Author Topic: OOT Situation?  (Read 16973 times)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3352
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2014, 04:13:57 PM »
I'm also not in favor of reciting all possible scenarios, to any player...I'm also having a tough time using OOT to describe the premature action of the "proper bettor." To me, out of turn indicates a player was skipped...

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2014, 10:23:51 PM »
I'm also not in favor of reciting all possible scenarios, to any player...

So as a player, if your actions will determine the options of another player who is OOT in the middle of your bet, you don't want to know what those outcomes will be? You'd prefer not to know and you'd prefer to act without knowledge of the applicable rules?

Let's say for example in this situation the OOT player says "Call"... if you're the skipped player, you don't want to know whether the guy is obligated to call ANY raise you make? Or if some betting action you take might relieve him of responsibility to call and leave him "with all options open"?

This is vital strategic information I don't want to learn after the fact.

As another example, let's say I'm the skipped player and I have a monster hand. I ask what my options are and I find out that if I min-raise (to 48k) the guy must make it 72k (i.e. he must put in at least a legit raise). So I love that because other players may be enticed to call or even raise the 72k and when it returns to me I can make a large re-raise (or just slow play and lure them into the next betting round). How can I know to do this if I don't know my options in real time?

On the other hand, say I have a drawing hand and want long pot odds... so I'm not looking to go all-in here, but might like to lock up his 70k. I'd hate to take action without knowledge of the rules and find I just released the guy to bet nothing or go all-in...  As the skipped player I'm the aggrieved party... the OOT player just put extra stress on my betting process...It's not fair to ask me to take on betting in this situation with no knowledge of the ramifications...  This player took betting action on me, I have a right to make an informed bet back at him, rather than betting in the dark with these additional complications... 

....This is one of the lines of thinking in support of informing the skipped player.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 02:21:01 AM by MikeB »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2014, 03:23:20 AM »
There is also some disadvantages for newer players when not revealing their options.  Experienced players, having been through a normal OOT scenario, will inherently know what will happen depending on how they act.  New players may not.  By stating 'if the action doesn't change, the OOT action will stand, if the action changes the OOT will get to pull it back and have all options" when dealing with this situation, we put all players on the same ground.  It is not telling them what to do...they still need to make that decision.

Think from Player B's perspective if you told them to act without telling them what would happen.  They bet, and you make your ruling.  Later, that player ends up in the same scenario (not frequent, but possible), you tell them to act and for a valid reason your ruling is different this time.  By not telling them in advance, you inadvertently swayed their decision making process by how they thought you would rule and they acted based on how they thought you would rule.  Now Player B feels like they were disadvantaged in a situation where they were not supposed to be the victim.

I think it is best if players know their options up front.  It is not really that different than saying "check or bet?", as you are simply laying out their options.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3352
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2014, 03:42:49 AM »
Hi Mike and Happy New Year.

 Mike, I guess what I'm trying to say is: Players should know that putting more chips into the pot prematurely, (and in mixed denominations) will have consequences. To me, the original situation should have the same results no matter what the original raise turned out to be. If the min raise to 48K were pushed into the pot, instead of  announcing "raise" the outcome should be the same. i.e. If Player B pushed 48K...and Player C pushed 70K, he would have been obligated to at least complete to 72K, correct? My ruling would "lock" Player C to a raise, or a surrender of the 70K if Player B decided to raise to an enormous amount that Player C did not want to match.

 As far as wanting to know all of the options, of course I'd want to know. I just feel that the situation we are discussing should be simplified so any player (in the wrong) will suffer the consequences.

 Action did not change to Player C...it was never completed. Player's must wait until the action they are facing is finalized...that's it!

 If we allow players to quiz us each time a player makes a bone-head play...the tournaments will never end. ;D
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 04:02:06 AM by Nick C »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2014, 05:42:46 AM »
Quote
As the skipped player I'm the aggrieved party... the OOT player just put extra stress on my betting process...It's not fair to ask me to take on betting in this situation with no knowledge of the ramifications...  This player took betting action on me, I have a right to make an informed bet back at him, rather than betting in the dark with these additional complications...  

