Betting "at the same time"!

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,

Hope I'm not asking a resolved question (can't find it back if so)!

What about 2 players acting "in the same time" (even the dealer agree it was at the exact same time): the second one is "out of turn"? If yes: so?

Exemple:

2 players left at the flop and at the exact same time:

Player A (seat 4) says and push 15.000!
Player B (seat 5) says and push 10.000!

Way 1: you consider "at the same time" as "in turn":

The 10.000 of Player B are a "short call" but because he actually pushed the chips in the middle: he only have the options of completing it to 15.000 or to loose it.

Way 2: you consider "at the same time" as "out of turn":

Solution 1: Player A can change is act ... so we follow the "out of turn rules" and depending of the last choice of Player A: Player B will be oblige to let the 10.000 or will be allowed to fold, call or raise any new bet.

Solution 2: Player A can't change and is stick to his 15.000 bet ... so if we follow the "out of turn rules": the situation is changed (15.000 more) so Player B can fold (take his 10.000 back), call the 15.000 or raise it.

Wich solution?

Way 1 (our usual way)
Way 2 Solution 1
Way 2 Solution 2

GG

[Stuart Murray]

TDA rules allow the out of turn player to 'retract and re-consider' his actions,so he can take back the 10,000 and I would bind him to either call the 15,000 or fold.  I do like rules such as the WSOP rule that don't allow retraction of the 10,000 out of turn, with the player only being able to complete to 15,000 or fold.

You could also issue a single missed hand penalty for acting out of turn, if it was their first occurrence.

Best Regards
Stuart

[Guillaume Gleize]

So you will love our rules:

To stick to the TDA without allowing the second player (here player B) to retract his bet: we allways consider playing "at the same time" as "playing IN turn"!

Because if you rule it "playing out of turn" and because the situation is now changed by player A (bet 15000) ... AND because player B ALSO acted as changing the situation (open-bet 10000) : IF YOU FOLLOW THE "PLAYING OUT OF TURN RULE" YOU MUST LET HIM THE 3 OPTIONS:
1- Fold (and take back the 10000)
2- Call 15000
3- Raise 30000 or more ...

That's too much for someone who played too quickly and with a fault (short call)!

What we do:

WE RULE IT "PLAY IN TURN" and we watch the result: HERE IT'S SHORT CALL!
So here we would apply the short call rule (different from the short raise) wich is:

a) If player B actually PUSHED the 10000 in the middle: he has the choice between fold and LET the 10000 in the pot or complete it to 15000.
b) If player B only SAID the amount ("I bet 10000") without allready pushing the chips: he can fold (loosing nothing) or call at 15000.

PS:
We do not imagine in this case the possibility of player B saying "fold" "call" or "raise" because he tought he was first to play!
But in case he said one of thoses words: they are simply bidding ... because remember we consider him PLAYING IN TURN!

Last point: for us "playing out of turn" is when the first player (player A) had not yet acted when the floor manager is arriving!
Player A still have his cards and chips in front of him ... and STILL CAN CHANGE (or not) the situation: that's playing "out of turn"!

Playing "At the same time" is simply playing IN TIME but ... TOO QUICK (wich is not an advantage ... mostly with our rules)!

IOAO (In Our Arrogant Opinion)

GG

[Nick C]

 I have thoughts about two players acting at the exact same time. It gives a huge advantage to the proper bettor because I would allow him to retract his action and hold the out of turn bettor to his. In other words, I would never allow the out of turn bettor to retract his wager. If we do that, players will always bet out of turn with the chance that their out of turn bet could induce players in front of them to fold.
 The only exceptions that I could see would be if a player was misled by the dealer, or the opposing player was hiding his cards, or some other such irregularity. Beyond that, players have a responsibility to act in turn or suffer the consiquences.

[Guillaume Gleize]

First TY for your answer!

So we have the same goal on the situation: help the proper & initial bettor and forbid the second one to retract his chips ... but we use different ways!

