PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: K-Lo on March 07, 2012, 09:45:25 AM
-
There are a few issues that I've been debating with my fellow TDs recently on this topic. Perhaps we can share some of our thoughts on these scenarios:
1. Player A announces "raise", and is contemplating what amount to raise to. Meanwhile, subsequent player(s) begin to fold their hand without waiting for Player A to complete his action.
2. Player A announces "raise", and is contemplating what amount to raise to. Meanwhile, subsequent player(s) announce "call". Player A then announces his raise to X.
---
In my opinion, re #1, the subsequent folders have acted out of turn with action pending. The dealer should prevent the actions out of turn from continuing until Player A completes his action. The folds are binding, and a TD may exercise his discretion to assess a warning/penalty. At the very least, folding "prematurely" is a breach of etiquette, as Player A may act differently (e.g. may change his raise size depending on the number of players left to act, or if he is next to the button, depending on whether the button is going to fold) were it not for the folds out of turn.
Re: #2, in my view the "call" is binding, from the minimum raise amount to all-in. Although the call is technically an action out of turn, it is essentially a conditional statement that means "if you raise to any amount, I will call it". In an older thread, it was suggested that once Player A announces the amount of the raise and it is more than a minimum raise, the action has changed and thus subsequent players may reconsider their action and choose to fold or even raise. I don't think this is right. The action has not changed (it is still a raise); it is just that the action was not fully completed, so the call ought to still be binding. I would not even hesitate to let Player A know that the subsequent call will be binding. The only time that I would allow the call to not be binding, is if it is clear that the caller reasonably misunderstood Player A's statement (e.g. I thought he said raise to a specific amount, X).
-
I'm not so sure I'd rule this as a conditional statement. After player A says "Raise" and the next player says "Call" I am holding him to that call, period. Now if others behind him also said "Call" I only let them off the hook if player B reraises, otherwise they are going to be made to call also. If they are going to jump the gun on the amount they are going to pay. Anyone verbalizing a call that quickly most likely has a hand they'd call any raise with anyway. If not, it should be a good lesson to be a little more patient in waiting for the action to be complete.
-
I don't think I can agree with #2, It would all be down to the intent of the player IMO, if he thought he was calling the blind amount, then I would likely allow him to either call the blind amount and fold or call the raise, but I would bind him to either of those options. A lot of this comes down to how experienced the player is, if it's someone new who has just woken up with aces and he knows the other player was raising then, fair do's he has to call the raise instead, but if it's an experienced player who has announced call, not realising the pot is in due process of being raised then it would go the other way for me.
With regard to #1 players passing their starting hand or folding to an announcement of raise, these are out of turn actions, as the action of the player who announced raise has not yet been completed.
Regards
Stu
-
I don't think I can agree with #2, It would all be down to the intent of the player IMO, if he thought he was calling the blind amount, then I would likely allow him to either call the blind amount and fold or call the raise, but I would bind him to either of those options. A lot of this comes down to how experienced the player is, if it's someone new who has just woken up with aces and he knows the other player was raising then, fair do's he has to call the raise instead, but if it's an experienced player who has announced call, not realising the pot is in due process of being raised then it would go the other way for me.
Hi Stuart:
I agree with you that if the caller was under a misunderstanding (e.g. didn't know the pot was being raised), that would be an exception. But for this particular fact situation, I am specifically talking about the situation where the subsequent player KNOWS that Player A has announced "raise" but has not yet verbalized the specific amount, and despite that, the next player says "call" intending to call the raise. Basically, assume that if you had asked the next player "Player A hasn't indicated the amount of the raise yet" that he would reply "I don't care, I'm calling" -- In that particular situation, what would you rule?
I'm not so sure I'd rule this as a conditional statement. After player A says "Raise" and the next player says "Call" I am holding him to that call, period.
Assuming that the next player knew the pot was being raised, I agree with Mooredog. I am fine with not treating it as a conditional statement per se, but it is another way of looking at it.
-
Hi Stuart:
I agree with you that if the caller was under a misunderstanding (e.g. didn't know the pot was being raised), that would be an exception. But for this particular fact situation, I am specifically talking about the situation where the subsequent player KNOWS that Player A has announced "raise" but has not yet verbalized the specific amount, and despite that, the next player says "call" intending to call the raise. Basically, assume that if you had asked the next player "Player A hasn't indicated the amount of the raise yet" that he would reply "I don't care, I'm calling" -- In that particular situation, what would you rule?
In that situation, yes they have to call whatever bet is made by the player who has announced raise.
Regards
Stu
-
K-Lo,
It amazes me with three people responding that we can't agree. My response to #1: I see absolutely nothing wrong with players folding (in turn) once a raise is announced. They were probably going to fold even if the pot were not raised. The amount is irrelevant..
