Author Topic: Action out of turn  (Read 16877 times)

Stoneii

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Action out of turn
« on: October 24, 2012, 06:00:39 AM »
Hi

6 handed game.  Seat 1 and 2 are blinds.  Seat 3 is to act and sees seat 4 reaching for chips so says nothing.  Seat 4 open raises and seat 5 insta mucks.

Is there a stage where seat 3's hand is dead? 
Can he now call back the action and make a bet?
Is he limited to a call?

What are the options at this stage or if there was another action after seat 5's?

Thanks in advance

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2012, 06:42:24 AM »
Stoneii,

 Welcome to the forum!

Substantial action has taken place.  It is too late to back-up the action. When the betting returns to the skipped player, he can fold or call...he can not raise.

 IMO, the hand will be ruled dead if the next round of betting begins and the skipped player was not in for all bets.

Stoneii

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2012, 06:57:01 AM »
Thanks Nick - that was going to be my ruling - since i knew seat 3 deliberately waited for the out of turn action i then waited to see if there was significant action afterward.  I told him that it was his responsibility to stop action if he genuinely wanted to act before action after him - or his hand was dead if there had been another fold/call/raise.  I said otherwise he's basically awarding himself the button by waiting.

Others at the table weren't sure on this. So would u not call his hand dead until end of the round? Do u mean if the board is dealt or before?

So if its flagged by 2nd action he can fold or call - but surely if we wait until end of round and say seat 6 raises then he gets to fold out withoout losing a call?

It was a home game so we didn't get too fussed but we do like to play by rules . i think his hand should be dead if he lets significant action happen afterwards?

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2012, 09:48:18 AM »
Quote
i think his hand should be dead if he lets significant action happen afterwards?

I think this is correct as the overriding fundamental principle... did the player "let" significant action happen before stopping the action.  To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling "time" (or an equivalent word).  Failure to stop the action [in a timely manner] may cause you to lose the right to act.

Personally, I see a couple of issues here.  First, I would refer to the definition of "substantial action" in the TDA rules as a starting point.  If substantial action has occurred, then by default I would rule against the missed player.  However, I think there can be exceptions to this.

There will be times when technically, significant action has occurred, but I would feel comfortable ruling that the action be backed-up.  For example, if it is clear that the player did not deliberately delay calling attention to the first out-of-turn action once it has occurred, and attempted to stop the action right away once it had occurred (e.g. despite subsequent insta-calls or insta-folds), then I think it is fair to back the action up.  Conversely, there will be times when technically, significant action has not yet occurred, but I would not back up the action.  For example, if only one player acted, and the dealer then tapped & burned & dealt out board cards and yet the player did not attempt to stop the dealer's action, then I would rule that he has lost the right the act.  I know that some people will disagree with me here, and strictly apply the "substantial action" standard, but I do think some common sense is warranted.  The question, in my mind, is did the player let play continue after the out-of-turn action or not?

Second, what does it mean by "losing the right to act"?  If the missed player was contemplating calling a bet, I would rule the hand dead.  If, however, all action was checked around on that particular betting round, I would not kill the hand but deem that he has checked and he loses the right to bet, but his hand is still live.  I really don't like killing hands as a matter of course, so I think this is a fair compromise.

In the original example, I think it really depends on when seat 3 brought attention to the out-of-turn actiom of seat 4, and whether he delayed in doing so.  I don't think seat 3 has any obligation to say anything while seat 4 is merely "reaching for chips", but once seat 4 actually acts out of turn by announcing raise or by placing chips forward, then seat 3 has to attempt to stop the action right then and there.   If he did, but seat 5 acted so quickly that he couldn't be stopped in time, then fine, I would still back up the action.  However, if there was any delay after seat 4 had raised, because e.g. seat 3 wants to see what would happen next, then seat 3's hand would be dead as soon as seat 5 mucks.  
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 11:09:45 AM by K-Lo »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2012, 10:25:08 AM »
Stoneii,

 I'm sorry but I can't agree with K-Lo on this one. The situation you described is clearly covered by substantial action, furthermore if a player is skipped his hand can never be declared dead unless the player is not in for all bets. Let's look at your original situation.

6 handed game.  Seat 1 and 2 are blinds.  Seat 3 is to act and sees seat 4 reaching for chips so says nothing.  Seat 4 open raises and seat 5 insta mucks.

In a normal hand, the dealer would have told the out of turn bettor that it was not his turn to act. "Hold it Joe", the bet is on Tommy." That would require a quick response from the dealer to stop seat 5 from folding. Your example indicates that the proper bettor in seat 3 (Tommy) intentionally let the action pass him by, therefore the action can not be backed up and when the clockwise action returns to him, he can only fold or call. His hand will not be dead unless he folds.

 If the skipped player remains silent and tries to see a free card, or tries to participate in the showdown without calling the last bet...then his hand is dead.

 There are a great number of different scenarios when substantial action could be handled different from what I've stated but in your case, that's the only way I would rule.
 

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2012, 11:37:49 AM »
Nick: I think we are roughly on the same page.  I am fine with not killing the hand if Tommy is not facing any bets, instead deeming him to have checked.   I don't think though that Tommy has an obligation to say something just because he sees Joe "reaching" for chips.  Tommy hasn't done anything wrong, and neither has Joe unless he actually bets.  If, however, Tommy did intentionally let action continue once Joe makes his bet, then this is a different story. I am unsure what actually happened in the original example.

RROP suggests that the player who is skipped "may" lose his turn to act.  To me, "may" implies "may or may not", and therefore there is an element of TD discretion involved. It is obviously relevant if substantial action has occurred, but I think you have to always consider what is fair. 

