PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: W0lfster on October 25, 2011, 09:03:13 AM
-
Hi there,
I know this out of turn example has been discussed several times however I think there is something I havent mentioned or seen mentioned that I think needs clearing up.
Let say on the flop, for the sake of the example the SB bets 200 - minimum bet for the game (100-200 blinds) and the UTG not paying attention raises to 300 out of turn thinking he has bet 300 and everyone has checked. The BB calls TIME and the action goes back to him. The BB then calls the 200 bet from the small blind which is not action changing. This would leave the UTG player's turn and the 300 bet still in the middle which wouldnt be a valid raise if he hadnt bet out of turn. Would you force the BB to min raise to 400?; can he fold but forfeit the 300? If he folds, does the UTG +1 call the 300 or the 200?
Thx :)
-
W0lf,
I would back the action to the correct bettor (the BB) and allow the OOT bettor every option; fold, call or raise. Of course if he raised he would have to raise at least 200 more (the min). The important issue here, IMO, is that the OOT was unintentional and no action was taken by the next player. I believe there was discussion at the Summit and in this scenario we should back the action to the proper player and continue as normal. If the action was deliberate, or the OOT is a repeat offender, then I would hold that player to a full raise.
I'm not sure your last question is worded correctly. I think you are asking if the OOT, (UTG), would have to raise to 400 and not the BB. There is no way the BB could raise an OOT player in the situation mentioned. Direction of play and the proper bettor must act in turn.
-
Nick,
Im just saying what would be the ruling if the BB called the SB's bet of 200, does the next player to act the (UTG) who bet out 300 OOT have to put in a in raise to 400? I ask because by the BB calling the 200 this would mean that the 300 bet must stand technically but this does not constitute as a valid raise.
Any thoughts???
-
W0lf,
What I explained to you is that the OOT bet of 300 does not stay in the pot. In a normal situation, if a player puts in 50% more than the required amount to call a bet or raise the minimum bet or raise must be completed. The oversized chip rule would not be considered as a raise.
-
Wolfster, I think you are on the right track. Since the BB did not change the action by calling then it means that UTG's action must stand. Since his action must stand then he has put in 50% of a raise and therefore MUST make it a full raise or $400.
Nick's last answer would seem to be wrong, the OOT bet DOES stay in the pot when the BB only calls the 200. And there is no oversized chip in this scenario. (we are assuming 3 x 100 chips, yes?) which makes it a 50% raise and binding as a full raise. (Rule 40, removing one chip does not leave LESS than the minimum bet so it can't be a call and it is 50% of a full bet - rule 38)
The intent of the OOT bettor does not change how the error is handled except after it is fixed and the hand finishes, then a previously warned intentional OOT bettor should be penalized.
Now, if the BB changed the action (by raising) THEN the UTG's bet comes back (rule 36: :...if action changes, the out of turn bet is not binding) and he has all options open to him. (again, a repeat offender is handled the same way as far as the bet and the hand, he just should be penalized after)
-
Thx Jasper, just what I wanted to hear!
-
Jasper,
The conditions mentioned in W0lfters original question indicated that the UTG somehow thought he was making the bet and not raising the SB. I see what you are referring to and I agree. I also recall conversation that would allow the action to be backed-up to the proper bettor and if no substantial action occurred, the OOT could withdraw his bet. I won't argue this one.
I was focused on the SB and BB when actually that was irrelevant.
-
Question!!!
Is this a Limit or a No-Limit game? It makes all the difference in the world.
-
No limit
-
Nick, I think you are correct in that there was some discussion at the summit (and likely here) that spoke of just backing things up to the missed player but the final rules voted on ultimately betray the mechanics of the situation.
Chet, I am waiting to see why limit or no limit in this situation makes all the difference. Only because I don't see it for myself and want to know what I am missing.
-
Jasper: I'll try to figure out what the hell I was thinking about when I made that post. It escapes me at the moment ::)
-
I know there is a difference between cash and tournament play in some casinos. I still think that because the OOT bettor- in the original post- thought that he was initiating the bet and not raising (not realizing that a player in front of him bet and another was skipped) should account for something. Why not back up the bet and get it right? What is rule #33 substantial action used for?
I know of casinos that return any raise that is not 100% of the legal minimum in no limit games only.Perhaps that is what Chet was thinking of. I don't like the rule, but it's out there.
-
In that case Jasper, if the OOT bettor had only $99 left and was forced to put in a minraise to 400, would he be forced to go all in which would qualify as an under raise?
-
In that case Jasper, if the OOT bettor had only $99 left and was forced to put in a minraise to 400, would he be forced to go all in which would qualify as an under raise?
exactly right.
-
I know of casinos that return any raise that is not 100% of the legal minimum in no limit games only.Perhaps that is what Chet was thinking of. I don't like the rule, but it's out there.
That could be what he is talking about....and that exact topic is a thread I started in Live Cash games cause I am curious how prevalent it is. I don't like it either and I think the rules support using the 50% rule in NL cash games... but that might just be me and you.
-
can we make the OOT player just act with a raise or a call?
what I think is that OOT player was about to take action but didn't follow the hand, so he is not allowed to fold, but he can also call instead of make a full raise because his intention was to bet
-
Linker, no we can't make the OOT player just act with a raise or a call?. The rule is specific. If the action changes for the OOT player then he is allowed to take the bet back and do what he wants.
Here's the thinking: The OOT player was making a play against a certain action, in this case just a call of the blind. The rule assumes an unintentional act of skipping a player so that we would expect the OOT player to have to made the same play if action doesn't change once the skipped player acts. However, it is reasonable to say that the OOT player may have made another choice if the player wasn't skipped and the action changes. Therefore, an OOT player is forced to make the play if action doesn't change but he is allowed to change his play if action does change . You deal with the intentional OOT players with penalties on repeat offenses thereby protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty.
This rule also goes along with what Nick has been saying: "why can't we just back things up to the proper player and go from there" (that is a parphrase, should be close). The reality is that we do back it up and let the skipped player make a decision with the information that if he changes action then the OOT player gets to do what he wants but that if he doesn't change the overall action then the play stands. It forces the OOT player to stay in sometimes but he was going to play anyway.
-
Jasper,
We're getting closer, but the player was not calling the blind, he skipped the blind and thought he was initiating the bet. His intention was to bet and not raise so why not just back it up to the proper bettor? I don't like the rule because it could allow players to bet OOT intentionally, knowing that if any player bets a different amount in front of them, they can take it back.