Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT

[barryg1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Bill should have no choice but to make a minimum raise.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't been following the thread too closely, but how would this be fair? Shouldn't Bill still be entitled to raise any amount he wants?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I explained in the other example, it may allow Bill too much leverage if the other guy forced to raise. And it probably isn't right to allow the guy to reraise out of turn and not have to put any chips in.

[PujolsOfPokr]

Barry,

While I understand that you're trying to avoid giving Bill too much leverage, I'm not sure how denying him the right to make a raise (other than minimum) doesn't put him at a DISadvantage. Perhaps he was trying to shut Tom out of the pot with a big enough raise (perhaps to isolate the BB), and making him min-raise, then allowing the BB to make any raise (including a small one) might prevent Bill from shutting Tom out of the pot like he originally intended.

All because the BB made a verbal mistake.

Forcing Bill to minraise might unfairly disadvantage him in certain situations, the way I see it.

[barryg1]

Puhols,

I'm not sure if you understand that Bill can reraise when it gets back to him, and the threat of this pretty much prevents Tom from calling with anything marginal.

Barry

[PujolsOfPokr]

Barry,

I understand that aspect and see where you're coming from. Technically, Bill might be put at a disadvantage in not being allowed to raise exactly what he wants. But practically, yes, I tend to agree with you. If Tom is a solid enough player (and I should mention that I know nothing of Tom Franklin), he should see the min-raise and the BB reraise and fear that if he calls Bill still has the option to push and force Tom's decision to be for a lot more than the initial reraise of the BB. So yes, I agree with you that in practice the disadvantage is miniscule at best.

The sort of hand I was thinking about when I made my first post would be: say Tom had AK. Say Bill has J-J or maybe Q-Q. Tom raises from the button. Bill raises a solid ammount. BB then raises again himself and at this point commits a large # of chips. Now it's back on Tom, and seeing the action in front of him he may very well fold his hand.

Now, if you make Bill raise just the minimum, if the BB makes a standard reraise (but perhaps one that does not commit more than say 20% of the starting stack), Tom might be inclined to call with his AK assuming that if Bill also flat-calls, he puts himself in good position with AK on the button and less than 1/5th of his total chips commited to the pot. Bill is now disadvantaged b/c even if he does raise, he would have more trouble forcing Tom out of the pot given that Tom has already commited a decent ammount of chips to call the BB's reraise. So while Bill's original raise might have been high enough to force Tom out of the pot with his AK, making him min-raise and giving him the option to reraise when the action gets back to him might still prevent him from being able to shut Tom and his overcards out of the pot in the end.

Again, this is a very specific (and unlikely) example, but it's this sort of hand where Bill might be hypothetically at a disadvantage if he is forced to min-raise, based on the fact that if the BB's reraise is a manageable ammount the button might call with his high cards and position. Of course, in practice, I tend to agree with you Barry that forcing Bill to min-raise will likely NOT have this sort of disadvantageous effect on him.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

The above discussion with Barry G and others is a good illustration of why any call I make will have strategic implications on the play of the hand. As a TD, I am expressly against making any decision that will have a strategic advantage for any player on a hand, especially if the decision is made with action pending on a specific player. By giving Bill his options, and my subsequesnt rulings, Bill has too much information out of position to the relative players in the hand. As the above discussion has indicated, even top level players have some disagreement on the what should have happened. That's why I posted this decision.

[PujolsOfPokr]

You did good, Johhny, you did good.

I believe that even those people that disagree with your decision agree that you only attempted to keep the game as fair as possible, even if your decision is being questioned. I think most people here appreciate the fact that you did what *in your mind* was the fairest thing to do given the situation that arose in the tournament. As Greg posted earlier in this thread, the job of the TD is to make a ruling based on what he feels will be the fairest thing to do that does not put any specific player at an advantage/disadvantage vs. his competitors. And I don't think there is any question to the fact that you at least attempted to keep this tournament as fair and unbiased as you thought possible.

[MikeMcClain]

I think the best decision is to inform the players that the BB's out-of-turn action will not be binding. He will have an option to fold, raise, or call after Bill decides on his raise amount.

If your goal is to not give any of the players too much of an advantage based on this screwed-up situation, this decision is clearly best. Bill's gain is fairly minimal, gaining in the knowledge that the BB appears to have a hand warranting a raise had Bill only called. Tom is given the same information, and also the information that Bill's raise amount might be influenced by this information. The BB gains nothing, since he has divulged information. Sure, he might be doing it deceptively, but there is certainly no reason to beleive that, given that the decision is not a slam-dunk.

I think everybody is fearing that this sets a precedent of not forcing people to put in money when they announce a raise out of turn. First of all, announcing an action out of turn is not an angle-shoot to be feared. Poker players do not need to be protected from it by severely punishing those who do it accidentally.

The opportunity to angle-shoot by tricking people into acting our of turn has far more value. Stating 'raise', then putting out the call amount prior to the raise amount can often lead to somebody playing out of turn. If you severely punish out of turn actions, then this quiet verbal raise, coupled with the two chip motions, becomes a formidable angle-shoot.

Position is an advantage. People exposing their intent out of turn should definitely be discouraged, but it's not necessary to punish them so severely. If they are doing it repeatedly, then punish them for it as you would for any other act that disrupts the game. Or if you want to make sure they never purposely act out of turn, then make all out-of-turn actions non-binding, but then make them sit out a round every time they act out of turn.

How did we go the route that out-of-turn actions should be punished to the maximum?

[DoGGz]

[ QUOTE ]
Not gonna make a judgment yet in this post, but I just want to point out that:

If a player acts out of turn, his decision is only binding if the action in front of him does not change.

For example, if the button says call in a limped pot before the CO acts, and the CO moves all-in afterwards, the button is obviously not forced to call the all-in.

Does that rule apply here? If it does, doesn't any raise amount Edler makes count as a change in action? What about a minraise? Would that constitute the only possible situation where the action has not changed?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is by far the best post about what the ruling -should- be that I'm baffled that Zee was the only one who's mentioned it. A ruling should not protect a player from his mistakes. The action has not changed in regard to BB in this hand and he should not be allowed to change his action because he wasn't paying attention.

Edler got screwed on this ruling, but justice won in the end, it seems.

[pkrporcupine]

I think what was decided here was totaly in fairness to all players and upheld the integrity of the game. Im not just saying this because Johnny is my boss but because I have learned alot from him and continue to do so. One of the best things I have heard him say is "TDA rules should be changed to say TDA Guidelines." As stated above "If a player acts out of turn his decision is binding only if the action does not change in front of him"
No one is perfect and to err is human and no "ruling" is perfect. We can only hope to act in the best interest of fairness to the game and I think that was accomplished here.

[DonkeyChip]

pkrporcupine,
I think different people interpret the ""If a player acts out of turn his decision is binding only if the action does not change in front of him" statement a little differently (one might even argue that the action didn't change...only the amount...covered in another rule/blurb mentioned in this thread).

You and others have said that TDs/Floor have to interpret or even bend the rules for the situation...and since that is the case...resting one's arguement on a literal translation of a rule seems contradictory (he chose to not waiver on this one at all).