the SB who calls the 200. What are the BB's options? Can he raise?
If the SB raises the BB's OOT 200 bet can the BB take his/her bet back? If this is so does that mean the BB can potentially fold in this case? Can the BB raise the SB's raise as this was action changing by a Raise from the SB.
Confusing enough, Ive heard some rules dictate you can only call no matter what the action is until the next card is dealt in this case (the turn) card where all your options are available again.
-
I'm going to call the sb seat 1 and the bb seat 2 for this response.
I'm paraphrasing the actual wording, but "Action out of turn is binding unless the action changes before it reaches that player, a check fold or call are not changes in action." In this instance, if Seat 2 bets 200 out of turn, then the dealer should step in and say something along the lines of "Sir, action is on Seat 1." and hold the bet. The dealer should be clear that it is seat 1's action and he can check or bet. At this point the 200 that seat 2 bet is not neccessarily bound to the pot. If seat 1 checks, then seat 2's bet of $200 stands. If seat 1 bets, then the action has now changed and seat 2 may reconsider his action. Seat 2 would now be freed to fold, call, or raise.
Basically, seat 2's bet was in response to a bet of $0. If he's still facing a bet of $0 when action reaches him, then his bet stands.
Same thing holds true if there were 3 or more players. Say seat 1 bets $200, seat 3 out of turn says "raise to $500". Action reverts back to seat 2. If seat 2 calls or folds, then seat 3 is still facing a bet of $200 so his bet stands. If seat 2 says raise to $500, then seat 3 is no longer resonding to a bet of $200 and may now reconsider his action, meaning he may fold, call, or raise.
At least, that's my understading of it ;)
-
Brian,
I'm usually with you all the way but, I know you will get some different opinions when you say that the OOT better (player 2) would get his 200 back if Player 1 (the proper bettor) bet the same amount. The only reason I question this is the fact that; Player 2 had intentions of betting and he bet the minimum....so why should I let the out of turn retract his bet? Would it make a difference if Player 2 bet 500 OOT and then Player 1 bet 200? Would Player 2 be held to his 500, or could he just call?
Maybe Mike can better explain. Brian, I think your interpretation is correct. I'm just wondering if it could use a little more, that's all.
Wolfster,
You really need to let us know how many players are involved. If you can "set-up" the exact scenario, we will be able to better answer your questions. No, the out of turn bettor (the BB), can not raise himself. He can't do anything but leave his 200 in the pot. Period.
-
The player who bets out of turn is betting that amount in response to another amount. In the case where there is a $200 bet oot he is betting in response to what he believes to be a $0 bet. The rule that I follow (which I believe is the intent based on the wording in the TDA rules) is that if action changes to him, then his oot bet is not binding.
Therefore when action reverts back to player A he now has two choices, bet or check. He can not "call" a bet because he is now leading the action and can not call a bet that has yet to be made. If Player A checks then the $200 bet from Player B stands and it is now on Player A to call, fold, or raise. If Player A bets, then he made the choice to change the action that Player B is facing. he made the choice to "unbind" Player B's action and if Player B is no longer bound to his original bet then he may act as he pleases in response to Player A's new bet. Player B can no longer bet $200 in response to a $0 bet because a $0 bet is no longer the action.
-
Brian,
I am not disputing your interpretation of the rule, you are correct. I am trying to point out a scenario that makes the rule appear flawed. What is to prevent any player to act out of turn, in that position, if he knows that he can get his bet back, or even raise, even if the action were backed-up to the proper bettor who wagered the same amount? That's a long question but, I think you can follow it. What do you think?
-
Brian, so in the example in which you mentioned where the BB (player 2) bets $200 OOT, and the action goes immediately back to the SB (player 1) what happens if he bets $200 just like the BB's OOT $200 bet? Is that action changing? As it is a valid in turn bet. If it is, does that mean the BB has the option of taking his/her bet back and reconsider whether to fold call or raise?
-
Brian, so in the example in which you mentioned where the BB (player 2) bets $200 OOT, and the action goes immediately back to the SB (player 1) what happens if he bets $200 just like the BB's OOT $200 bet? Is that action changing?
This IS action changing as per TDA rules. As such Player 2 now has all options opened to them which are Call, Raise or Fold. However, the chips that were used by Player 2 during the OOT bet have NOT been specifically mentioned in the TDA ruling. This leaves the ruling, somewhat, open for interpretation.
In your OP, Player 2 bet 200 chips OOT and finalised the action by releasing the declared amount in a forward motion. Then when action is backed up to Player 1 who then bets 200, the 200 bet from Player 2 is still sitting in the pot. The question is, If Player 2 chooses to fold, then does Player 2 get his 200 back from the pot?!?!
Assuming the only players left in this particular case are Player 1 and Player 2. I would also assume that I was asked to make a ruling after Player 1's Bet and before Player 2's decision. I would have to do two things:
1) Rule that the OOT chips from Player 2 would stay in the pot.