I agree that the skipped player has been disadvantaged.  But there are many situations covered in the rules where a player at the table has been potentially disadvantaged, possibly the whole table of players other than the offender, but where we will wait until the end of the hand, assess the damage, and penalize the offending player accordingly.  We spent a whole summit debating the nuances of "rights" vs "privileges"; I would like to be a lot more careful how we use the word "right".  I just don't see players having an "inalienable right" (as Mike would say) to make an "informed" bet, let alone the level of information that must be provided.  Sure, it would be great to give the skipped player that info, and I'm sure the player would love to have that information at his fingertips in real-time, but our rules don't always give players what they want. The other approach is to allow the action to continue with the skipped player potentially at a disadvantage, and penalize the offending player at the end of the hand because of the unfairness or damage that he may have caused, as may be assessed by the TD.  I just feel that such an approach would be more consistent with established rules.

I also really don't like the fact that a TD might be expected to go through each and every scenario with the player; "if you bet this, your opponent can do this, but if you bet that, your opponent can do that, and beyond that, your opponent can do that", and so on.  First of all, that is a lot to expect the TD to work through on the spot. Not all TDs are going to be so forthcoming or so articulate. Providing this level of detail goes way beyond simply reciting a rule, or applying a rule by ruling that the offending player's bet is binding or not after the skipped player has completed his action.  If some TDs are permitted to go through these options, then everyone has to do it; however, if others TDs don't or cannot give such a detailed explanation, I think that would be unfair;  any given skipped player is now at the mercy of the intelligence of the particular TD (although I guess there's always that risk for any ruling ;)) and how well that TD can envision and then articulate all the options.  

More importantly, at least in my mind.. what if the TD tries to go through all the options, with ranges of numbers, etc., and gets it wrong?  It would be very easy to get the detailed explanation wrong.  Getting the explanation right is not easy, probably as challenging as a judge trying not to screw up an address to a jury.  If a detailed explanation that was given turns out to be inaccurate, does the skipped player have any recourse?  Likely not. And not only could the misinformation lead to greater unfairness, you've now potentially done more damage and changed the course of the hand than had you simply allowed the skipped player to complete his action.

Quote
Experienced players, having been through a normal OOT scenario, will inherently know what will happen depending on how they act.  New players may not. By stating 'if the action doesn't change, the OOT action will stand, if the action changes the OOT will get to pull it back and have all options" when dealing with this situation, we put all players on the same ground.

I am fine with this type of explanation.  You are essentially reciting the rule, and I think that is a fair compromise than simply saying "complete your action".  However, the issue that I have is whether you should go into further detail if the player says "OK, but if I do X, is that considered action-changing?  What about if I do Y instead?  What about Z?" before he completes the action?  

I agree that new players don't always know the rules, and certainly, there are occasions when TDs will rule differently for situations that players may think are quite similar.  But with respect to these other rules, we don't usually give new players special treatment; perhaps we may be lenient in penalties, etc., but not as far as providing explanations of the rules go.  In particular, I think giving them a detailed breakdown of options such as "If you min raise, this is what happens.... if you raise up to 70k, here's what happens, if you raise in excess of 70k total, here's what happens....", which essentially requires the TD to make advanced rulings for each of a number of different situations, including completely hypothetical situations, in fact anything beyond Tristan's explanation above, is what I see as being problematic.

If we are to strive for consistency in applications of tournament poker rules across venues, I think it is important that procedural approaches where the rules must be applied, like the one that we are discussing, also be made consistently.  As Neil Johnson would say "Keep it simple, stupid"; expecting TDs across the board to recite much more than what the OOT rule actually says, is asking a lot of them, and I would bet that many will be bound to get such a detailed explanation wrong.  At least if a TD waits until the end of the hand, and then gets a ruling wrong, you don't have an intervening, misleading explanation by the TD affecting the outcome of the hand.

Quote
If we allow players to quiz us each time a player makes a bone-head play...the tournaments will never end.

Funny!  There's truth to this.   :D
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 05:49:23 AM by K-Lo »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2014, 10:54:16 AM »
The "inform" school of thought definitely considers it a "right" to know, as opposed to a privilege deniable at TDs discretion...