- I use what I called "Way 1" (wrong bettor was "on turn") to PENALISE him while respecting the rules.
- You use what I called "Way 2 - Solution 1" (wrong bettor was "out of turn" and proper bettor can change) to PENALISE the wrong bettor ...
... but where comes your rules from (with respect)?

OK you can answer me: "That's our home rules!" wich I respect with all my heart.

Because to allow the initial bettor to CHANGE his decision (he actually bet 15000) is a strange decision written NOWHERE right
And even if you do it: what would be a "changed" situation for player B ?
If Player A change to "check": it's a change for player B in a way because the 15000 are not there anymore ... !!?
If player A let the 15000: it's also a change of the betting situation for player B who originaly thought he was first to speak etc ... !!?

That's why it's easier for me to explain to my players:

PLAYER "B" PLAYED WRONG AND TOO FAST BUT IN TURN BECAUSE PLAYER "A" ACTUALLY ACTED!
LET'S SEE NOW THE RESULT: HO, HERE WE HAVE A SHORT CALL WICH SOLUTION IS ... (etc)!

With my best regards,

 




 

[MikeB]

Solution 2: Player A can't change and is stick to his 15.000 bet ... so if we follow the "out of turn rules": the situation is changed (15.000 more) so Player B can fold (take his 10.000 back), call the 15.000 or raise it.

Fortunately this situation rarely occurs. But the bottom line for me is that at the Time seat 5 acted, he could not possibly have known of Seat 4's bet... and we must allow seat 4's bet as binding because it was his turn to bet.

Based on this I don't see how this can be anything other than action out of turn on Seat 5's part, and seat 4 has changed the known action by his bet, i.e. at the time Seat 5 pushed 10,000 there was no bet to him, but he was out of turn and when the action is backed up there's now a bet of 15,000...  therefore the TDA rules for action out of turn apply... This is listed as "Solution Two" in the OP which I quote above.

If we find a player abusing this or any other rule, he can always be penalized in a manner that will discourage further abuse....  This all said, for any "special situation" the TD has full leeway to rule in a manner that's in the best interest of the game. My problem with deviating too frequently from the chapter and verse of the rules is that it is a slippery slope and I personally don't feel this situation warrants deviation from the rule for a first offense... but that's a personal interpretation.

[Nick C]

I would like to know why so many rules create differing opinions by so many TD's. Does the amount wagered by either player, or both players mean anything?
  1) The original situation, both players 4 seat and player in 5 seat bet at the same time. PlayerA bets 15,000 B bets 10,000.
       (that solution is what we are debating)
  2) What if Player A bet 10,000 and Player B bet 15,000 (at the same time).
        (I would consider that a raise). If you agree, then we are getting into the amounts that are wagered, and I think that is a mistake.
  3) If both players bet the same amount at the same time.
        (PERFECT, NO PROBLEM.......correct?)
Mike, the only player that did anything wrong was Player B in the 5 seat. The other player could not, and should not be penalized or criticized for acting in turn. The offending player (5 seat) should have the option of calling or surrendering his bet. Period.

[MikeB]

TDA rules allow the out of turn player to 'retract and re-consider' his actions,so he can take back the 10,000 and I would bind him to either call the 15,000 or fold.  I do like rules such as the WSOP rule that don't allow retraction of the 10,000 out of turn, with the player only being able to complete to 15,000 or fold.

Stu: As far as I can tell, current WSOP rules do allow for return of out-of-turn bets if the action has changed. See WSOP Rules 80 and 81 which are consistent with TDA rule 29.

http://www.wsop.com/pdfs/2010/2010-WSOP-Rules.pdf

WSOP Rule 80: "... if a player acts out of turn and the action changes, the person out of turn may change their action by calling, raising, or folding and may have their chps returned... Players may not intentionally act out of turn to influence play before them... Violators will recieve a penalty..."

This is an interesting topic, perhaps the TDA should revisit the whole issue of how to handle out of turn monies and see if there is consensus that any changes should be made. Thanks to everyone for your input on this.

