B&M NL ruling

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To everyone in this thread: does your opinion change based on whether or not the room in question enforces a betting line?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't see why. The betting line isn't some magical line where betting out of turn is OK. Allowing someone's money to play on a later betting rounds is odorous and hardly a way to run a good game. If the raise was higher he may have been priced into staying on the turn. Just bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, what I was referring to was that many posters are saying that the out-of-turn bettor should be able to take his money back across the line if the player in front of him bets.

Consider this scenario: 10 seat player first to act bets out $30. 1 seat player is unaware of the 10 seat player being in the hand or betting. He then bets out $40. At this point, he wouldn't be allowed to take his money back or to raise more. It'd be ruled a call and he'd get $10 change. I don't see why betting out of turn should be treated any differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't see why betting out of turn should be treated differently as betting in turn? A poker anarchist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh god don't start or Iron will lock the thread and B/M will be closed.

[KipBond]

FWIW: At Bally's this past week, a player moved all-in out of turn. The dealer made him leave his bet in while the skipped person decided what to do (he also moved all-in). The out-of-turn-all-in person did not get the chance to take back his all-in bet.

[PantsOnFire]

I don't know why this is so complicated. If you act when it isn't your turn, then you take it back and wait for your turn. What could be more simple?

Of course if you continually do this, then management may step in and warn you and eventually turf you but that has nothing to do with an individual hand.

The only other exception is when you bet (or check) out of turn and the skipped player(s) checks to you. Then I believe most card rooms would hold you to that bet (or check).

As for your situation, I have never seen a ruling like that in a legitimate casino.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why this is so complicated. If you act when it isn't your turn, then you take it back and wait for your turn. What could be more simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
...

[ QUOTE ]
The only other exception is when you bet (or check) out of turn and the skipped player(s) checks to you. Then I believe most card rooms would hold you to that bet (or check).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's exactly this exception that is being debated. If you bet out of turn, and then prior action makes that bet invalid, how does the room hold you to that bet? Can you raise? I think so. Can you now fold? Some places, no.

[SlightlyMad]

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.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you now fold? Some places, no.

[/ 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.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Not according to Robert's Rules. And I've definitely played in places that enforce that--it's not something you see happen very often, though, so I have no idea, really, what the majority of Vegas rooms would do.

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.

So it doesn't bug me a lot however a room handles checking out of turn (long as they are consistent from ruling to ruling).

[/ 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. In other words, an out of turn check should always stand unless another player bets. An out of turn check negates your right to bet if there is no action by the missed player(s).

[Rottersod]

[ 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 ]

I think you acted correctly. Not only did seat 3 act out of turn but so did seat 4 so he shouldn't be too upset. They both should have been looking at seat 1 and waiting for his action. They didn't so they don't get to act until seat 1 does.

Would the people who run this site get the !@#$%! servers fixed! Too goddamn slow.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
... 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?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that's how I intpret the rule. And it makes sense because what's the difference between Seat 1 not acting yet and checking? It doesn't change anything.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you now fold? Some places, no.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen several posts on 2+2 regarding casinos with the "minimal action" rule or some such (ie: if you act out of turn, that's the minimum action you can make in turn or something).

But, like I posted earlier:

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW: At Bally's this past week, a player moved all-in out of turn. The dealer made him leave his bet in while the skipped person decided what to do (he also moved all-in). The out-of-turn-all-in person did not get the chance to take back his all-in bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if the out-of-turn-all-in guy wanted to take back his bet he'd be able to. It didn't seem like it, as the dealer specifically told him to leave his bet out there as he went to take it back.

I'm not saying I agree with that at all... I'd rather give people the benefit of the doubt. At least once.