Response to #2: If the player is aware of the announced raise, that player is bound to that call at any amount.
That's how I see it.
-
My response to #1: I see absolutely nothing wrong with players folding (in turn) once a raise is announced. They were probably going to fold even if the pot were not raised. The amount is irrelevant..
Nick, I have to say that your response is interesting, because we usually agree. I am a bit surprised you don't see anything wrong with this. I am thinking back to our separate discussion about players folding in turn when facing a check, where you had previously said:
Folding in turn without facing a bet is one of the worst things that any player can do. It violates all rules of poker etiquette. It offers no protection to other players. The only exception is when the action is head to head... A player drops out to let his "partner" know that he will not be in the action, or stand in his way.
I agreed with you 100% there, and would think that the principles here are exceptionally similar. If the justification for folding once "raise" is announced is that it is OK "because they were going to fold anyways", then why would folding in turn when not facing a bet be any different? The same reasons that you previously gave apply.
The fact is that the raiser hasn't completed his turn yet, so the folder is actually acting out of turn; by folding prematurely, he allows the raiser to know that he will not be in the action and can size his bet accordingly. For example, he may be inclined to risk less chips for his raise if he knows that he is guaranteed position for the next round (if everybody including the button folds early), but risk more if he thinks he needs to in order to obtain position. Other players, who have an interest in seeing opponents eliminated, may want the player to risk more chips and thus increase his risk of elimination. While the amount of the yet-to-be-announced raise amount may not be an issue for fixed limit games of course, it can be for no-limit games.
-
Sorry K-Lo,
We usually do agree but not on this one. I see no comparison to a player folding in turn when facing a raise and folding if action is checked to that same player. The player that announced raise is commited to raise, period. Would you consider a different answer if the game were limit? I think you would...what is the difference? Knowing the amount? If so, why? Perhaps we should separate or clarify rules that are applied to no-limit that differ from limit. A player folding in turn (IMO) violates no written rule that I know of, and I consider it to be acceptable.
Going back to folding when action is checked to a player, now that's real bad (I'm trying to get away from the old ...highly unethical and not in the best interest...). I don't want to get into the whole scenario about not offering protection to other players, but if you want to discuss any of that further I won't mind.
When someone raises in front of me, and I don't want to play, I fold all the time. I have to say that I have never heard of a player getting a penalty in that situation.
K-Lo, you say that the player that said "raise" has not completed his turn yet ??? I think he has. That's where we don't agree.
-
I see no comparison to a player folding in turn when facing a raise and folding if action is checked to that same player. The player that announced raise is commited to raise, period. Would you consider a different answer if the game were limit? I think you would...what is the difference? Knowing the amount? If so, why?
Then we may have to disagree. :( But for what it is worth, I know a few TDs that would probably agree with you. Hopefully though, you will keep a bit of an open mind, and let me try to persuade you otherwise. ;)
Personally, I think this amounts to a breach of etiquette, and I treat it as such. In a lot of cases, it is probably not a big deal so no warnings or penalties are warranted; but in other cases, it can drastically alter the way the hand plays out. It is notable that Robert's Rules states that as a matter of Poker Etiquette: "Making statements or taking action that could unfairly influence the course of play, whether or not the offender is involved in the pot" are improper and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator.
What do you think about this NLH situation?
Player A is in the SB and is chip-leader. Player B is in the BB and is short-stacked. Player C is on the button and has a large stack, but is covered by A. Post-flop, Player A bets and Player B calls. Player C has made middle pair, and is contemplating a raise as a squeeze play. Now...
a) Player C announces "raise" and is contemplating how much to raise. He is wary of Player A playing back at him, so he decides to raise a typical 3x the bet, intending to fold to a shove from chip leader A but call a shove from B. A actually folds, and B closes the action by making the call, intending to see one more card with his straight draw. B hits his card on the turn and ultimately, excitedly doubles-up through C.
b) Player C announces "raise" and is contemplating how much to raise. He is wary of Player A playing back at him, but thankfully, player A folds before the amount of the raise is decided. Now, with Player A out of the way, Player C faces no risk of elimination and goes all-in to put maximum pressure on short-stacked player B. B now folds his straight draw to the all-in bet, not having the odds to call and/or not wanting to risk elimination on a draw.
Comparing the two situations, I believe it is quite unfair for A to get out of the action prematurely here, by not waiting until C has announced his raise amount before folding. A's presence in the pot alone provided some protection for B by tempering the degree to which B can be aggressive; however, A's premature fold has opened up the possibility for C to go all-in against B, an option that C likely would not have exercised had A, as chip-leader, not stepped out of the way. B is directly affected because he is now facing an all-in bet that he cannot call, even if he would have called a smaller amount that C might otherwise have raised to. If I were B in the second scenario, I would definitely feel that A's failure to wait until the raise amount was decided upon before folding gave C a huge, unfair advantage.
