Author Topic: talking out of turn  (Read 15971 times)

The Hitman

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 23
talking out of turn
« on: March 22, 2011, 04:57:40 PM »
What would you do in that case?

MTT, full ring tables (10 handed), blinds: not important

Player A is seated on 10 (UTG in that hand), he looks at his hand and takes a short time of reflexion, but player B (seat 1) thinks he's also UTG because he can't see his opponent.
What happens? While A is thinking, B folds, C calls and D announces "raise", so there's three actions and A hasn't talked!
At this time, A says "I didn't talk!"

Is the hand dead?

Thank you!

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2011, 05:05:18 PM »
dogzy,
 No, the hand is live unless the dealer burns and turns before the 10 seat draws attention to being skipped. When the action returns to the 10 seat, he can only fold or call.

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2011, 06:07:54 PM »
Actually Nick, I thought we had decided in a different thread that the hand would be dead?  Three players have acted and player A has lost the right to act therefore his hand is dead.

Though this particular situation may be slightly different because Player D simply SAID raise rather than putting chips in the pot. So perhaps you could back the action up to player A since he is yelling at the same time that player D is calling a raise but that one is a little thin. 

go back to this thread: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=342.15

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2011, 07:11:19 PM »
Jasper,
 I never agreed that a hand would be dead unless the next card were played and he hadn't called the previous bet. I will take a look at the thread when I have time.

Dave Lamb

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 65
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2011, 07:44:48 PM »

Presumably this was not a lightning fast action by all three players, if it was, go to rule # 1. It is the responsibility of A (the first player in the example) to stop the action to preserve his right to act. Once substantial action occurs, without a protest from A, the hand is dead.

In this example, the player that SAID raise is obligated to do just as if the chips had been placed into the pot.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2011, 03:47:46 AM »
Dave,
 Are you saying that a skipped player has a dead hand once three people act after him?  I must be missing something.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2011, 04:49:00 AM by Nick C »

Dave Lamb

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 65
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2011, 08:21:55 AM »

Yes, Nick,

A player that allows three players to act behind him has a dead hand.

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2011, 09:20:09 AM »
The player lost his right to act.  Dave you're right about the verbal action being binding so that should play into the decision for substantial action.  The this situation was described anyway....

Nick, this is a quote from you from the other thread on an almost identical scenario:

The hand is absolutely DEAD.

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2011, 09:26:53 AM »
My deciding factor would be Substantial Action, which I would gauge as more than three players acting or three players acting where an intervening raise had occurred, it is the players responsibility to protect their right to act in a hand which must be done by calling 'time' or another similar phrase.  In this circumstance I would rule the hand dead also as IMO substantial action has occurred, in order that backing up the action or limiting the player to passive action to the betting round would be more detrimental than killing his hand.

Regards
Stu

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2011, 01:04:33 PM »
Jasper,
 Read the post that you are talking about and you will see the difference. They are two completely different situations. The dealer taps, burns, and turns before the player speaks up. That makes it a little different, don't you think?

Stuart, Are you telling me that in a full table, if a player bets out of turn and skips the proper bettor, and two other players follow with five other players still to act, *that the action can't be backed-up to the proper player?******* NO IT CAN NOT, WHAT I MEANT TO SAY WAS; WHEN THE ACTION RETURNS TO THE SKIPPED PLAYER, HE CAN ONLY FOLD OR CALL.  Plus Some of us have defined significant action as only two players. What right do we have to kill that players hand?

*I made a mistake on this post and I want to draw attention to it before I confuse anyone that reads this for the first time.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 05:38:16 PM by Nick C »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2011, 01:29:47 PM »
Jasper,
 Read the post that you are talking about and you will see the difference. They are two completely different situations. The dealer taps, burns, and turns before the player speaks up. That makes it a little different, don't you think? No I don't because our argument is that the dealer is part of the action so he was being counted as part of the significant action.  I like Thomas' definition of substantial action the best, but even the rule in RROP that says the player loses his right to act specifically says '3 players have acted'....

Stuart, Are you telling me that in a full table, if a player bets out of turn and skips the proper bettor, and two other players follow with five other players still to act, that the action can't be backed-up to the proper player? That's rediculous! Plus Some of us have defined significant action as only two players. What right do we have to kill that players hand?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2011, 01:40:10 PM »
Jasper,
 He loses his right to act, that does NOT mean he has a dead hand. If that's what they were getting at, they would have said the damn hand was dead, and not beat around the bush.

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2011, 02:18:49 PM »
Jasper,
 He loses his right to act, that does NOT mean he has a dead hand. If that's what they were getting at, they would have said the damn hand was dead, and not beat around the bush.

You would have thought so wouldn't you.  However, I believe that if you lose the right to act then you just don't get to act period.  Which would mean not after all the action comes around to you and not before the action goes any further.  In a cash game I could see letting the player call whatever comes around to him if you really wanted to, though not my first choice.  It just lets the sly ones angle a bit by not acting and not saying anything and waiting to see if the aggressive guy three seats down is raising the pot for the 5th time this round or not.  And this is particularly true in tournaments. 

I guess we are going to have to disagree on this one... the hand is dead. 

Dave Lamb

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 65
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2011, 08:34:55 PM »
I thought the example given on the forum was about a player who allows players to act (getting information) and fails to protect his right to act. Before the flop, I rule that a dead hand.

There are actually several variations of not acting on your hand when it is your turn, here are some:
If the player has money in the pot and it is after the flop, we may go to "the loss of aggressive action."
If the player continues to somehow hide the cards or we believe an angle is being taken, he may be penalized after a warning.
If the player is facing a bet and lets substantial action occur behind them, that is dead.

I agree that it would be a great topic for discussion at the Summit. Whether it makes sense to try and encompass all the possibilties in the form of a new rule, that is another debate.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: talking out of turn
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2011, 01:37:43 AM »
Dave,
 I'm glad we at least are opening this up for further discussion. The frustrating part about this subject to me is; everyone is looking at the skipped player like he is deliberately hiding his cards, or allowing the action to pass him by. If that is the case, then of course he should be reprimanded. If you look back at all of my posts, I try to focus on why the player was skipped. Remember this; ONLY THE ACTION OF AN OUT-OF-TURN BETTOR CAN BEGIN SUBSTANTIAL ACTION. So, once again I will say that we must always consider the intent of the player, and every situation is different. To try to enforce a rule that kills a player's hand because another player broke Rule #29, and then to compound it, by having the dealer allow the next one or two bettors to follow is hard for me to comprehend.

 Jasper,
 What in the heck are you writting all of that in red for? For your information, I consider substantial action as only two people acting because a good dealer will correct the out of turn before it gets that far....consider this a smiley face....Also remember that I don't agree with killing the hand either. So what's your point?