To state the case as concisely as I can: "If another player's action options and/or bet size hinge on my choice of action, I want to know what those outcomes are, i.e. if a ruling will derive from my action I want to know the underlying rule(s). I will be affected by that ruling, not just the OOT player who put himself in the situation".

It's certainly an interesting argument and seems like one of those philosophical divides that may never be entirely closed.


K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2014, 11:45:14 AM »
Curious...

What is everyone's position on the following situations (and to what extent are they different)?

1.  Post-flop, Player A bets 1000, Player B goes all-in for 1800, Player C goes all-in for 1900/2500.  Player D calls.  Player A asks whether he is permitted to go all-in.  a)  Should we answer this question, or ask A to act first before ruling?  b) if we should answer this question, should we answer the question "if I am permitted to raise, it must be to a minimum of how much"?

2.  Two short stacks, heads-up action on the turn.  It is player A's turn to act, and he is thinking about what to do with a flush draw.  Player B goes all-in out of turn, and exposes his hand "I have two pair, please don't call me".  Player A is short-stacked, but believes that if Player B is going to receive a penalty of a round or more for exposing his hand and acting out-of-turn, Player A may make it into the money and will fold; otherwise, he is going to take his chances with the flush draw.  He asks the TD "Is Player B going to receive a penalty, and if so, what will be his penalty"?  Are we answering this question?


chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2014, 07:31:28 PM »
1.  Personally, and this might/should generate a considerable debate, I feel that any time a player asks what his options are, the TD should say, "You can do A, B or C" I don't think we should explain the ramifications of any of the possible actions until the player takes an action.

2.  I would not answer the question as it does not apply first hand to Player A.

Chet

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2014, 12:01:06 AM »
Curious...

What is everyone's position on the following situations (and to what extent are they different)?

1.  Post-flop, Player A bets 1000, Player B goes all-in for 1800, Player C goes all-in for 1900/2500.  Player D calls.  Player A asks whether he is permitted to go all-in.  a)  Should we answer this question, or ask A to act first before ruling?  b) if we should answer this question, should we answer the question "if I am permitted to raise, it must be to a minimum of how much"?

Hi Ken:

I have no problem answering the specifics in the 1900 situation, the 2500 situation, and the min-raise question. Now this assumes I believe the players questions to be genuine inquiries. If I know the guy, he knows the rules, and he's just looking to explore his opponent's tension, I'm going to be very perfunctory if not "you know what the rules are".  In other words, I'm not going to willingly be part of a ruse, but otherwise I consider these legitimate questions under the circumstances, and as a player I would feel entitled to know the answers.

2.  Two short stacks, heads-up action on the turn.  It is player A's turn to act, and he is thinking about what to do with a flush draw.  Player B goes all-in out of turn, and exposes his hand "I have two pair, please don't call me".  Player A is short-stacked, but believes that if Player B is going to receive a penalty of a round or more for exposing his hand and acting out-of-turn, Player A may make it into the money and will fold; otherwise, he is going to take his chances with the flush draw.  He asks the TD "Is Player B going to receive a penalty, and if so, what will be his penalty"?  Are we answering this question?

As player.... this is an interesting situation. I'm playing and my opponent exposes his cards... I've got a question... I feel the TD should give some reasonable explanation of house policy regarding card exposure if I ask for it.

As TD, my answer to this player is right out of TDA 101: "He does not have a dead hand... I may assess a penalty after the hand is over"... end of story.  Player asks what the penalty might be, I tell him it's not germane to the situation at hand, end of story... all he really needs to know right now is that the hand isn't dead as a result of card exposure.

I guess the key for me is that I'm fine with informing the player up to the level of information I think he has a reasonable expectation of knowing given the situation. Perhaps that's why we may never get a comprehensive "philosophical" agreement in this situation.... because each TD may have a unique feeling as to what level of information can be reasonably expected here.

... and further, this is one case where I'd strongly suggest you put your player's hat on... what would I consider reasonable information here, if I were sitting in that player's shoes ? If you follow that as your guide, I can't see how you'll ever be far wrong...

