Author Topic: Question on rule 38: Substantial Action OOT, how to treat the skipped hand??  (Read 14184 times)

mikeyp22

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Alright, this scenario came in one of our tournaments Saturday night, and all three of us couldn't really decided what to do. We looked up the Illustration Addendum but that didn't help us either. Here is the addendum:

Example 1:
NLHE,
blinds 100-200. UTG (Seat 3) makes it 600. Seat 4 is skipped when Seat 5 calls 600 OOT. Seat 6 thinks for a moment then folds. There are now two players acting with chips involved to the left of Seat 4. Two players with chips qualifies as substantial action (Rule 35 ). Also, Seat 4 has had reasonable time to speak up and bring it to the dealer’s attention that he has been skipped. The OOT call by Seat 5 is now binding due to substantial action OOT, and the OOT fold by Seat 6 is binding (Rule 50 ). The floor is called to make a decision on the fate of Seat 4’s hand.

SO, what do you floors do with the fate of seat 4?
« Last Edit: March 12, 2015, 09:13:55 PM by MikeB »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Alright, this scenario came in one of our tournaments Saturday night, and all three of us couldn't really decided what to do. We looked up the Illustration Addendum but that didn't help us either. Here is the addendum:

Example 1:
NLHE,
blinds 100-200. UTG (Seat 3) makes it 600. Seat 4 is skipped when Seat 5 calls 600 OOT. Seat 6 thinks for a moment then folds. There are now two players acting with chips involved to the left of Seat 4. Two players with chips qualifies as substantial action (Rule 35 ). Also, Seat 4 has had reasonable time to speak up and bring it to the dealer’s attention that he has been skipped. The OOT call by Seat 5 is now binding due to substantial action OOT, and the OOT fold by Seat 6 is binding (Rule 50 ). The floor is called to make a decision on the fate of Seat 4’s hand.

SO, what do you floors do with the fate of seat 4?

First of all Mike you have presented this case very well, and identified the applicable rules perfectly IMO.

This subject was discussed at length at the 2013 Summit and can be found on one of 4 videos of the event, first one is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfO6pdhsVYM

To summarize, there is not super-majority agreement within the Association as to how to deal with Seat 4 at this point, and I'm not sure there will be anytime soon. There are basically two remedies:

I: Seat 4's hand is dead... providing of course, as you note that he had reasonable time to act, there was nothing obscuring his ability to follow the action, etc. etc. as set forth in the rule and as you note in your case.

2: Back the action up to seat 4 and allow him only to call or fold, not to raise, AND (optionally) "2-B": allow him only to call on any subsequent raise on this betting street, which is classic RROP from General Poker Rules, Section 3 Betting and Raising, Para: 12. "To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act."

Regarding "2-B", I ran this question by Bob Ciaffone several years back... probably 2009-ish.... to clarify what he meant by "lose your right to act"; specifically I asked whether that meant a dead hand or merely losing the right to act aggressively (initiate a bet or raise). His answer was that he hadn't thought about it for awhile, but definitely intended it to mean the latter.

So, hope that answers your question, but it also leaves the question open as to what exactly to do with the hand and as Rule 38 says "...the floor will be called to render a decision on how to treat the skipped hand". Personally in the situation you outline, I'd opt for 2-B, but completely understand that many TDs, perhaps a majority, would kill the hand. Again, this is player beware and you've clearly outlined that the player wasn't attentive.

How did you rule?
« Last Edit: March 12, 2015, 09:14:04 PM by MikeB »

mikeyp22

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
I was ready to leave at the time so i wasn't clocked in so my fellow TD ruled that the hand was dead. He looked at me and I just said "I think that is the rule but we will look into it later and make sure" The player and table had no problem with it (if I were the floor I would not have killed it, in the past I would have, but I've become less cynical now, haha) So I gave a vague answer and we discussed it later.  We all came up with someone but the most common one was stopping the action and having him act. But it's tricky after that. Our scenario was a little higher staked, Blinds 1000-2000, UTG players gets skipped, there is one call of 1,000, and then the next player Raises to 5,300. Just seems like a weird spot that if UTG players decides to call 5,300 the 1,000 guys is sandwhiched. Not sure if that matters or not still. If two players just call 1,000 it's fine, but then what if UTG wanted to raise? is he allowed to? are the OOT players bets still binding? I know if one players acts OOT and then substantial action has not occurred they get to pull their bet back and re-think, but when two players make substantial action OOT they are binding?? just a lot to think about for one scenario. 

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Mikey: I think in that situation, IF you don't kill the hand, the UTG doesn't call 5300, he calls the 1000 (or folds, he cannot raise). THEN when the 5300 (or any subsequent raise) comes back around to him, under RROP, ("Option 2-B"), the UTG can only call the amount or fold, he can't raise on this street.

Thanks for the GREAT case... we will definitely see this debated at the 2015 Summit, hope you can make it !
« Last Edit: March 12, 2015, 09:50:14 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3319
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
 I've always felt that the rules were very clear until we complicated the situation with the amount of time that expires before the skipped player acts. Mike's answer solves the problem if we omit "If you don't kill the hand." I have always backed up the action to the skipped player unless substantial action occurs...in the event that two or more players have acted after the skipped player, the action proceeds clockwise until it returns to the skipped player and (as Mike stated) can only call the amount and can not raise. The only time a hand should be killed is if the skipped player has allowed multiple players to act out of turn and the dealer has burned and turned the next board card.