2) Make sure that Player 2 is aware of the ruling before they choose to Call, Raise or Fold.
I am a believer that "Chips should stay" because it would prove as a deterrent against OOT actions. Plus all of the cardrooms that I've been to use similar rules which means a conformity between my room and others around the world which use TDA rules.
If it is, does that mean the BB has the option of taking his/her bet back and reconsider whether to fold call or raise?
IMO, Player 2 does get to reconsider whether to fold, call or raise but they do not get their 200 back which was added to the pot.
What is to prevent any player to act out of turn, in that position, if he knows that he can get his bet back, or even raise, even if the action were backed-up to the proper bettor who wagered the same amount?
I would have to determine whether the OOT action was made intentionally or unintentionally. If I thought that the OOT action was made unintentionally, then I would only issue a warning. If I thought the OOT action was made intentionally, or for a repeated offence, I would issue a minimum one round penalty.
Hope this helps :)
-
Dave,
Great post. If you look back at all that you have written, you will see that following the current rule, will not support your decision to keep player 2's chips in the pot.
If the dealer, immediately stopped the out of turn bettor and corrected the action to Player 1, then Player 2 could change his mind. Consider this; Player 1 is skipped, Player 2 bets (OOT), then Player 1 raises. I'll bet that any TD or floor person would not allow the raise, but would also not allow Player 2 to take back his original OOT bet.
-
I do not agree with keeping Player B's chips in the pot if action changes. To me, binding is binding, and unbinding is unbinding. Once action reverts back to Player A, he should have the situation explained to him before he acts. Dealer should say to Player A "Action is on you. If you check, then his bet stands, if you bet then he can reconsider his action."
-
Brian,
I am waiting for your answer to your last sentence. It looks like it is incomplete, or you are asking a question. How would you finish the scenario you mentioned?
What are your feelings on the example that I gave? What would you rule? I'll give it to you again;
Consider this; Player 1 is skipped, Player 2 bets (OOT), then Player 1 raises. I'll bet that any TD or floor person would not allow the raise, but would also not allow Player 2 to take back his original OOT bet.
-
and i alsoooo agree :) xxxxxxxxxxxx
-
HAHA thx Girlfriend! :) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
Although Im aware of the TDA rules of having the chance to have your bet back if the action changes I am however more for forcing the player to keep his chips in no matter what. It adds to the discipline of the game and makes people more careful of their actions which Im all for. So by using this rule, if Player 2 bets $200 out of turn and then back to player 1 when who bets $200, does that mean player 2 can check?
Another situation if player 2 bets $200 out of turn and then player 1 bets $300, what is the minimum raise if player 2's $200 bet is still in the pot?
Also if player 1 checks after an out of turn $200 bet by player 2 what would be the point in checking if player 1 knows he/she will face the OOT bet when it gets back to them?
-
Brian,
I am waiting for your answer to your last sentence. It looks like it is incomplete, or you are asking a question. How would you finish the scenario you mentioned?
What are your feelings on the example that I gave? What would you rule? I'll give it to you again;
Consider this; Player 1 is skipped, Player 2 bets (OOT), then Player 1 raises. I'll bet that any TD or floor person would not allow the raise, but would also not allow Player 2 to take back his original OOT bet.
Internet went out at work yesterday when I was writing that last post, didn't even know it posted and forgot about it when I went home.
In your example, Playwer 1 is skipped, Player 2 bets OOT. Action reverts back to Player 1 who must make FIRST ACTION. Player 2 can not simply "raise' because Player 2's bet technically hasn't happened yet. If he checks, then Player 2's bet stands and he may now raise, but he MUST CHECK FIRST before a raise can happen. If he bets out instead, then he is betting knowing that it will change the action. Thus, Player 2 may take his bet back and fold, he can call, and he can raise.
There is only one option on the debate that allows for an absolute.
Here's an example that I believe may help to show why action changing must unbind the bet.
Say Player 2 bets $300 out of turn. Actions reverts back to Player 1. Player 1 bets $200. Player 2 can not bet $300 in this instance. If we say that chips must remain in the pot, then he must either take back $100 or put in an extra $200 to make it a valid raise which would then reopen action? This situation creates a need to use the rule differently from one example to the next and requires a lot more explaining. IMO, we need more rules that are absolute. Unbinding action is absloute.
-
Brian,
I'm sorry but, I'm a little confused at what you are saying in your first paragraph. I think we can agree that rule #29 does not cover all OOT situations to our liking. I am not in favor of giving the offending player (Player 2), all options, just because the action is backed-up to the proper bettor. I don't see Player 2's OOT bet as facing a "zero bet." I see his action as an illegal out of turn wager that should stay in the pot.
