B&M NL ruling

[DaveyDonk]

Was playing at the local casino this weekend in the NL game. The hand in question had a raise preflop and 3 callers. The PFR was 2nd to act postflop. After the flop was put down, he bet right out (he was the 1 seat, first to act was the 10 seat, so he didn't see him) for $40. The dealer then said it wasn't his turn, and the guy before him then bets $30.

The floor is then called over and they rule that the $30 bet stands and the PFR takes out $10 and it is now a call and it is now the next person's action. Is this the correct ruling? The PFR argued that he had never seen a ruling that allowed a player to take money out of the pot once it had crossed the bet line, and that this should re-open the betting. Also, would this had different if the guy first to act had bet just $10 or $20, making the PFR's bet double it?

Also a little while later the floor manager came over and told the disputor of that hand (the PFR) that in the future his $40 would be a $30 call and that the $10 would play on the turn, assuming noone raised behind him on the flop. Is this totally random or is this a legitimate way of going about this as well??

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
Was playing at the local casino this weekend in the NL game. The hand in question had a raise preflop and 3 callers. The PFR was 2nd to act postflop. After the flop was put down, he bet right out (he was the 1 seat, first to act was the 10 seat, so he didn't see him) for $40. The dealer then said it wasn't his turn, and the guy before him then bets $30.

The floor is then called over and they rule that the $30 bet stands and the PFR takes out $10 and it is now a call and it is now the next person's action. Is this the correct ruling? The PFR argued that he had never seen a ruling that allowed a player to take money out of the pot once it had crossed the bet line, and that this should re-open the betting. Also, would this had different if the guy first to act had bet just $10 or $20, making the PFR's bet double it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the correct ruling. An out of turn action should be treated as if that action was made in turn. If the PFR had shoved out $40 chips after the 1st to act bet $30, it'd be considered a call for $30. If 1st to act had made it $10 or $20 instead, it should be considered a raise to $40.

[ QUOTE ]
Also a little while later the floor manager came over and told the disputor of that hand (the PFR) that in the future his $40 would be a $30 call and that the $10 would play on the turn, assuming noone raised behind him on the flop. Is this totally random or is this a legitimate way of going about this as well??

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't think of any reason why you would do that. It seems a very bizzare ruling.

[TMTTR]

I have never seen a ruling/rulings like that and I think they suck.

After the out-of-turn action, PFR should be held to his bet IF AND ONLY IF it is checked to him. Once there is action before him (i.e., a bet), he is free to do whatever he wants (Call/Raise/Fold). I am sure someone can point to Roberts Rules on this matter, but that is how I have always understood it.

[KipBond]

PFR should be allowed to raise (or just call), for sure. Whether or not he can now fold may vary from room to room. The $30 bettor is either not very smart (he can check raise a big hand) or is using this house rule to be able to see a cheaper turn card.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
PFR should be allowed to raise (or just call), for sure. Whether or not he can now fold may vary from room to room. The $30 bettor is either not very smart (he can check raise a big hand) or is using this house rule to be able to see a cheaper turn card.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, unless out-of-turn action was obvious and intentionally out-of-turn, I have never seen the action binding if there is any intervening action... it generally binds if checked to (but even that is not always the case if unintentional).

[Beavis68]

David Sklansky mentions betting out of a turn as a way to get a free card in TOP.

Generally out of turn actions don't count.

[TheClam]

I agree with TMTTR. As long as there wasn't anything underhanded going on by the 1 seat he should not have been obligated to call anything (barring some house rule). If the 10 seat checked the 1 seat has to make the $40 bet. Once the bet is changed by the 10 seat (ie. his $30 bet), the 1 seat can do whatever he wants.

This actually saved my about $300 once at the Show Boat in A.C. when I was the 2 seat. The 10 seat bet something like $50 and I immediately went all in but didn't know the 1 seat was still in. The 1 seat went all in for 100-something. Since the bet had been changed I was not obligated to do anything and was allowed to do whatever I wanted. (This of course ticked off the 10 seat since it was made obvious during his ranting that I was way behind and I folded)

The one thing I'm not sure about is what would have happened if the 1 Seat just called the $50 bet by the 10 Seat? Would I have been obligated to still go all in since technically the amount of the bet in front of me has not changed? I've never encountered this situation.

[crashjr]

One of the casinos I play in treats an out of turn raise as precluding a raise from that player when the action gets to him. In the example given, the out of turn raiser would have the option to call the $30 or fold.

[KipBond]

FWIW: At Bally's this past week, a player moved all-in out of turn. The dealer made him leave his bet in while the skipped person decided what to do (he also moved all-in). The out-of-turn-all-in person did not get the chance to take back his all-in bet.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Also a little while later the floor manager came over and told the disputor of that hand (the PFR) that in the future his $40 would be a $30 call and that the $10 would play on the turn, assuming noone raised behind him on the flop. Is this totally random or is this a legitimate way of going about this as well??


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense whatsoever. Under no circumstance should this $10 be applied to the next betting round.