You make the decision (acting out of turn)

[rbenuck4]

Playing 5-10nl at Resorts in Indiana when this came up today.

Pot is around 160 on the turn. Four players are in the hand. Player 1 checks, Player 2 bets $100. Player 3 goes all in (has everyone covered). Player 4 goes all in (for about $350). Before player 1 has a chance to act, player 2 calls off all his chips (about $500).

At this point, he is told player 1 hasn't acted, yet, he takes his bet back. Player 1 thinks for awhile, and calls off his last $370. Player 2 tries to muck. Floor is called over at this point. Two conflicting arguments were made.

1. He acted out of turn, and since the action didn't change (aka, player 1's call didn't change the bet when it got back to him), his action stays.

2. Player 1 calling changed the pot odds, and changed the hand ranges he put people on, and therefore he should be able to muck if he so wishes.

Which argument do you agree with? What is the correct ruling? I will tell you how the floor ruled tomorrow.

[psandman]

I don't agree with either argument. I do believe that out of turn action should not be binding and this is the reason.

In the ordinary course of action, Player 1 would not know whether Player 2 is going to call or not. This is the effect of position and is a significant part of the game.

Now when Player 2 acts out of turn if you make that action binding on player 2 Player 1 now gets to act with certainty as to Player 2s action. This disdvantages not only Player 2 (if only player 2 were disadvantaged I could say well he diserves it) but it also disadvantages Players 3 and 4 who when they acted got to rely on the fact that Player 1 would have to make a decision from out of position without the knowledge of Player 2s action. There is a the possibilty that Player 1 would have folded his hand because he was not getting correct odds on his call if Player 2 didn't call. Once he knew with certainty that player 2 was going to be forced to call he knew he would get the correct odds and know he calls.

But if we say that Player 2 will not be bound, then what happens- well player 1 may suspect that player 2 is going to call, but he doesn't have certainity -- he is put back into the position he was supposed to be in -- being forced to act without knoweldge of player 2s action.

So it seems to me that having out of turn action not be binding best pputs the players into the situiation they were supposed to be in.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I do believe that out of turn action should not be binding and this is the reason. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your reasoning. The only problem I see is that it opens the door for the out-of-turn actor to angleshoot. He can get a free card by moving all in, then taking it back, previous player checks (it's not in his best interest to bet no matter what he actually wants to do), then angleshooter checks after.

I'm not sure which is the lesser of two evils here.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do believe that out of turn action should not be binding and this is the reason. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your reasoning. The only problem I see is that it opens the door for the out-of-turn actor to angleshoot. He can get a free card by moving all in, then taking it back, previous player checks (it's not in his best interest to bet no matter what he actually wants to do), then angleshooter checks after.

I'm not sure which is the lesser of two evils here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in the case original post the he can't get a free card, since he is facing an all-in bet.

but aside from that -- most people whothink the action should be binding talk about how the Oout of turn action induces the player in between to act in a different manner. But if we make it clear to that player the out of turn action isn't binding then there being induced to take a certain action really isn't any different then if the out of turn player didn't act out of turn but instead telegraphed their action (for example the player picks up their cards in a manner that indicates they intend to throw them away, or counts and stacks up enough chips to call the bet he his facing -- we all know that sometimes this indicates the action the player is about to take, and we all also knwo that sometimes its a deke and the player is going to act opposite of what they were pretending.)

BTW the one time I would have OOT action be binding is when the action is heads up. Because in this instance the only player who is disadvantaged by it is the player who acted out of turn (though I did have an argument in another forum witha guy who insisted that his opponents pushing all-in out of turn heads up disadvantaged him because he could no longer bluff)

[KipBond]

Here's Robert's Rule:

[ QUOTE ]
10. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn may be ruled binding if there is no bet, call, or raise by an intervening player acting after the infraction has been committed. A player who has called out of turn may not change his wager to a raise under any circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in the OP, the player is allowed to change his action since an intervening player "bet, called, or raised".

However, in the case that it's been checked around to the OOT bettor, the intervening "check" does not free him from having to bet -- the bet stands. So, the skipped bettor should check-raise, check-fold, or check-call. *Maybe* under rare circumstances, he should bet more than the OOT player bet (hoping to get the OOT player to now fold). But, a check-raise accomplishes that more effectively, I think.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I basically agree with your reasoning here. But if someone's OOT action clearly affected the decisions of those who were to rightfully act before him, then it has to stand.

Al

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
I basically agree with your reasoning here. But if someone's OOT action clearly affected the decisions of those who were to rightfully act before him, then it has to stand.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But if someone's OOT action clearly affected the decisions of those who were to rightfully act before him, then it has to stand.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I think that if you make it clear that his action isn't binding that his action could not be said to clearly affect the decisions of those before him.

It is the players after him whom I think are the ones who may have an argument. Before the flop action is on Player A, Player B tosses out a call and Player C immediately raises before anyone stops the action. Now Dealer/and or Player A stop the action. This is a scenario where I would agree that making Player B's action binding would be reasonable and fair, since though Playe should have been following the action, its fairly reasonable to let him key in on Player B and act after B. In this case if Player B's action is not binding Player B will actually get to benefit from his action. So to me the question isn't whether OOT action caused action before the OOT player, its whether the OOT action caused action after the OOT Player.

To make it clear i understand that my position is not the common rule. I am making the argument that it should be the rule.

[Warteen]

The question in this case (and the point of contention in different rules that I've seen) is whether a CALL counts as a "change in action" to the OOT player.
Local rules say that's not a change in action and the earlier move was binding. Only a raise or bet before the OOT player is considered a change.
It's really up to the floor, though.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
The question in this case (and the point of contention in different rules that I've seen) is whether a CALL counts as a "change in action" to the OOT player.

[/ QUOTE ]

In NL, it could legitimately affect the amount the OOT player wants to raise (e.g. a pot sized raise).

The other contentious issue might be the "call cannot become a raise" rule. If UTG bets on the flop where the button hit the nuts, and the button calls, not realizing there was a MP still in the hand -- once the MP calls, the button may want to raise since he's no longer playing just 1 opponent.

[bav]

TDA rules state this OoT action would be binding. I was always under the impression that a call didn't change the action and thus didn't free the OoTer from his wager. For instance, pre-flop... folks are limping around and suddenly the button fires out an OoT raise. Other people are allowed to call and the button is still required to raise.

[ 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 ]
This agrees with my understanding of things.