Hope this helps, thanks for the discussion.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 12:36:37 AM by MikeB »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2014, 08:08:09 AM »
Mike must have more time on his hands than I   ;D ;D

Regardless, I like his detailed answer and I am in total agreement, not that it makes any difference.

Chet

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3352
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2014, 09:33:09 AM »
Ken,

 If you really want to get a heated discussion going, what is the answer to your question #1. b?  " Post-flop, Player A bets 1000, Player B goes all-in for 1800, Player C goes all-in for 1900/2500.  Player D calls.  Player A asks whether he is permitted to go all-in.  b) .... "if I am permitted to raise, it must be to a minimum of how much"? Oh yeah, can you also clarify your all-in for 1900/2500?

 I always like to refer to one of my favorite authors when I'm looking for a simple answer to a poker situation: Chuck Ferry's Rules Of Poker...Action Out Of Turn...The Floorperson has the authority to require that a player take the same action in turn, that he took out of turn. If a player acts out of turn by betting, calling, or raising he may have to leave his chips in the pot. Mr Ferry also wants us to consider other factors into our decision: The experience of the player and whether one or another player involved has malicious intent.

 Ken your question #2 ...I would consider a severe penalty to the player that exposed his hand OOT. Primarily because his action could be a blatant act of collusion! Consider the same situation and the OOT player exposes a hand that the other player can not beat? Player has two pair but the other player could be drawing dead.

 Your situation takes place on the turn but, what if raises from both short stacks forced others to fold after the flop? One other thought, how do you penalize a player if the opponent decides to call and hits his flush? The guilty party is eliminated. I can see others at the table complaining more than the skipped player, who really has the best of it.

 

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2014, 12:26:31 PM »
Curious...

What is everyone's position on the following situations (and to what extent are they different)?

1.  Post-flop, Player A bets 1000, Player B goes all-in for 1800, Player C goes all-in for 1900/2500.  Player D calls.  Player A asks whether he is permitted to go all-in.  a)  Should we answer this question, or ask A to act first before ruling?  b) if we should answer this question, should we answer the question "if I am permitted to raise, it must be to a minimum of how much"?

2.  Two short stacks, heads-up action on the turn.  It is player A's turn to act, and he is thinking about what to do with a flush draw.  Player B goes all-in out of turn, and exposes his hand "I have two pair, please don't call me".  Player A is short-stacked, but believes that if Player B is going to receive a penalty of a round or more for exposing his hand and acting out-of-turn, Player A may make it into the money and will fold; otherwise, he is going to take his chances with the flush draw.  He asks the TD "Is Player B going to receive a penalty, and if so, what will be his penalty"?  Are we answering this question?

1.  You can call, raise, or fold.  If they ask the minimum raise, I see no problem with that.

2.  I would say that Player B's hand is not dead but they may receive a penalty at the end of the hand.




Quote
However, the issue that I have is whether you should go into further detail if the player says "OK, but if I do X, is that considered action-changing?  What about if I do Y instead?  What about Z?" before he completes the action?  

Isn't it just easier to do what I did and kick back Player C's bet and get the action back on track??  Player B still got an advantage of getting a read off of C.

Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2014, 07:39:31 AM »
Quote

Isn't it just easier to do what I did and kick back Player C's bet and get the action back on track??  Player B still got an advantage of getting a read off of C.


You were referring to:

Quote

By stating 'if the action doesn't change, the OOT action will stand, if the action changes the OOT will get to pull it back and have all options" when dealing with this situation, we put all players on the same ground.


I find this approach most preferable, and the best compromise between the two more extreme "schools" of thought (i.e. answers extremely vague, answers extremely detailed).  I like the answers you gave to the other questions as well.  Gets the action back on track more quickly and the information given is less likely to contain errors.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3352
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: OOT Situation?
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2014, 06:17:28 AM »
I prefer Ken's earlier suggestion: "As you know, my personal inclination would be to treat the 70k as a bet in turn.  I would lean towards giving the option to top up and fold most times, but still reserve the right to allow C all options under "gross misunderstanding"-like circumstances.  For me, I'm not sure that the mere fact that there is an extra player warrants that though."

I especially agree with...." the 70K is a bet in=turn."