Re: An Out-of-Turn Call Becomes a Raise (NLHE)
 

[ QUOTE ]
A number of places enforce a rule where If the out-of-turn action is still possible in relation to any action before the out-of-turn action was attempted, then the out-of-turn player is held to that action (check/call/raise). So if he can still call the same amount ($15,) he is held to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the tradional rule. I've always heard it described as the "intervening agressive action rule" If there is no agressive action between the last in turn actor and the out of turn actor then the out of turn actor must do what he attempted to do.

Basically if there are only calls or folds between the in turn and out of turn action, then the out of turn actor must do what he tried to do.

If there was a single raise (or bet) between the in turn and out of turn action, then the out of turn actor can do whatever he wants irrespective of his out of turn action.

Re: An Out-of-Turn Call Becomes a Raise (NLHE)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I decide to call since I now know that I'm going to see a potential payday card on the turn for just $15.

...

I further accuse the button of shooting angles.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't your original call an angle-shoot???

You could have simply said, "I haven't acted yet." and that player would have taken back his $15. But, instead, you decided to use that information that you weren't entitled to to help you make a decision.

Re: An Out-of-Turn Call Becomes a Raise (NLHE)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A number of places enforce a rule where If the out-of-turn action is still possible in relation to any action before the out-of-turn action was attempted, then the out-of-turn player is held to that action (check/call/raise). So if he can still call the same amount ($15,) he is held to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the tradional rule. I've always heard it described as the "intervening agressive action rule" If there is no agressive action between the last in turn actor and the out of turn actor then the out of turn actor must do what he attempted to do.

Basically if there are only calls or folds between the in turn and out of turn action, then the out of turn actor must do what he tried to do.

If there was a single raise (or bet) between the in turn and out of turn action, then the out of turn actor can do whatever he wants irrespective of his out of turn action.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the traditional rule. This is a rule many places introduced with the growth of poker a few years ago.

Re: An Out-of-Turn Call Becomes a Raise (NLHE)
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is not the traditional rule. This is a rule many places introduced with the growth of poker a few years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps "traditional" is a poor choice of words.

From "Cook's Rules of Real Poker"

10.08 Action out of Turn

A player who makes action out of turn shall be held to that action when it is his turn, unless intervening action changes the action the out-of-turn player is facing.

I don't know what the rule was back in the 90s (18 or 19). It seems to me, however, that the above rule is the best rule (absent extreme circumstance--e.g. a player who is known to rutinely abuse this rule).

RR, you're prolly one of the people walkin' the earth best qualified to say what the "traditional" rule was/is, could you offer it up or at least a link to a previous thread?

Thanks

Re: An Out-of-Turn Call Becomes a Raise (NLHE)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A number of places enforce a rule where If the out-of-turn action is still possible in relation to any action before the out-of-turn action was attempted, then the out-of-turn player is held to that action (check/call/raise). So if he can still call the same amount ($15,) he is held to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the tradional rule. I've always heard it described as the "intervening agressive action rule" If there is no agressive action between the last in turn actor and the out of turn actor then the out of turn actor must do what he attempted to do.

Basically if there are only calls or folds between the in turn and out of turn action, then the out of turn actor must do what he tried to do.

If there was a single raise (or bet) between the in turn and out of turn action, then the out of turn actor can do whatever he wants irrespective of his out of turn action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do they require all players to properly stack their chips and clearly display both their cards and stacks to all players at all times? Do they require you to call "Time" every time you take more than X seconds to make a decision?

Your rule is nitty. To protect my action against this nitty rule, I'm going to have to insist on all the other nitty BS stuff that protects me from it.

Re: An Out-of-Turn Call Becomes a Raise (NLHE)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your rule is nitty. To protect my action against this nitty rule, I'm going to have to insist on all the other nitty BS stuff that protects me from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't desire to be nitty. But there's a problem when somebody acts out of turn. The problem has to be adressed.

The underlying purpose of rules generally is to do justice. When there is a situation where one party has done nothing wrong and another party has done something wrong the default is to not harm the innocent party.

In an out of turn action situation, the only party who has done wrong is the out of turn actor. There is nothing wrong with resolving the situation in a manner that slightly prejudices the guilty actor. I think limiting his options is the best way to adress the situation.

To do otherwise would unduly reward the wrongdoer.

Re: An Out-of-Turn Call Becomes a Raise (NLHE)
 

I kind of agree with EWillers. Let's say that Mempho wants to raise for value, but the out-of-turn player raises first. Now Mempho calls because he got free information by no fault of his own and opts to attempt a 3-bet, and the out-of-turn player says "my bad" and pulls back all but a call.

Neither party meant to do anything wrong, but the one who did do something wrong benefited while the innocent player was penalized.

Re: An Out-of-Turn Call Becomes a Raise (NLHE)
 

It wasn't really my intention to call you a nit. You were told a rule. It absolutely blames the out of turn actor. That's a nitty rule.

Sometimes the guy with the action on him causes the problem. I don't see why he should be rewarded. Let the floor come up with a fair ruling based on the particular situation and his knowledge of the players.

Re: An Out-of-Turn Call Becomes a Raise (NLHE)
 

[ QUOTE ]
RR, you're prolly one of the people walkin' the earth best qualified to say what the "traditional" rule was/is, could you offer it up or at least a link to a previous thread?


[/ QUOTE ]

Traditionally the rules often weren't written down. Until recently NL was played by gentlemen. Some old timers can tellyou how much more pleasant NL players were than limit players. If there was a problem the players would often work it out without involving the floor as it was their game. If the floor was called to rule on if out of turn action was binding they would look at the situation the player thoguth they were in. If that didn't change (ie the player they didn't notice was in folded) they would be obligated to take the action they originally indicated, if the situation had changed they would then be entitled to chagne their action. The rules on the wall often said "Action out of turn may be binding." The general idea was to not reward angle shooters and protect those that had made an honest mistake.

Re: An Out-of-Turn Call Becomes a Raise (NLHE)
 

Whoa. Kind of a stretch to call the rule "nitty." "Absolutely blame" is also a bit of a stretch. It's just a rule to default to consistent rulings when someone acts out of turn. In most cases, the out-of-turn guy will be the one who, well, acted out-of-turn (made the small mistake.)

Yeah, someone might angle-shoot and purposely hide action to see what other players might do, but that's not all that hard to protect yourself against (Follow the action. When in doubt, ask. Hardly a nitty way to protect yourself)

Stacks? Time? WTH?