Action OOT Blind

[goldendd]

NLH tournament 5 players in the pot pre-flop. As the dealer is peeling off the flop player C says "All-in." Some say if A,B check he is all-in. Some say, the flop is not out there yet so only UTG can act. Some even said, "All-in and penalty." Many different opinions on this one, please submit yours.

TY

David Golden
Bicycle Casino Los Angeles CA

[Nick C]

Hello David,

 Your situation is too common...if we go by the "book" according to TDA #38: the OOT is binding if the action is backed-up and both skipped players (A & B) check.

 I'd like to back-up to TDA #37. Players must act in turn! That should be enough to warrant a penalty. TDA #37B also states that Players should wait for clear bet amounts before acting!

 So to answer your question (by the book) If A Bets, or A checks and B bets...the OOT can withdraw his all-in... Penalties would be encouraged to prevent further occurrences.

 Now...if you want my opinion , TDA #38 is not necessary. I'd like to see the OOT held to at least his verbal declaration no matter what the skipped players do. Why should Players A & B be put in a situation that: #1 Either forces them to check or does it allow the skipped player to bet the exact amount of the OOT? I could never get a direct answer to that question. Action changing?...Hmm...don't even know if I understand that completely.

 I know what I would do...I'd force the OOT to his action no matter what!

 Okay...so here's the recap: Verbal is binding...Players must act in turn...Players must wait for clear bet amounts before acting...So how in the hell does this guy get off with withdrawing anything? I don't like it and they won't get away with it in my card room. What makes it even worse is the OOT could even raise in a situation where he did not go all-in but he bet a specific amount. Example: Player's A & B are skipped and Player C bets 500. The action is backed-up to the proper bettor and he bets 1000...because the action is different, the OOT can call, fold, or raise. I say he can fold and surrender his 500 OOT, or he can call with 500 more...that's it, he will not have a raise option!

[BillM16]

Assuming that the action was stopped and the floor called at the time that Player C declared "All-In":

I would tell Player C that he has acted OOT and may be penalized.  I would tell players A and B that Player C is All-In ONLY if they both either check or fold.  If either or both of them bet or raise then Player C will have all options available to him.

If Player C survives the hand, I would likely give him a five hand penalty.

[Nick C]

Bill16,

 I agree with the penalty, but that's about all. Players A & B should never fold (without facing a bet) and they certainly can't raise unless Player A bets first and Player B raises A. The OOT action does not count as a bet until the action returns to the proper bettor.

 I also disagree with the language when you tell player C that he MAY be penalized. He will be penalized because: He deliberately acted out of turn, he made a verbal declaration, and he skipped two players, not one! A penalty might be the only way to prevent him from repeat infractions.

 Can anyone explain the exact meaning of action changing? If the OOT bets 200, would the proper bettor have to also bet 200 to lock the OOT to his bet?

[BillM16]

Hi Nick,

Players A & B should never fold (without facing a bet)

Correct:

• Player A could bet and Player B could either fold, call or raise.
• Player A could check and Player B could either check or bet.

I would tell players A and B that Player C is All-In ONLY if they both either check or fold.  If either or both of them bet or raise then Player C will have all options available to him.

So given the above scenarios Player B options include either check or fold.  Obviously, folding is not a valid option for Player A.

I also disagree with the language when you tell player C that he MAY be penalized.

I would tell Player C that he has acted OOT and may be penalized.

I was merely paraphrasing #38 so that all of the players including Player C would know that a rule violation had been committed and that "Action out of turn is subject to penalty."

If Player C survives the hand, I would likely give him a five hand penalty.

If action doesn't change, then Player C would be All-In and may lose the hand.  Obviously, giving a penalty to a player who is no longer in the tournament wouldn't make sense.  As I said, I would likely give the surviving Player C a penalty ... I used "likely" here as I'm not on the floor and haven't gathered all of the information firsthand.

Regards,
B~

[BillM16]

Can anyone explain the exact meaning of action changing? If the OOT bets 200, would the proper bettor have to also bet 200 to lock the OOT to his bet?

#38
A check, call or fold does not change action.

A bet of any amount by a skipped player changes the action.  (I don't like it either.)

[Nick C]

BillM16,

 Maybe it's me but for some reason I thought that if the skipped player bet exactly what the OOT bettor wagered...the OOT was obligated to that bet! Now it's even worse than I originally thought.

 Ridiculous!