Question on rule 38: Substantial Action OOT, how to treat the skipped hand??

[Nick C]

Ken, Welcome back, and Lado...welcome to the Forum.

Now I'd like to address K-Lo's decision to kill the skipped players hand, before the dealer burns and turns. Before the dealer even burns and turns?   Ken I'd also like to ask you when the last time was, that you skipped the proper bettor and acted before him? Why does everyone insist on blaming the skipped player? I don't get it. I'd also like you to tell me when you tell the skipped player, that his hand is dead?

 Will anyone address the other scenario that I've mentioned several times with no response... at all? I'm not even going to repeat it. I will tell you this, if I ever play in your casino and you tell me I have a dead hand because a "brain dead" player acts of of turn, and your "equally "brain dead" dealer tells the next player to act, your going to need security to restrain me!

 The problem is: you have too many bad dealers, or...you insist on restricting the good ones from doing their job. Player bets OOT...the dealer says: "Hey, the bets not on you...FLOOR" Now you can sort it out just about any way you'd like...except: killing the skipped players hand. I'm done, see you on the next post.

[K-Lo]

Before the dealer even burns and turns?  Ken I'd also like to ask you when the last time was, that you skipped the proper bettor and acted before him? Why does everyone insist on blaming the skipped player? I don't get it. I'd also like you to tell me when you tell the skipped player, that his hand is dead?

A B C D E F  are in the hand.  A bets. B gets skipped. C calls, out of turn.

At this point I agree with you that it is C's fault for acting out of turn.  I don't blame B for anything at this point.

D calls. B says nothing. E calls. B says nothing. F calls. B says nothing.  Dealer collects the bets.  Taps the table.

Now B says "hey you skipped me".  

At this point, if B wasn't to be blamed for anything earlier, he certainly must accept some of the blame now.  He's allowed 4 people to act behind him. They've all put out chips.  B hasn't put out any chips.  Maybe he thought he already folded (this happens quite a bit).  The problem now is that he has all this extra information and now he's priced in to call, at least in his mind.  Unless B has a good excuse as to why he didn't protect his right to act here, I am killing his hand.  Like I said, I don't always blame the skipped player, and I don't think substantial action alone is the test of whether the skipped player should be penalized.  In fact, I tend to give the skipped player the benefit of the doubt most of the time because I really don't want to be killing hands as a matter of course.  However, while he may have started out as blameless, he does not get the benefit of remaining the innocent victim forever.

[Nick C]

Ken, There's no point in continuing, for me anyway, I disagree.

[BillM16]

All players have a responsibility to speak up if they see a mistake being made.  Apparently, someone did but only after Seat 6 folded. There is an implication that Seat 4 failed to protect his right to act.  Yet, the dealer and all other players also failed to meet this responsibility up until this time.  Seat 4 should be allowed to act unless he is a known angle shooter, in which case, his hand should be declared dead.  However, Seat 4 should be allowed to call or fold only.  Then, action should continue with Seat 7.

Nick C said

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.

I don't like this variation as the proceeding actions (OOT) would only benefit Seat 4's eventual decision and subsequently penalize those that would be forced to continue the actions OOT.  Backing up to Seat 4 first makes it clear as to his fold or call decision without giving him additional information about the remaining players.  If a remaining player chooses to raise then Seat 4 should have all options as the action returns to him.

In regard to many of the other scenarios above, I feel it most important to give special emphasis to the fact that it is the responsibility of all players to point out mistakes.  If this is not being done then the root cause becomes very important in making a fair decision to alleviate the mistake.  If it is an angle shooter then obviously they should pay the penalty.  Otherwise, all players should be treated fairly.

[Nick C]

BillM16:

 Perhaps you misunderstood when I said that I prefer to back up the action to a skipped player. Player #1 bets, #2 is skipped, #3 bets...this is when I freeze the action beyond #3 and tell him it's not his bet, and direct the action to the proper bettor. I see no advantage to the skipped player. In this case, the dealer skope up immediately. Isn't that what you agreed to? How can we ever correct this situation if we don't back up the action to the proper bettor as soon as the mistake occurs? Can we never back up the action?

[WSOPMcGee]

I could be wrong, but I think most are missing the point of Substantial Action and Losing Your Right to Act.

People are getting caught up in the fact that all of the action is OOT (I really hate the anagram OOT. It just makes me want to put a P in front of it).

