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

Some time ago, I was involved in a hand where a ruling was made that I'm not so sure was correct.

Here's the situation:

I take a flop 3-handed with T9 in an average 1/2 NL game. Both stacks cover and effective stacks are about 250. The flop comes down something like A-7-6 rainbow. I'm second to act.

The first player pays off with any decent pair and bets out like $15. I hesitate for a moment and take a cursory glance at the button because the button is a somewhat unpredictable player that is known to make some outlandishly huge raises. I decide to fold based on this player's history of doing just that.

The actual delay is no more than a second and a half or so, but, before I can act, the button flat calls the $15. Knowing that the first player likely has an Ace and pays off big, 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 call and the button says, "My bad" and takes back his out-of-turn call. He then proceeds to raise to like $75.

Now, you can see why I would be less than happy. I would have saved the $15 if the button had not called out of turn. I would have gotten to see the turn and had an opportunity for a big payoff had the button not "revoked" his call and turn it into a raise. So, I got the worst of both worlds here.

I'm more than a little disgusted and I call for the floor. The floor rules that since the button's call was out-of-turn, that he wasn't committed and still had the opportunity to raise. I argue that he is verbally bound to no avail. I further accuse the button of shooting angles.

Button apologizes to me like 15 minutes later and says that he didn't realize that I was in the hand and that he decided to raise on the basis that I was in the pot and likely drawing (a correct assumption). I accept because it really does me no good to keep arguing about it and the amount was trivial in the scheme of things.

First, was the floor's ruling correct (as generally applied)?

Second, if the ruling was correct, were the button's actions (if he "purposefully" called out-of-turn) ethical?

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

This depends on house rules.

Personally i prefer a rule that his action is not binding, after all you weren't entitle dto know what he was going to do, so i don't your complaint that you were fooled into believing he was going to call has any merit.

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

On the flip side, what if instead of calling you raise to $75. By your position, should his $15 stay in? Should he be forced to match your raise?

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

[ QUOTE ]
that he didn't realize that I was in the hand and that he decided to raise on the basis that I was in the pot and likely drawing (a correct assumption).

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is in here If it is determined this isn't true that he was shooting an angle he needs to be shown the door. If this is true he gets to act on his hand now that he knows you are in because it is clear he didn't know you were in before.

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

[ QUOTE ]
On the flip side, what if instead of calling you raise to $75. By your position, should his $15 stay in? Should he be forced to match your raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he gets his $15 back and can now act on his hand. BTW psandman's post isn't just a "position" is how everyone floor person that understands poker treats this sort of thing.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the flip side, what if instead of calling you raise to $75. By your position, should his $15 stay in? Should he be forced to match your raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he gets his $15 back and can now act on his hand. BTW psandman's post isn't just a "position" is how everyone floor person that understands poker treats this sort of thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately this isn't true. I have seen far to many rooms with the rule that would not allow the player to raise (my room would not allow this player to raise). Even floor people who understand and agree with me find themselves hampered by rules made by managers who accommodate nits.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the flip side, what if instead of calling you raise to $75. By your position, should his $15 stay in? Should he be forced to match your raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he gets his $15 back and can now act on his hand. BTW psandman's post isn't just a "position" is how everyone floor person that understands poker treats this sort of thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately this isn't true. I have seen far to many rooms with the rule that would not allow the player to raise (my room would not allow this player to raise). Even floor people who understand and agree with me find themselves hampered by rules made by managers who accommodate nits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have clarified. Any floorperson that understands poker and hasn't had a manager dictate that they make wrong decisions would allow this player to withdraw his $15.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the flip side, what if instead of calling you raise to $75. By your position, should his $15 stay in? Should he be forced to match your raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he gets his $15 back and can now act on his hand. BTW psandman's post isn't just a "position" is how everyone floor person that understands poker treats this sort of thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately this isn't true. I have seen far to many rooms with the rule that would not allow the player to raise (my room would not allow this player to raise). Even floor people who understand and agree with me find themselves hampered by rules made by managers who accommodate nits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have clarified. Any floorperson that understands poker and hasn't had a manager dictate that they make wrong decisions would allow this player to withdraw his $15.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least in Vegas you have now whittled it down to a small field.

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

[ QUOTE ]

At least in Vegas you have now whittled it down to a small field.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sad thing, is QFT 100%. But Vegas is the MECCA of poker, or that's what all the poker TV shows would lead you to believe. Everyone else takes a backseat now.

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

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. If he meant to raise the original bet, then he is still held to that. But not if the 2nd player action included a raise, then he doesn't have to raise.

It seems a fair rule as long as it is applied consistently - which is what I've seen in AC. Not being held also works too - again as long as it's consistently applied.

The "what if OP raises to $75, does button still have to call $15" is a stupid apples to oranges scenario/question.

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?

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

TDA rules spell out this case now. Out of turn action WILL be binding if no intervening action is aggressive.
[ QUOTE ]
Action out of turn may be binding and will be
binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call, or fold is not considered action changing.

[/ QUOTE ]
So regardless what the old school says, the new fangled "standard" seems to be heading toward this. Most of the places I play in Vegas adhere to this rule for cash games as well as tourneys.

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

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're in the 1 seat. I'm in the 10 seat. I've got a large stack and keep my cards toward the 9 seat to protect them from the dealer. You can't really see them unless you stretch across the table. Why should you be penalized?

If you are, you won't just completely nit up the game to protect yourself from this again? I'm sorry, but if I get a no variance floor ruling like this and don't just rack up I'll nit the game up as much as required to protect my action. Any time I'm not 100% sure of what's going on, I'll go to max protect mode.

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

[ QUOTE ]
TDA rules spell out this case now. Out of turn action WILL be binding if no intervening action is aggressive.
[ QUOTE ]
Action out of turn may be binding and will be
binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call, or fold is not considered action changing.

[/ QUOTE ]
So regardless what the old school says, the new fangled "standard" seems to be heading toward this. Most of the places I play in Vegas adhere to this rule for cash games as well as tourneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes me sad. On a related note how is the TDA mandating that dealers call string raises working out?

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

This is the best alternative that I've heard of for adressing the out of turn action situation.

RR, i get the impression you would advocate more of an ad hoc rule, granting greater flexibility to the floor? What do you see as the best rule?

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

[ QUOTE ]

This is the best alternative that I've heard of for adressing the out of turn action situation.

RR, i get the impression you would advocate more of an ad hoc rule, granting greater flexibility to the floor? What do you see as the best rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The floorperson exists to solve problems, not to blindly apply a rule. With a rigid rule someoen that is thinking to shoot an angle knows exactly what will happen.