In one of your situations you said; what would you do if Player 2 (the OOT) bet 300, and it was backed-up to Player 1 and he bet 200. I think you answered your own question; Player 2 could call or raise, but he should not be allowed to take his whole 300 back. That's how I see it. I think we need some specific examples that might cover the exceptions to the current rules, as opposed to always looking to change them.
-
Under the circumstance where player 2 bets $200 and it is backed up to player 1 who bets $200, I'm just not comfortable with re-opening the betting for player 2. The rules state that it does, but I just don't like it.
-
I am in agreement with Spence, I believe player 2 should keep his $200 OOT bet in there as an added penalty for acting OOT. I am aware that the WSOp use this very rule and I think its the best way, my question is though if that player cannot take his bet back and player 1 bets $200 also when player 2 has bet $200 OOT, is he/she allowed to check or is the player skipped to player 3?
-
If Player 1 (the person who is actually effected by the OOT bet) is concerned with Player 2 leaving his money in the pot, then all he has to do is say check and it's not an issue. If he wants to lead out instead and Player 2 takes his bet back and folds as a response to that, then Player 1 has no one to blame but himself for not just checking now that action is back on him.
Like I've said before, it only takes a quick explanation by the dealer to Player 1 explaining his options once Player 2's infraction occurs. After this, the decision is in Player 1's hands. If he checks, the bet stands and he is free to check-call, check-raise, check-fold. If he bets then he bets knowing what will happen if he does; he could now be facing a raise, fold, or call, but Player 2's chips have the possibility of not being bound to the pot if Player 1's action unbinds it.
-
Brian,
Do you think that is the way it should be? Why should the out of turn bettor be allowed to dictate what size bet will open that round of betting? You are saying that if the PROPER bettor does anything other than check, the offending player (player 2) can withdraw his (OOT) bet, or even raise. I think I'm following what you're saying and that's exactly why I don't like the rule.
-
Like I've said before, it only takes a quick explanation by the dealer to Player 1 explaining his options once Player 2's infraction occurs. After this, the decision is in Player 1's hands.
Maybe I'm just being picky but I would worry that the dealers explaination could be construed as influencing the decision. I had this happen in my room not long ago. Player 1 was very new and Player 2 was a shark. The dealer wanted to stop the action and ensure that Player 1 knew what her options were but Player 2 intervened saying that the dealer was coaching her into a decision. Luckily, I was there at the time. After the explaination she still wanted to bet the $200 so I held that Player 2's action was complete and he was passed. I thought it to be the most fair decision at the time. Was it? Maybe not the book rule but integrity and fairness of the game was preserved. Someone argue with me :)
-
Spence,
What do you mean when you say that Player 2's action was complete and he was passed? Did he bet 200 OOT and therefore had no option but leave his bet in the pot? If so, that is what I agree with but, it does not comply with the current rule, does it?
-
Sorry Nick. That's right. I was loosely using the same example as stated in the initial argument. Player 2 was passed because he had already put his $200 in OOT.
-
one reason to have the rule is to prevent player 2 "stealing" the first bet bluff IMO.
i consider that player 1 should be free to choose whatever option he likes, casue he has not done anything wrong, question is what to do with the bet that is in the pot from player 2.
Following the rules from tDA this is my idea.
I would give turn to act back to player 1, and the options is, check(bet from p2 stands, and resume normal rules when it comes back to players 1),he bet same amount as OOT bet(I.E 200 forcing player 2 to make the call of 200),Bet more then player2, and this gives the option back to player 2, he can Call. He can Fold and withdraw the bet he made in OOT(this is used to take away the first bluff bet i mentioned earlyer, or he can Reraise.
The only issues i see here is what if the player 2 bets 600, and player 1 bets 300, that make the 600 bet a reraise by force? or if its the in 50% raise rule. would we force the player 2 to make the raise or can he withdraw anything down to the call, this makes it kind of the "old" forced check/follow rule.
Or do we tell the player 1 the options he have is Check or bet same amount as player 2(thus making it a Call for player2) or if he wants to bet it have to be more then player2s bet This gets in conflict with "player that did nothing wrong should not be constrained in any way"
and it gets abit close to using another players error/misstake to gain a big advantage/unfair.
it could be handled like this also.
The out of turn bet is NEVER accepted, player will retract the bet, get a 1 hand sitout the hand afterwards, next time he does the same he gets a orbit.the third time he get 3-5 orbits.
(exceptions are All-ins that never can be retracted.
Im sorry if This is confusing
-
NiclasG,
No need to apologize, it is confusing the way it is written. I do like that you are pointing out the fact that; the OOT bettor is the offending player. That is where the problem began. Like I said before, why allow him any chance to dictate how much, the player that was skipped should bet? If he bets out of turn, and he was not misled by the dealer or another player, he should be held to his intentional Out Of Turn action. That's what I don't like about the rule as written. The more I think about it, the more I feel that the OOT should have no raise option, either.
I like the idea of punishment to the offending player.