The difference between limit and no-limit is this: In limit, once "raise" is announced, the amount of the raise is already determined because it is absolutely fixed -- the amount of chips that must go into the pot is pre-determined by the betting limits in effect for that betting round, no more and no less, and so in that sense, simply saying "raise" can be considered a complete, well-defined action. In no-limit, however, once "raise" is announced, there can be a wide range of possibilities for raise amounts -- from a min raise to an all-in -- that will have varying effects on subsequent action and therefore, the raiser's action is not fully-defined in the same way as it would be in a limit game until the amount of the raise is decided.
-
K-Lo,
Wow, this is getting good! First of all, I don't remember playing at a table with players that sharp. The examples you give are excellent, and certainly make for an argument in your favor. I'd like to take this just one step further (for my side of this debate), consider the effect this would have on substantial action? Pre-flop; UTG says raise, UTG+1 folds, the dealer then notices that he failed to deal to the correct seat first. Would this be a misdeal? What about the player that makes a forward motion with his stack, and the next player folds before the chips are actually released? How many of us have played in full games where a player tells the dealer to fold his hand when it "gets to him" because he's going for a smoke.
Now I'd like to address another issue on a rule that I don't like that falls right into this discusion. Our player announces raise, and the next player folds before the amount is...what?... announced? Or what about the player that just pushes his chips forward and the next player folds instantly. Should he have waited for a count? It does him no good to ask for one (according to TDA Rule #41).
I guess I just don't see a difference from a player making an insta-call when facing an all-in bet, or going all-in after a player says raise before the amount is determined.
Good topic for discusion.
-
Hi Nick:
You raise a few points relating to misdeals and forward motion of chips, which confuses me slightly. But let me address one of your points that I think is directly at issue:
Our player announces raise, and the next player folds before the amount is...what?... announced? Or what about the player that just pushes his chips forward and the next player folds instantly. Should he have waited for a count? ... I guess I just don't see a difference from a player making an insta-call when facing an all-in bet...
Once the player announces the amount of a wager, the action is complete and subsequent players may act. The amount of the wager is decided and can't be changed. Similarly, if a player pushes his chips forward, the next player does not need to wait for a count and may fold. Again, the amount of the wager is decided and can't be changed. In both these cases, the amount of the wager is decided and can't be changed. That's the difference between your situations and folding before the amount of a wager has been decided upon. In a big bet game such as NLH, the bettor may have different bet sizing options available to him that he might not otherwise have practically considered if everyone just simply waited before folding, and this may prejudice remaining players who may wish to contest the pot.
-
K-LO,
If you do not consider the fold (as legal) from the player that followed the raise pre-flop, how can you consider that as substantial action? Make sense?
-
K-LO,
If you do not consider the fold (as legal) from the player that followed the raise pre-flop, how can you consider that as substantial action? Make sense?
If UTG says raise and hasn't said how much, he hasn't completed his turn yet. I would say that two people have not yet acted. No substantial action, therefore misdeal. I don't see this as unfair result.
In general, the dealer can and should ask subsequent players to wait before UTG has fully completed his action before folding/calling/raising. It's really a matter of players having to wait for their turn. Simple, really.
-
K-Lo,
It might work for your room, but I don't think it will work everywhere. It looks like the same few members will have to sort these rules out for ourselves. That's fine with me.
K-Lo, my final response to this; I don't know how you can penalize a player for folding (in turn) when the player in front of him says raise!
-
Hi guys,
I'm with K-Lo on this one, when a player announces "raise" and without completing his action following players proceed mucking their hands they are IMHO folding out of turn as the action has not yet moved onto them, this is also true in "non-standard folds" which was discussed, as a non-standard fold can adversely affect the hand, no different to this scenario where players start mucking their hands without the raiser finishing his action, this passes additional information onto the raiser, for example say you let this go in your card-room, Player UTG announces raise at a 9 handed table and 5 players muck their hands before UTG has even decided what his raise is going to be, that means that he now has a mere 3 players that he wishes to compete against still remaining in the hand, thus narrowing his competition, and giving him far more information than he should of had and possibly information that the next player now to act who has the button is possibly interested in playing their hand depending on the size of the raise.
Regards
Stuart
-
Stuart and K-Lo,
Okay, I'll give in (a little) for now, but you'd better write it out and make sure it only applies to no-limit.
-
We rule the same as K-Lo here for the first rule. The second a little differently.
Under Example 1 they woldn't be allowed to fold as the raisers amount could change and thus affect course of play.
As for example 2 they are bound to the amount of a minimum raise. Once they here that the in turn raiser says 25,000!!!!!! If that person who said call folds he will still, by verbal obligation/declaration, be forced to put in a call for the minimum raise.