[Nick C]

Mike,
 Don't you think that the WSOP rule #80 is for players acting out of turn by skipping players? What did the player in the 4 seat do wrong? The player in the 5 seat bet out of turn. I don't see that as action changing. What if the 5 seat player bet out of turn to intimidate the player in the 4 seat in hopes that he would lay his hand down. Why not do this all of the time if he could take his bet back and not suffer any consiquences. IMO that rule is a necessary rule, but not intended for that situation.

[MikeB]

Mike,
 Don't you think that the WSOP rule #80 is for players acting out of turn by skipping players? What did the player in the 4 seat do wrong? The player in the 5 seat bet out of turn. I don't see that as action changing. What if the 5 seat player bet out of turn to intimidate the player in the 4 seat in hopes that he would lay his hand down. Why not do this all of the time if he could take his bet back and not suffer any consiquences. IMO that rule is a necessary rule, but not intended for that situation.

Interesting question. I would say that Player 5 is out of turn here because by definition, if you're acting in turn you know what the action of the rightful player is (or you should know if you're paying attention). In this case, Player 5 could not have known that Player 4 was going to bet 15K, so his bet couldn't be in turn. It raises the further question of whether Player 4 should also have the right to reconsider his bet. In the case where a player is completely skipped and the out of turn action is before the rightful action, then the rightful actor has a chance to consider his bet in light of the impact on the out-of-turn player (i.e. if I don't change the action, he has to leave it in there, if I do change it, he can re-consider it.).  My view at this point is that Player 4 is not harmed by leaving his bet as binding. 15 k is what he intended to bet, he also couldn't have known that Player 5 intended a 10k bet... so he's no worse off... and Player 5 hasn't gained any information that he would have if he hadn't bet out of turn. So it's hard for me to envision how Player 4 is harmed by leaving his bet as binding.  HOWEVER, I guess you could make the argument that at the second that Player 5 made an out-of-turn bet, that the action should be stopped and backed up, and for that reason Player 4's action was itself "invalid" so he should have the right to reconsider it. Personally I just don't see enough harm (or any harm really) to Player 4 in leaving his bet in there so the brain gymnastics of a more creative solution don't seem worth it here but that's a personal view that I base on my reading of these rules... other TDs could certainly apply them differently. Fortunately this is a situation that's almost never going to happen (and I've yet to ever see it), because even a fraction of a second either way and this bet is either clearly out of turn or is in turn.  BTW, if I rule it as in turn, then I'm almost certainly going to rule Player 5's 10k as a binding call and force him to bring it up to 15k. There's no universal threshold of an underbet that constitutes a mandatory call that I'm aware of (although I think Roberts suggests 80% of the bet as a mandatory call which would be 12k in this case)... it's usually left to the discretion of the TD given the circumstances and here I'd rule a 10k in-turn underbet as a binding call by Player 5, I don't think he can claim distraction or being unaware of Player 4's action or claim that brining it to 15 is such a crippling impact on his stack considering he was willing to lead out for 10k.

[Guillaume Gleize]

Gentlemen,

Important point: not only this situation happened in one of my tournaments, but I remember it also happend to DOYLE BRUNSON on a TV BIG GAME (sorry I don't remember wich one). Doyle was the second player in position and did pushed an INFERIOR amount at the exact same time as the player at his RIGHT (wich was supposed to play before him)! So in our exemple Doyle would be here the seat 5 player pushing 10.000 at the exact same time as the 15.000 pushed by seat 4 player!

I think it was in a casino and they called for an "old style" manager (with a cowboy hat on his head). Even respectable, the man seem confused by the situation and, as far as I remember, declared the bet of player in position (let say seat 4) bidding and let Doyle Brunson (seat 5) free to recover his chips or complete to call !?!?! I WAS SHOCKED!

Doyle actually took back his chips with excuses to first player (I respect so much Doyle Brunson and who could blame him to use the "present" given to him by "Cowboy TD"?).

But I totally desagree with the decision of "Cowboy TD" (also with respect for him: he was on the hot action with stars players: must not be easy).

