B&M NL ruling

[mrKevin99]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, let's toss another wrinkle into the Robert's Rules question since we said the rule states that it "may be binding".

This is a different situation from the OP, and I am the floorperson asked:

Seat 1, 3, 4 and 8 are in a tournament hand with Seat 8 to act first. Seat 8 checks, Seat 3 doesn't see Seat 1 has cards and bets out. Seat 4 immediately pushes all-in. Seat 1 says "Wait up! I haven't decided yet." Seat 3 calls me over and explains the situation. I say "neither bet is binding" and warn Seat 3 that if he does it again, he will be penalized. Seat 1 then decides to check, Seat 3 checks, and Seat 4 fumes. I understand why he might be pissed, but should I have asked Seat 1 what he is going to do before ruling, and then force Seat 3's actions to stand if Seat 1 checks? The rule, as written, seems to leave it open for debate. Seat 4 isn't that angry any more, but I'd like to make sure that if I did get this wrong ... that it won't happen again!

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I was seat 4, I'd be fuming too. Seat 3s action and seat 4s action should stand if seat 1s does not change the action. He checked, therefore the bet by seat 3 and 4 must stand.

If seat 1 bet out less than half of seat 3s bet, seat 3 and seat 4s action stands. If seat 1 bets all in (assuming he has enough chips) or bets more than half of seat 3s original bet, he changes the action, therefore it is now up to seat 3 to call/fold/raise any amount.

[TheClam]

Seat 3 should have to bet what he wanted. It's his fault for acting out of turn. If Seat 1 checks, Seat 3 will just be doing what he wanted to do. Seat 4 can then go all in like he wanted.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm actually not all that keen on part of the rule that says you cannot raise if you check outta turn. If you are aggressive out of turn, and someone in front of you bets, you are freed to do anything at all; you can fold, call, or raise. Yet if you check out of turn, and someone in front of you bets, Robert's Rules state you cannot then raise. Seems unfair to free the guy first to act to place a wager with no fear of being raised.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would allow a player who has checked out of turn to raise when it is his turn. I would not allow a player who has checked out of turn to bet when it is his turn.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have misinterpreted Robert's Rules. I have had extensive discussions on this with a variety of people. Robert's Rules are interpreted such that if you check out of turn, you cannot bet or raise if the intervening players just check to you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like that interpretation much better. And apparently so does RR. That's not exactly what the rule says... it specifically says if you check out of turn you cannot bet OR RAISE when it comes your turn. I think Robert needs to rephrase that section a teeny bit.

[GMontag]

As the sole dissenting voice, I'd like to say that I've seen this situation come up several times in different casinos local to me (western WA), and they've *always* ruled like in the OP. To me, it seems like a logical extension of the philosophy behind the ruling where if someone tries to limp after a pre-flop raise, the failed limper can fold or call, but the limp has to stay in the pot either way.

[ QUOTE ]
I would not play in a place like that.

Here's an example. I'm on the button in a NL cash game. There are two opponents and $1000 in the pot. After the flop, which is rags, I hear check, I think I hear a second check and I fire a $1000 bet with A high which is a standard bluff.

Dealer says player 2 didn't say "check", he asked player 1 "did you check?". So I heard two checks and bet. Now player 2, since he hasn't acted yet, moves in for $1500. There's no way I call that bet. Any card room that makes me leave my $1000 out there is going to hear an earful from me. That's completely unacceptable.

Acting out of turn is 99% innocent and 1% angle shoot. So when I see out of turn players being penalized, I get pissed off.

[/ QUOTE ]

The out of turn player isn't getting penalized any more than a player who announces he's all-in without seeing that a third player is still in the hand with a stack that covers him. It is the player's responsibility to pay attention to the action.

[Florida]

i have never heard of this call $30 then $10 goes toward the turn crap...wtf is that?? Where was this at, so i can stay far away from it?

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
As the sole dissenting voice, I'd like to say that I've seen this situation come up several times in different casinos local to me (western WA), and they've *always* ruled like in the OP. To me, it seems like a logical extension of the philosophy behind the ruling where if someone tries to limp after a pre-flop raise, the failed limper can fold or call, but the limp has to stay in the pot either way.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have played in many rooms where the errant limp can be taken back (and often is) where (a) the raise was not announced by the dealer and (b) there is not significant action after the limp. Notwithstanding that, an out-of-turn limp (or call) is very different from an out-of-turn bet (or raise).

[ QUOTE ]
The out of turn player isn't getting penalized any more than a player who announces he's all-in without seeing that a third player is still in the hand with a stack that covers him. It is the player's responsibility to pay attention to the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is incorrect. Accidental out-of-turn betting or raising is usually due to the mistaken belief that a player has already checked, a dealer indicating that the action is on the player acting out-of-turn, or a player placing his/her cards in a place where the out-of-turn player can't see them. This has little to do with the number of players and if the missed player decides to check, the out-of-turn bet should stand.

To the point: It is a huge penalty to require someone who believes they are initiating action when there is no action before them, to now passively respond to someone elses action. In the all-in situation, you are not taking away his aggression or his ability to control his own chips.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Seriously this moron is not the floor he's just someone who is stupid enough to work for low wages and still wear a suit to work.

The floor's first ruling is stupid, moronic, ignorant and very much demonstrates the factuality of his cluelessness. The applicable rule here is that action out of turn MAY be binding. When is it actually binding? When the out of turn action winds up affecting the rest of the table's action, then it is binding. An example of this would be if the button bets out first, then the entire table checks. Clearly this out of turn action is binding.

That's not what happened here though. In this case 2nd to act bet out of turn, but his action will not be binding because when the mistake was corrected he is now facing a bet. At this point he may either call, raise or fold. The bullcrap about taking money back once it's over the line is simply bullcrap. Anything else spewed forth by this moron or anyone else is likely to be bullcrap as well.

When the floor comes back with his proclamation about the $10 playing on the turn it's too late for this moron. Seriously I hope this poor guy's mom never hears how stupid her offspring is, she'd be devastated. A kick in the nuts is in order, followed by putting him into a big boat with all the other idiots that have been described on these forums the last few days, then taking said boat to the middle of the atlantic and sinking it.

Al