Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT

[DonkeyChip]

Jim,
Franklin opened the pot with a raise...even if Edler was just calling the BB would still be reraising instead of just raising.

[ QUOTE ]
The player does not get to find out exactly what the ruling will be and then use that to gain an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]
So Edler doesn't get to hear the ruling prior to acting but the other two do (Johnny is going to have to spill the beans at some point)...one of which acted out of turn? Seems extremely unfair.

[ForRealDD]

The verbal declaration out of turn shouldn't be binding in my opinion, but I definitely think a penalty should be issued.

[ZeeJustin]

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?

[lilp10869]

who cares , bill won, even if the big blind was taking a shot
just kidding
well i dealt for ya there johnny , and have no professional td experince , but im a simpilistic, it was the big blinds fault for acting "out of turn" i have played at casinos where out of turn verbal is binding and where it isnt. bill is commited to a raise obviously, but there does need to be a standard set in stone rule i agree, bill needs to raise , even tho his raise amount was not determined he now knows that the big blind has intended to raise , but the bigblind , in my opinion has not yet acted , it was not his action. so tell them, bill u have announced raise . the big blind has not been commited to an action yet. play on. thats jsut simpilistic, or u can go to a more complicated level and say yes they are both now commited to raises, either way theres a possible diffrent angle shot, a very ackward situation indeed.

Pat

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

of course bill is committed to a raise, a he was acting in turn, and must at least raise the minimum. If I answer Bill in asking what will happen, he has way too big an advantage in knowing how he commit the BB's chips. This effectively gives him last action in the pot, and IMO is grossly unfair to the 2 other players in the pot.

If we treat poker as a game of information, then Bill really is not entitled to know what I will force the BB to do until he acts on his hand. The raise sizes were approxximately 8% of the stacks, so to commit a guy to a all in in that spot would be really an unfair thing to do.

Flame on.... LOL

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
of course bill is committed to a raise, a he was acting in turn, and must at least raise the minimum. If I answer Bill in asking what will happen, he has way too big an advantage in knowing how he commit the BB's chips. This effectively gives him last action in the pot, and IMO is grossly unfair to the 2 other players in the pot.

If we treat poker as a game of information, then Bill really is not entitled to know what I will force the BB to do until he acts on his hand. The raise sizes were approxximately 8% of the stacks, so to commit a guy to a all in in that spot would be really an unfair thing to do.

Flame on.... LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Not letting Bill know what the ruling is is crazy. A player has the right to know what the rules of the game are.

If someone were to ask you "Hypothetically, what would happen if someone left to act behind me announced reraise after I said raise but before I declared an amount?", shouldn't they be able to get an answer? Shouldn't the rule in all such hypothetical cases be consistent and shouldn't players be able to ascertain what it is at any point during play?

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
of course bill is committed to a raise, a he was acting in turn, and must at least raise the minimum. If I answer Bill in asking what will happen, he has way too big an advantage in knowing how he commit the BB's chips. This effectively gives him last action in the pot, and IMO is grossly unfair to the 2 other players in the pot.

If we treat poker as a game of information, then Bill really is not entitled to know what I will force the BB to do until he acts on his hand. The raise sizes were approxximately 8% of the stacks, so to commit a guy to a all in in that spot would be really an unfair thing to do.

Flame on.... LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Johnny,

Here is the problem I see for you, and it is worse than giving Bill and edge. If you don't announce your decision for the BB until after Bill acts, and your decision seems to favor the BB, it might look as if you were trying to play favorites. That is too big of a risk for you to take. If you do this, you need to at least write your decision on a piece of paper, and then reveal the paper after Bill acts, so it is clear that your decision has not been changed based upon Bill's action.

As you have said, there is no perfect ruling here. If it has not been said, the BB almost certainly thought Bill just called, since Bill said raise, but first put out calling chips. The guy probably didn't hear Bill, or didn't understand, and thought Bill was just calling. However, the mistake is clearly on the BB, and it is highly likely that Tom either has a hand that wants it all-in (AA or KK), or he has that is folding no matter what Bill and BB do. Only 3 of his possible hands are close decisions, and sometimes not even that many (AK, QQ, JJ). So, for statistical reasons, I'm not too worried about Tom, even though legitimately I should be.

My ruling is going to be that Bill raises any amount he likes, and then BB must raise afterwards, any amount he likes. Obviously both raises must meet normal raising minimums.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[FieryJustice]

I was sitting at the table along with Hank and we both thought we were basically getting to the tv final table, as we were under the impression while the hand was going on that the bb would have to raise over whatever Bill raised, since he had enough chips to repush over Bill if he went all in. I was quite sad to see that this isnt what happened. I also though that the whole "i cant tell bill the options" was kinda crappy/shady, as I thought that a poker player could have the rules explained to him at any time. Perhaps I am wrong about that.

[coltranedog]

I don't see how its unfair at all to the player who acted out of turn. He wasn't paying attention and did not realize the pot had already been raised. Why should he be protected in such a scenario. Paying attention and not making mistakes are pretty important aspects of poker, it seems that this player failed at both of those aspects and somehow he was protected.

As for Bill having an unfair advantage, I don't see what the big deal is there at all, people benefit from the inattentiveness/idiocy of other players all the time. I don't see how this is any different.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
If it has not been said, the BB almost certainly thought Bill just called, since Bill said raise, but first put out calling chips. The guy probably didn't hear Bill, or didn't understand, and thought Bill was just calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg,
By rule if he doesn't understand the action he is facing he gets to reconsider his action.

Randy