Once again: WE DEFINITIVELY CALL ANY "AT THE SAME TIME" ACTION AS AN "IN TURN ACTION" as long as the TDA do not choose officially to rule it the reverse way.

TWO MAIN REASONS:

1) The first player (player A) ACTUALLY DID WHAT HE WOULD HAVE DONE ANYWAY IF SECOND PLAYER WOULD HAVE PLAYED CORRECTLY (in our exemple player A would have bet 15.000 anyway)! So no reason neither to punish him NOR TO CHANGE HIS ACTION IN ANY WAY!

2) The real confusion was created only by player B and if you call his action "IN TURN" it will create more disadvantages on him wich is more logical (if "short call" with chips in the middle: he can only complete to call or fold loosing the chips in the middle ... and if "short raise": he must follow the "50% rule" with no choice!).

Remember this: PLAYER B ONLY PLAYED TOO QUICKLY but not BEFORE player A!
So let's simply disadvantage him to play too fast.

...

Hope my opinion doesn't shock you: I respect you work and positions so much.
But as you said: as long as the TDA do not have strict rules on some special situations: each TD must rule his tourney translating the few TDA sentences on such subjects in the spirit of what he feels as "the best interest of the game"!

With best regards,
GG

[Nick C]

First of all, the player in front of Doyle would be on his right, not his left. I'm still very confused. who do you think was at fault? You must be giving an option to one of them. Who is it?

[Guillaume Gleize]

Sorry Nick: yes the opponent was at the RIGHT of Doyle (I modified the text for any other reading it).

The only fault is from Doyle.

So for our rules: Doyle simply played IN TURN but too fast ... making him in this specific case doing a SHORT CALL (even if he was thinking doing an opening bet).
So we would apply the rule of a short call on Doyle.

Best regards,
GG

[Nick C]

Guillaume,
 I agree with you when you say the only fault was on Doyle. That brings up a very interesting fact that we all need to consider when making a ruling. Many players have reputations for "taking an occasional shot" when given the chance. I think the decision of the floor was very lenient towards Doyle, because he knew that Doyle's action was unintentional. So, even though your original question would not warant giving the out of turn bettor (in this case, Doyle) an option to retract his wager. I see nothing wrong with the call the floor made, simply because of the class, and reputaion of the player.
  I think that anyone that has ever worked as a floorman, or TD would like to have a chance to go back and change some of the decisions we've made. I think we need to be careful when we refer to a link from the WPT or the WSOP. They make mistakes, too. I've seen quite a few that I did not agree with. IMO, these rules were written to protect innocent players from being taken advantage of, by some of the unscrupulous characters that play poker. That is why you are there.
  Your passion for the game, and genuine concern for your players, are your positive qualities. They will help you make the call that might not be found in print, but you know is the right one.

[MikeB]

Once again: WE DEFINITIVELY CALL ANY "AT THE SAME TIME" ACTION AS AN "IN TURN ACTION" as long as the TDA do not choose officially to rule it the reverse way.

2) The real confusion was created only by player B and if you call his action "IN TURN" it will create more disadvantages on him wich is more logical (if "short call" with chips in the middle: he can only complete to call or fold loosing the chips in the middle ... and if "short raise": he must follow the "50% rule" with no choice!).

GG

GG: While I would rule player B out of turn here, I fully recognize your prerogative to rule him in-turn.

AND... if you do rule him in-turn, then your step 1 makes total sense, to hold Player A to his bet of 15K.  What I don't understand is your rule to give player B an "option" to either bring his call up to 15k (add 5k) or fold and leave the 10k in the pot. Why would you give him the option to fold ? If you're ruling his action as "in-turn" then the only thing he's done is make a mistake on the amount of his call, i.e. he has definitely called, just put out 10k instead of 15k. In that circumstance, he's usually obligated to bring it up to the full 15k (not have an option), unless you consider it a "gross misunderstanding" in which case you have the prerogative to make a gross-misunderstanding ruling, which isn't made very often, but is an option nonetheless....