 

mikeyp22

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
My first initial thought was to let action continue and let the skipped player only call. That was my interpretation of "losing his right to act," he only gets to call, but my fellow TD didn't like having that player get to see everything happen then make a decision without having any money in the pot. Just a tough spot.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3319
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
mikeyp22:

 I'm with you on this one. Others have legitimate concerns if players are intentionally allowing action to pass them by. In my opinion, this is when we should; weigh the facts and render the most appropriate decision. There are times when a "strict" enforcement of a rule will result in an (obviously) unfair result. Killing a players hand because two players quickly acted beyond them (out of turn), is not in the best interest of any game. Another similar situation would involve an errant dealer, directing action to the wrong player.

 Factors I like to consider are the ones I learned years ago. Chuck Ferry wrote a couple small books regarding "Rules of Poker" and I've always felt his books the most "simplistic" and fair. I will quote a brief example from Mr Ferry. "An unintentional error shall be construed more liberally than what appears to be a deliberate violation of the Rules." The experienced player, against a beginner- the intent of the out of turn or skipped player...accidental or malicious? Making moves to "trick" a player into a questionable situation is highly unethical.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2015, 07:03:31 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Camp 1: My first initial thought was to let action continue and let the skipped player only call. That was my interpretation of "losing his right to act," he only gets to call, Camp 2: but my fellow TD didn't like having that player get to see everything happen then make a decision without having any money in the pot. Just a tough spot.

Mikey: And the two opinions you cite above are exactly the positions of the two camps on this issue.


Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Poker Manager
First, there has to be a reasonable amount of time in which Seat 4 can speak up and say something.  There are times when it could go raise, fold so fast by the two other players that Seat 4 can't even open his mouth to say "hey!" before it happens.  This is why it can't be a dead hand when significant action happens after you on the same street.

Ruling I will make in this scenario if it is a first offense:

If the next street has NOT been dealt: Seat 4 loses the right to an aggressive action and may call or fold only.

If the next street has been deal: Seat 4 has a dead hand.

In either cases if the player(s) is(are) (a) repeat offender(s) I will issue a penalty to either the player who keeps acting out of turn or the player who allows action to keep happening and just sits there and watches (equivilant to ettiquette violation penalty).

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3319
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Brian,

 I think most of us that replied to this post agree. Convincing me that the blame should fall on a player that was skipped goes against all logic, unless this person has a history of intentionally concealing cards in such a way that others are unaware he is in the hand. Hard for me to believe that the out of turn, other players, and the dealer all fail to notice the bet was made by the wrong player.

 The only issue I have is when  the dealer prematurely burns and turns before the last player has acted. Now that's a different story. The hand can not be killed but the board card or cards may be altered.

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Poker Manager
An example of a time it should be ruled dead: Player A bets 500, Player B does nothing, Player C calls, Player D calls.  Dealer announces "3 players," taps the table, burns and turns the river.  Player B now says "I never called" although he had adequate time to correct the action prior to this street being delivered.  Dead hand for Player B. 

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
I'm in the dead hand camp...well, I should clarify.  I like that on a checked round, if substantial action occurs behind, they are held to a check.  On a bet round, if substantial action occurs with betting, they have a dead hand provided they had ample time to stop the action.  It may seem harsh, but once they are used to it they always speak up!  Plus deciding whether to call with a weak hand with 2 players is different that deciding to call with a weak hand with 5 players.  They gain info that their position shouldn't get. 
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3319
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Tristan,
 I respectfully disagree completely. You can not kill a players hand unless he is not in for all bets and the dealer burns and turns the next card. In fact, there are situations of premature dealing that allow the skipped player all options and the premature board card (or flop) is re-dealt. The difference there is the player was skipped by the dealer, not another player. Furthermore, there are rules in place that clearly say the skipped player can not take aggressive action...there is nothing that I know of, that kills the skipped players hand, other than what I've mentioned.

 Why has noone addressed the scenario I've mentioned about the last player to act being skipped? Or how about the next to last player being skipped (by the last player behind him), and the dealer burns and turns...then what? Is it still considered substantial action?

Lado

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
I agree with Nick. Unless the player is a known angle shooting sob who does this kind of shady things you can not blame him for being skipped and punish him for others' mistake, thus his hand may not be killed.
In my game I (dealer) control the action, I'm 100% in charge of the table every time. This guarantees the proper ruling and etiquette.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
I'd like to know why the skipped player didn't speak up. I'd be asking "when you saw your neighbor put out chips for a call, why did you not stop the action then?"

Overall, I prefer Brian's explanation and approach. I will lean on the side of not killing the hand, particularly if the action has been quick or there's some other reasonable excuse, and while I'd also lean toward limiting the action to a call/fold, I'm not against the idea of allowing all options depending on the circumstances.  The more "action" that has occurred after the skipped player, the better excuse that skipped player will need as to why he didn't defend his right to act, otherwise I will kill the hand.

I also have no problem with killing the player's hand even if the dealer has not burned and turned the next street; in my mind, if the skipped player allowed "a lot" of action without good reason, I will kill the hand. Determining what is a "lot" is part of the job.

K-Lo
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 10:57:01 AM by K-Lo »