Stud8 ruling
 

$100-$200 stud 8; $30 bring-in; chip rule is in effect; 3rd street; 1 Seat has 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]; 4 Seat has 3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. 1 Seat is the Emily Latella of all wannabe table captains, and is badgering the dealer about some idiotic notion when the dealer says, "Three brings it in."

As 4 Seat looks at his hole cards, in rapid succession the 1 Seat throws out $30, the 2 seat throws out four quarters; 3 Seat folds; and the 4 Seat throws out a $100 chip.

Dealer says, "$100 to go."

4 Seat says, "Hey, I brought it in for $30!"

What's the action?

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

I take it that "Emily Latella" was actually the 2 seat (you wrote it with 2 people being in the 1 seat), but if I'm reading it as the way that I think you meant it, You're saying that the 3D thought that he was the bring in...seat 4 (who actually WAS the bring in with the 3C never acted), and then, out of turn, EL raised it to $100, correct?


The correct action (at least where I play, that is) would be as follows: because the chip rule is in effect, then the 100 chip that the bring in throws out there is just a 30 bring-in bet. It doesn't matter if EL wanted to raise it to 100 (and his raise is valid because he didn't just throw out an oversize chip, he threw out 4 quarters, so yes, his raise stands whether he acted out of turn or not.) And. it's not the fault of the bring-in that everyone acted out of turn, and, the bring-in in seat 4 is not entitled to call the 100 raise because all he did was throw the oversize chip out there, so yes, he is facing a raise, but he is definitely entitled to get his $70 change back if he choses to. Anything other than that ruling would not be honoring the oversize chip rule.

Good dealer you got there, btw, way to be on top of things.

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

1 Seat (Emily) incorrectly brings it in for $30. 2 Seat raises to $100. 3 Seat folds. 4 Seat throws out a $100 chip thinking that he is bringing it in for $30.

(Dealer wasn't that bad, just made the mistake of listening to an idiot (and of not specifying the suit of the bing-in).)

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

Well, the rule should still be the same.

When you throw out an oversize chip *without* declaring that you want to raise (whether you shout out, "complete", which is something you might say as the bring-in, or "raise"), then it's the minimum bet. And, in this case, the it would be the minimum, bring-in bet of $30, which was thrown out by the bring-in. And, even though this bet was made out of turn, the player who threw out 4 quarter chips still gets that bet to stand as a raise. The dealer just has to retrack the action (if he wants to do it "by the book") and now the bring-in has the choice of calling the raise that he faces, or surrendering his $30 force bet, and collect $70 in return from the pot.

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

It was ruled that there had been a bet and action, so Seat 1's bring-in stood, Seat 2's raise stood, Seat 3's fold stood and Seat 4's dollar chip was a $100 call.

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

That's pretty messed up.

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

Questions of this sort are frequently asked in the B&M section. I can move the thread there if you like.

The last time this happened in a game I was in, I was the false bring-in, and the floor ruled that all action stood. The floor came back several minutes later and said that that was the worst ruling he had ever made. "I don't know about that," says I. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I got my two bucks back.

I'll guess that the exact ruling varies from room to room. At Canterbury Park, action out of turn is not binding. I know that in most places it may be considered binding. I would prefer to see the action backed up so that the right guy brings it in. Whether the completer is bound by that action would be according to the rules of that room. I really don't think that the 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] should have to call for $100. All that said, I don't have a problem with the ruling. It's the 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]'s responsibility to protect his action. He should notice that three people have already acted on their hands.

This is one reason why the dealer should always announce the suit of the bring-in, even if only one Deuce is showing.

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

It's the 3's responsibility to protect his action. He should notice that three people have already acted on their hands.

Yeah, he should have noticed, but the whole thing went down in about 3-4 seconds while he was looking at his cards.

I thought about posting this in B&M, but I doubted if many there play stud. I thought the stud players might find it interesting. I had never seen this particular ruling made, but the 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] didn't say a word, so I guess it had happened before.

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

Where was the game? If at commerce I would be willing to bet not a single floorman will have a clue what the right ruling is [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

We spread 20/40 stud/8 there once and I taught several floormen the mechanics of the game.

-DeathDonkey

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

I would rule that that seat two's completion and seat three's folde constituted substantial action, and that trumps the error of the bring-in.

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

Genrally, out of turn checks are binding but out of turn bets are not.

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

I guess it varies. At The Oaks in Oakland, no out of turn action is binding, and I think the same for Winstar in Oklahoma. It's been a while since I've played at other places than those. At Winstar they have threatened to eject players who abuse this notion.

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

it looks like there is no action until the bringin acts. so give each back their money and let the bring in chip play for 30 and the action continues from there.

then the floor instructs the dealer to learn how to call the low card.

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's the 3's responsibility to protect his action. He should notice that three people have already acted on their hands.

Yeah, he should have noticed, but the whole thing went down in about 3-4 seconds while he was looking at his cards.

I thought about posting this in B&M, but I doubted if many there play stud. I thought the stud players might find it interesting. I had never seen this particular ruling made, but the 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] didn't say a word, so I guess it had happened before.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are quite a few "oldtimers" there who play(ed) Stud.

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

this happened about a million times the time i played 1/2 stud hi at commerce and the result was always that all the action was undone if possible and it went back to the correct bi. if people folded as a result of the wrong action then their hands stayed folded. keep in mind that the floor was never called over or any actual rulings made, but the regulars seemed to accept that the dealers have no clue how to keep things going correctly in this game and apparently they saw this as the best way to fix it themselves.

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

1/2 = 100/200?

Be more clear at a forum where people play all limits

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
1/2 = 100/200?

Be more clear at a forum where people play all limits

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to me that he was very clear when he wrote 1/2.

Re: Stud8 ruling
 

yes 100/200, in small games the floor gets called a lot but in bigger games what generally happens is everyone just screams at the dealer for being a moron or not being the same nationality as them (or if they are the same nationality then they curse at them in a different language). the end result is that everyone is on tilt for no reason but the problem that caused the uproar is at least marginally solved. LA is a great place