In the original post, the skipped player had ample time to stop the action.
1. There's a raise in front of him
2. Then he's skipped **Why is he skipped? Is he covering his cards?**
3. Then there's a call behind him.
4. Then there's a fold a behind him.
5. Luckily for him only one player folded behind

So first off, this is NOT Substantial Action. TDA Rule 35 is written incorrectly. I argued with the board at length and luckily it's on tape (2011). The point being, that if we as floor people couldn't figure out whether there's been 2 actions involving chips or 3 actions in total, then we have a much bigger problem on our hands. Obviously I didn't read the rule too closely after the debate when it went into print. Glad this topic came up.

INCORRECT
Substantial Action is either: A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).

This is supposed to say:

Substantial Action is: A) any two actions in turn that involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any bet and call or 2 calls or raise and a call in turn); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).

Under the above definition Substantial Action has not occurred behind the skipped player and that is the key as to whether they Lose the Right to Act. If substantial action occurs behind, then the hand is dead (I'm a dead hand camper). If not, then you back up the action as you would with an Out of Turn Raise (OTR - I like that anagram much better ) or Out of Turn Bet (OTB) and allow the player to make their action.

In this case, the action should have been backed up and given the skipped player all of his options and holding the player behind to his action IF action has not changed in front of him.

BUT if one more player folds, calls or raises behind here..... DEAD HAND.

[WSOPMcGee]

Just to be clear since this has got my attention. The debate on substantial action was to leave it as is or change it.

Meaning defined as:

R.O.P.E. - Substantial Action is: A) any two actions in turn that involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any bet and call or 2 calls or raise and a call in turn); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).

WSOP - Substantial action is considered: three folds, three checks, two or more calls, a fold and a call, or a bet and or a raise or a call and or a fold.

Chuck Ferry's Rules of Poker - Three or more players have checked or two or more players have called (extremely vague but similar idea)

RRoP and TDA did not define Substantial Action or Significant Action prior to 2011 Summit.

After the Summit TDA adopted Rule 33 (2011) - Substantial Action is defined as either: A) any two actions involving two player each putting chips in the pot (bet, raise or call); or B) any combination of three actions (Check, Bet, Raise, Call or Fold). Which albeit not entirely clear, goes along the same lines as the first two definitions above.

HOW DID IT GET TO A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold)

The other proposed change in 2011 was to have it be clearly defined as Three Actions.

[Spence]

Meaning defined as:
R.O.P.E. - Substantial Action is: A) any two actions in turn that involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any bet and call or 2 calls or raise and a call in turn); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).
WSOP - Substantial action is considered: three folds, three checks, two or more calls, a fold and a call, or a bet and or a raise or a call and or a fold.
Chuck Ferry's Rules of Poker - Three or more players have checked or two or more players have called (extremely vague but similar idea)
RRoP and TDA did not define Substantial Action or Significant Action prior to 2011 Summit.
After the Summit TDA adopted Rule 33 (2011) - Substantial Action is defined as either: A) any two actions involving two player each putting chips in the pot (bet, raise or call); or B) any combination of three actions (Check, Bet, Raise, Call or Fold). Which albeit not entirely clear, goes along the same lines as the first two definitions above.
HOW DID IT GET TO A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold)

I was confused by this too.  The original premise isn't substantial... 
In any case I think we're dealing with the matter of what knowledge is gained by the OOT action.  Killing the hand may be harsh but it doesn't change the actions of the OOT bettor based upon the knowledge they had at the time of incident.  What I mean is that the OOT person acted as if there was no player there or it was a folded hand.  The next person following is making those assumptions as well.  If we then back it to the player who was missed he does have some advantage on the hand.  If it means he can sneak in and claim the pot due to foreseeable odds then I'm a little uncomfortable with that.
But really...  SPEAK UP!

[Nick C]

I don't know why we are all over the layout on this but I thought I'd bring this over from the same, or at least very related, discussion.


WWW
   
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #4 on: Today at 06:10:52 AM »
Gentlemen:

 In regards to Substantial Action...At the 2011 Summit the rule that was decided was NOT the current rule.

 http://www.pokertda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Poker_TDA_Rules_2011_Version_1.0_Handout_docx_redline_changes.pdf

 If you go to the TDA Summit 2011 Day 2 you will hear Matt Savage clarify what we decided the day before. There are other treads from way back (2011) that covered this error. As Thomas stated, somewhere between Versions 1 & 2, it got changed. You can listen to Matt on Day 2 about 8:30 into the discussion. Here it is:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC56txeJd5M

One other note: A fold and a call would only pertain to pre-flop...
« Last Edit: Today at 07:38:21 AM by Nick C »    Logged