-
I still don't like your way of thinking. How do you rule when a player says raise and the next player goes all-in? Doesn't that indicate that he's in no matter what? I'm sorry but as long as you act in turn after a player says raise, I see nothing wrong with a fold, call, or re-raise. That's when the amounts will be sorted out. Do we have any Youtube videos to support this? I'll bet you'll find a hell of a lot more players folding, after a raise is announced, without knowing the amount.
-
Perhaps they will in limit but in No-limit they shouldn't not be allowed to. It is a non-standard fold. I think the board should chime in and either shed some light or we need to broaden the scope of non-standard folding at the next summit.
-
Spence,
I agree that the non-standard fold should be discussed, but my definition of non-standard is folding when not facing a bet, not the situation we are discussing.
-
... as long as you act in turn after a player says raise, I see nothing wrong with a fold, call, or re-raise. That's when the amounts will be sorted out.
If you can re-raise as long the person before you has announced raise without yet stating the amount, how can you even determine the amount of a legal re-raise without knowing the amount of the previous raise? If the re-raiser gives an amount but the original raiser hasn't, it isn't even possible to conclude whether the re-raise is sufficient or not. I think it would be strange to allow action to continue until the amount of the previous bet is fully defined, not to mention the problems like the ones Stuart and I mentioned which fails to protect others in the hand (particularly when the next person folds as opposed to calling a yet unknown bet).
Anyhow, let's change the topic slightly.
Three-handed, SB, short-stacked BB, and button. Two checks, and it is the button's turn, and he is taking a long time. Small Blind says to the button "hurry up and do something. it's your turn. what are you going to do". Button says "well, I'm definitely not folding". Small blind says "OK", and folds. Action out of turn or not?
-
K-Lo,
I know what you would do. You would hold the button to at least a minimum bet, and throw the SB out of the tournament ;D When I see something like that happen I'll deal with it based on the history of the players involved.
As far as my example of a player re-raising an unknown amout...well I think you know what I meant.
-
Well in any event, I am more concerned with people folding before previous players' turns have been completed (which IMO includes finalizing the size of a bet or raise) than prematurely calling/re-raising. I can think of dozens of situations where it would be unfair to the players who are left to defend against the raise if players in between fold without waiting. In contrast, I can hardly think of any justification that would persuade me that players should be given the right to fold before the amount of a raise from a preceding player is finalized.
To be honest, I didn't think that we needed clarification in the Rules for this one as I thought we'd all agree on what constitutes a "turn", but perhaps it wouldn't hurt:
45: Non-Standard Folds
Anytime before the end of the last betting round of a hand, folding in turn when facing a check not facing a bet or before the amount of a bet or raise is determined (no-limit/pot-limit), or folding out of turn, are both binding folds and may be subject to penalty.
-
K-Lo,
I actually find this humorous, TDA Rule #45 is one of the rules I like. You are suggesting a change. I'll stick my neck out and give my definition of a player's turn to act.
No-limit: After the active player on your right acts, you may:
a.) If a bet is made you may fold, call, or raise.
b.) If you are facing a check, you may check or bet.
Finally
c.) If you are first to act you my check, or bet.
What keeps us apart is whether a player that announces his intention to raise, should be recognized as a complete action until the amount is stated, or pushed into the betting area.
I'm thinking that once the player announces that he is raising, he has acted because he can not retract his bet! In my opinion waiting for the player to announce how much he is going to raise will only waste time and slow the game down needlessly.
-
What keeps us apart is whether a player that announces his intention to raise, should be recognized as a complete action until the amount is stated, or pushed into the betting area.
I'm thinking that once the player announces that he is raising, he has acted because he can not retract his bet! In my opinion waiting for the player to announce how much he is going to raise will only waste time and slow the game down needlessly.
Hi Nick: I agree that this is where we disagree. Unfortunately, in a No-Limit game, I do not think the last statement is correct.
I have seen first hand the issues of perceived unfairness that can arise when players do not wait. As I've noted in my previous examples, the amount is an integral part of all wagers in a no-limit game, as there is a huge difference in the nature of a raise when it is to 3BB or to 200BB. I respect your opinion, but at this point, I hope to get the support of the other TDs on this issue.
-K
-
I wouldn't like the next player to announce re-raise either as that may change what the original raiser bets. In this circumstance though they are proably only costing themselves money by not hearing a defined bet from the initial raiser. Is that punishment enough for what could be considered as out of turn betting?
I am still adamant that folding without the raise being finalized is a violation.
-
Gentlemen,
Even an out of turn fold is binding, TDA Rule #35. There is no written rule that I have ever seen that supports your argument. Perhaps you can convince others to see it your way and a new rule can be written at the next Summit. If that happens, I'll just add it to the long list of current rules I don't support.