Rules Questions (only answer if you know plz)

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
1: Player B can go into his pocket for more cash and push all-in.

2: Everybody gets two additional cards and the game switches to Pot Limit Omaha.

3: The dealer is responsible for washing the BB's car and pleasuring his wife.

4: Regardless of what Player D does on all streets, Player A is obligated to call it the whole way down.


Hey, you said answer if I know. You didn't say the answers had to correlate with said knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's not ready for the advanced rulebook yes, pfap.... get back into your hole!

[PantsOnFire]

I read this thread and got confused as to all the different back and forth banter so I'll just go ahead as if I was first to respond.

Question 1: When player D goes all-in for 900 when facing a 500 bet, it is considered a call. So Player A is facing Player B's bet (plus a little extra but not a raise). Player A can fold call or raise. Player A calls. That ends the betting. All players have called Player B's bet and must put in that little extra to create a main pot. Actually, Players B and C do have the option of folding.

Question 2: There has been action on the three flop cards so they stay as they are.

Question 3: I'm not sure if there is a rule for this. But I would say that Button win the blinds.

Question 4: Robert's Rules of Poker state that an out of turn action is binding if the skipped players take no action themselves. In your case, if Player D folds, Player A's call stands (this make sense because he obviously wanted to called and thought Player D was already out). If Player D calls or re-reaises, Player A can take back his bet and reconsider his action.

The ruling for that last question can obviously be abused by angle-shooting players so warnings, penalties and eventual removal may occur.

[garcia1000]

Second post:

Psandman,
Are you sure u cant raise on question 1? this a problem i encounter alot.


Third post:

IMO there is an option to raise, dont really know what the allowed amount to raise to is, but i think he is allowed to raise.


Fourth post:

at #1: i think u misread it.
Did u notice that 4 ppl in total are in the pot. after the allin there are still 3 ppl with a stack in that pot. It cant be a showdown there, doesnt the action just continue?
IMO he can raise to isolate or for value. The question is what is the amount he can reraise?


Hi new poster!

Why do you post asking for help, if you already know what answer you want?

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but some people will rule its $1800

[/ QUOTE ]

What crazy logic would those people be using- that a raise has to be double the bet that you're facing, regardless of how it got there?

As for the BB solution, I agree with you

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that is one argument (which is a rule followed by Planet Hollywood in Vegas and I am told a few rooms in California)

There other argument would be that even though Player C's allin was not a full legal bet, the when the bet gets around to player A it has in fact been made into a $900 bet and that this should be no different thane if Player B checked and Player C pushed all in for $900.

There are some who will actually argue that the minimum raise is to $1000 (which is $500 on top of B's) bet

I'm sure theres probably someone who will argue it is $1,300.

But I think the best rule is $1,400.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As to the issue of whether his call is binding different rooms/houses have different rules.

1. Some will make his call binding.

Personally I think action out of turn should not be binding (unless it causes players to actt behind it).


[/ QUOTE ]

We have this rule, though I'm reviewing it. Mainly it would be punishment for repeat offenders who cause problems with the action.

Then, they could be hit with the "you're calling, no matter what D does. If he reraises, tough lesson to learn"

It's a little draconian, so I'm revising it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason i don't like the rule that its binding is that it is unfair to the other players.

Player 1 Bets. Player 2 calls. Player 3 is deciding what to do when Player 4 announces he raises. Now if player 4 is bound to raise unless player 3 raises, then Player 3 gets an automatic check raise, if he wants to raise he just calls, Player 4 is then obligated to raise and Player 3 gets to check raise (trapping in players 1 & 2) without the risk that it might get checked behind him. In this case Players 1 & 2 did nothing wrong but get punished for player 4s mistake.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Player 3 ...., if he wants to raise he just calls, Player 4 is then obligated to raise ...

[/ QUOTE ]
My interpretation is that Player 4 is only obligated to his action if Player 3 folds. This is because Player 3 folding has no effect on the other players other than having his own knowledge that Player 4 is strong and can get away from his hand.

As soon as Player 3 calls, he has taken an action and Player 4's raise is now retracted.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mainly it would be punishment for repeat offenders who cause problems with the action.

Then, they could be hit with the "you're calling, no matter what D does. If he reraises, tough lesson to learn"


[/ QUOTE ]

The reason i don't like the rule that its binding is that it is unfair to the other players.

Player 1 Bets. Player 2 calls. Player 3 is deciding what to do when Player 4 announces he raises. Now if player 4 is bound to raise unless player 3 raises, then Player 3 gets an automatic check raise, if he wants to raise he just calls, Player 4 is then obligated to raise and Player 3 gets to check raise (trapping in players 1 & 2) without the risk that it might get checked behind him. In this case Players 1 & 2 did nothing wrong but get punished for player 4s mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never really seen a GOOD way to deal with this situation. I only crack down on repeat offenders and such, to squash any difficulties. So far, most people understand the warnings and don't keep getting over-eager.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player 3 ...., if he wants to raise he just calls, Player 4 is then obligated to raise ...

[/ QUOTE ]
My interpretation is that Player 4 is only obligated to his action if Player 3 folds. This is because Player 3 folding has no effect on the other players other than having his own knowledge that Player 4 is strong and can get away from his hand.

As soon as Player 3 calls, he has taken an action and Player 4's raise is now retracted.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are using that rule it sort oif solve sthat problem, but that is a version of the rule a rarely see. However about this scenario.

After the flop first player checks, third player acts out of turn and bets. Now is that bet binding if Player 2 now checks? or is it only binding if player 2 folds (which of course is silly because player 2 wasn't facing a bet to fold to?)

[MasteriuS]

garcia1000:
plz dont act the way you do. I didnt get it, so i said those things so ppl can clarify it. They did, and now i know, no big deal right?

@psandman:
Thnx for the great help, i finally understand all of it, and know what to do next time.

@larry:
I wont make any more subjects with "only answer if you know plz", was just because i wanted the correct answer. Thnx for the advice.

@Zetack:
Thank you, this clarified a lot for me [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

in short: thank you guys

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
After the flop first player checks, third player acts out of turn and bets. Now is that bet binding if Player 2 now checks? or is it only binding if player 2 folds (which of course is silly because player 2 wasn't facing a bet to fold to?)

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I would consider a check to be a non action. The third player who acted out of turn either didn't know that player 2 was in the hand or thought he had checked.

I think it is obviously worse to allow the third player to retract his bet because this opens it up greatly for angle-shooting. Just bet out of turn, scare players into checking, and then check behind for a free card.

Assuming these out of turn actions aren't intentional, I believe the skipped player(s) gain the most since they have information about how a player behind feels about his hand.

In the case you described above and the OP's case, it has a common theme. When a player acts out of turn, his action should be binding if the intervened players make no action themselves. In other words, when it gets to the out of turn player, it's as if he didn't act out of turn.

Another good example is a check out of turn. In you scenario with three players and the third player checks right after the first player checks, then the second player can now check and be guaranteed a free card. I can't see how we can allow the third player to check out of turn, induce a check from the second player and then be allowed to bet.