Can I Say This?

[EasilyFound]

In a home tourney with 8 or 9 people in the game. I'm in a pot on the flop with one other player, and I'm first to act. I check/call. Then on the turn, my opponent says, "I put you all-in." I tell him that I haven't acted yet, and I say, "Hmmm . . . I was going to do that," then I check, and he checks. Anything wrong with me commenting like I did? Not that it matters, I wasn't angle shooting; I was just thinking out loud. I know that there are restrictions on what you can say in tournament play vs cash game, and I'm wondering whether this was one of those times.

[psandman]

In a heads up pot. Your opponents out of turn action should always be binding so this whole conversation thing followed by the changing of action makes no sense.


(Note in another thread I know I argue that out of turn action should not be binding, but in a heads up scenario it is different and here is why -- 1) There is no other player to gain advantage or disadvantage from the out of turn action. The only player disadvantaged is the player who in fact gibves up position voluntarily. Though in a tournament scenario there may be an argument to be made that other players may be disdvantaged I believe that if you think the out of turn action was in fact collusive then a better way to handle the situation is with penalty/disqualification.

[EasilyFound]

I understand your position in a heads-up pot, but in this game, the player had acted out of turn once or twice before, and the prior rulings had been that his action was not binding. Even though those hands had been multi-way pots, most recreational players have a hard time understanding why the rule should be different for heads-up and multi-way pots.

[wcsherry]

If you play with these guys regularly and you're all friends, I'd not make a huge deal out of this. I really wouldn't give much of a damn about this if it happened in my home game to be honest!

[pfapfap]

Sounds like your concern wasn't regarding the player's out of turn action, but your own comments.

It's fine. Even in multi-way, I think that's fine.

So you pushed on the river, right?

[alliniwin]

An out of turn action is binding when the action DOESN'T change from that point till it gets to the person who acted out of turn. For example, if we have players ABC&D in a hand. Flop comes down and A is UTG. C says "I bet $50", if it is checked around to C, he MUST bet $50...but if A or B bets or folds (I think folding qualifies as changing action) he is not bound to make the raise, and may choose to bet, raise, call, or fold.

[EasilyFound]

[ QUOTE ]
So you pushed on the river, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Too weak tight, but we ended up checking it down and I had the best hand.

[PantsOnFire]

Your comment is irrelevent. In a casino, your opponent would be held to his all-in and you could fold or call. In a home game, it's up to you.

The difference between cash and tourney games concerns talking about the content of your hand or speculating on the content of your opponent(s) hand(s). The only time that is allowed is heads up in a cash game.

[Lottery Larry]

Zero violation here- no problem

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
An out of turn action is binding when the action DOESN'T change from that point till it gets to the person who acted out of turn. For example, if we have players ABC&D in a hand. Flop comes down and A is UTG. C says "I bet $50", if it is checked around to C, he MUST bet $50...but if A or B bets or folds (I think folding qualifies as changing action) he is not bound to make the raise, and may choose to bet, raise, call, or fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the players is open folding? Unusual. In any case that would not be a changing action, only a bet or raise makes the OOT player not bound. However, FYI, we just had a big rules thread in which this was discussed at length, and many players do not like the rule that OOT action is binding. Based on that discussion, I suspect you'll find many games where an OOT action is not binding, regardless of the intervening action.

None of which is applicable to the OP's question, of course. No violation for him, is the ruling.