Bellagio tournament hand, floor ruling question.

[mosch]

Bellagio Friday Tournament:

EP pushes all-in. Action is on me in MP. LMP declares "all-in" and pushes his chips forward, then realizes I haven't acted. It reads like a genuine mistake.

I ask the dealer to explain what my options are, and what is or is not binding, and he does so. I ask if his ruling will be final, or if there will be any possibility of this being overturned by the floor, and he calls the floor to consult. The floor comes to a different decision.

What is the correct decision?

-----
In case you're curious about how reality went:

The dealer said that if I called or folded, the LMP all-in would be binding, but if raised then LMP would have a choice between folding and going all-in.

The floor declared that LMPs action was not binding under any circumstances.

I wound up making a small raise on top of the initial all-in, which left about 70% of my stack behind, LMP folded and apologized several more times for his mistake.

[manub]

I'm not sure but I would say that the all-in is binding if you fold and not binding if you do anything else. I might be wrong though.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure but I would say that the all-in is binding if you fold and not binding if you do anything else. I might be wrong though.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I would do, I am guessing this is what Jack would do at the Bellagio (just a guess, I haven't spoken with him in years). This is not what TDA does.

[coxquinn]

not at all binding

[mosch]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure but I would say that the all-in is binding if you fold and not binding if you do anything else. I might be wrong though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. This is actually the ruling I was expecting, and I was very surprised at both the dealer and the floor's interpretations. Glad to see my expectations were in line with your thinking.

I wondered if I was wrong since I figured they'd be reasonably careful about decisions that involved $1k tournaments. I know they're not huge, but still, most of the players had at least a little bit of clue about procedure.

[mosch]

[ QUOTE ]
not at all binding

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't this open up an opportunity for angle-shooting, whereby the second all-in player could opt out of their push, without anything changing?

After all, it seems absurd that if I folded quietly, that he could reverse his all-in to a fold or a call.

[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't this open up an opportunity for angle-shooting, whereby the second all-in player could opt out of their push, without anything changing?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I think this is one (and maybe not even the strongest) reason for the "intervening agressive action" rule.

Such a rule would require the out-of-turn action to be binding if there were no raises (or bets if it has been checked so far) between the out of turn action and where the action actually is.

This opens the out of turn actor to being angle-shot (intevening player who intended to raise could just call knowing the out of turn actor would be bound to raise) but many consider this acceptable as it is the out of turn actor who has unclean hands (even if it was an innocent case of not paying attention).

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
This opens the out of turn actor to being angle-shot (intevening player who intended to raise could just call knowing the out of turn actor would be bound to raise) but many consider this acceptable as it is the out of turn actor who has unclean hands (even if it was an innocent case of not paying attention).

[/ QUOTE ]

This solution put the original bettor in a really bad and unfair position.

[redfisher]

I don't care about the guy who acts out-of-turn. My issue is protecting the other players at the table from the player who was skipped. If the skipped player is allowed to call when he knows there is a raise behind him, he might as well have the button on that round. It's not nearly as bad if the out-of-turn action is a fold or call, but I think making an out-of-turn raise binding is very unfair to the table.

[bav]

As RR said, this is not what TDA says. So if you play in any room which claims to follow TDA rules, it will go the other way, and the out of turn action is binding unless someone raises before it gets to him. All the Harrah's properties play by TDA and I've seen other places that just copy TDA rules into their rule sheets.

I think RR has convinced me over the ages that his way is better than TDA. But it ain't the way it works much of anywhere I usually play tourneys.

I agree, it gives the intervening players a very big advantage, but I'm not sure I agree that it greatly harms the players who already acted. If an intervening player just calls, knowing the out-of-turn guy is committed, the players who have already acted can be quite certain that the intervening player is fully intending to call the all-in when it comes back around. So really, they get the same sorta advantage, don't they?