Suppose Chet and I are sitting to your left at a table.   There is a big pot in the centre, and the short stack has already gone all-in for one small chip.  You are contemplating at least calling, and you look like you want to raise... But since you have been a pain in our arse  ;) we decide to both call out of turn for one chip quickly, giving you no chance to object.  Should the TD apply substantial action strictly here and kill your hand?  It would be very easy for players to target someone and to kill a person's hand!  That is why I think we need to go back to first principles, and ask: did the player intentionally let action continue once someone has acted out of turn.  Relying only on substantial action, IMO, can lead to some undesirable results.

Stoneii

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2012, 01:48:40 PM »
Many thanks both

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2012, 03:16:59 PM »
K-Lo,

 I'm sorry about the Tommy and Joe routine, I think you got them mixed up. My fault.

 Back to the situation at hand. The original post: 6 handed game.  Seat 1 and 2 are blinds.  Seat 3 is to act and sees seat 4 reaching for chips so says nothing.  Seat 4 open raises and seat 5 insta mucks.
 Don't you think that the 3 seat player, (along with the dealer) should stop the improper out of turn from the seat 4 player? Doesn't every player have an ethical obligation to correct an error that's about to be made? The out of turn was the first responsible for violating the rules, however in the original question, the 3 seat player said nothing, and the dealer said nothing. Moving in a clockwise rotation the 3 seat player would have an ethical obligation to let the dealer know that he was skipped. The floor would be called and the skipped player would be allowed to call or fold. That's it.

 If the player in seat 3 attempted to remain in contention without calling all bets, or not calling the bets from the final betting round, then his hand should be killed.

 The bigger problem that exists in so many rules is the unclear wording; "may lose his turn to act"....What does that mean? To me, he can't raise. nowhere does it say the hand is dead!

 K-Lo, I'm with you when you refer to the use of the word "may" as applied to so many rules. If you go back through the last couple years on the forum, you will see that I've voiced my opinion on this subject. The rules need to be more firm, or exact, or strict or some other word that I'm missing at the moment.


 
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 07:39:45 AM by Nick C »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2012, 02:19:27 PM »
100% behind what K-Lo said.

If a player fails to stop the action, substantial action has occurred, and the player was deemed to have enough time to act; the hand is dead if he/she was faced with a bet, or they have lost their right to act if they weren't face with a bet.

It sounds like, in this situation, seat 1 and 2 were the blinds...so that means seat 3 was faced with a bet.  If they are deemed to have had enough time to act and they did not try to stop the action, their hand is dead with no recourse.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2012, 06:05:24 PM »
Tristan,

 I'm not following you. What hands are dead?

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #10 on: October 28, 2012, 09:37:15 PM »
Seat 3 was UTG.  1 and 2 were the blinds.  Seat 3 did not call the blind and did not stop the action...substantial action had occurred as seats 4 and 5 had acted, one of which included putting money into the pot.

If seat 3 had enough time to try to stop the action, yet failed to do so...his hand is dead.

If the action went too fast, and seat 3 did not have a chance to stop the action, I would back it up to him. 

Seat 3 cannot remain in a bet pot without calling the bets...nor can we allow seat 3 to angle shoot by purposely not speaking up in order to see what the players after him are going to do.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2012, 11:39:35 AM »
Tristan,
 I've waited for others to respond, but that hasn't happened...so I have to tell you that I disagree with killing player 3's hand. Player 3 would have to wait for the action to return to him (clockwise) at which point he would have the option to fold or call. There is no rule that dictates killing the skipped players hand.

 If the dealer continued dealing the next board card before it was noticed that Player 3 was not in for all bets, his hand is dead.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2012, 12:16:47 PM »
Nick, that does not make sense in Tristan's example.  Seat 3 is facing the Big Blind and has to call the Big Blind or fold.  If it is determined that he let action go by without saying anything, you can't give him the option to wait to see all the action complete at the entire table before you allow him to fold.  Why should he get the benefit of knowing how everyone at the table has acted before determining whether or not to call?

I think your proposed solution would make more sense if it was post-flop, for example, and the action went check-check.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 12:28:39 PM by K-Lo »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2012, 01:19:56 PM »
Yep, I agree.

Think about it this way.  If you allowed what you propose in this situation...why wouldn't seat 3 purposely try to hide cards?  If I was seat 3 I would always try to hope people didn't notice that I hadn't acted in order to see what they all were going to do before I made my decision. It is just too open to attempts to angle shoot. 

Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Action out of turn
« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2012, 03:58:09 PM »
K-Lo and Tristan,

 Player's that hide their cards will be reprimanded. The existing rules do not allow us to kill a player's hand until the next round begins, or the showdown has commenced and the skipped player was not in for all bets. I've always contended that the rules do not apply if a devious player is allowing the action to pass them intentionally.

 In Tristan's situation, we need to look at why the UTG was skipped. Who is at fault? I am addressing a normal scenario where a player was skipped unintentionally. The intent of the player's involved must be considered.  

 The way I see it, there has to be a serious breakdown of procedures for something like this to occur.

 Here's the way I rule: As soon as the UTG is skipped the dealer stops the action, corrects the OOT and backs up the bet to the proper bettor. If the skipped player goes unnoticed and the next player responds the action proceeds clockwise and goes back to the skipped player and he can only fold or call. If the skipped player is not noticed by the dealer, or the OOT, or any other player at the table, and he says nothing, his hand is still live until the dealer burns and turns the next card.

 If other rule-sets were more specific, we would have clarity on this issue. However, like so many of the existing rules for poker, the confusion continues. The skipped player loses the right to act...what the hell does that mean? It should read: The skipped player (followed by substantial action) has a dead hand...or; The skipped player loses the right to raise. I sometimes question the intent of the rule makers :D I think they do it on purpose, just so they can sit back and follow our debates ;D
« Last Edit: December 11, 2012, 04:06:24 AM by Nick C »