Cash Game Is This Ruling Correct? (1 Viewer)

So IF villain raised to 50 out of turn, he's fucked and chips stay. He can elect to call or fold, not raise.
Is this the case? I've always thought the if the action changed you're not bound by your action, so you can make a new decision including raising.
 
I don’t think you can assume the folders would act the same if they thought the original raiser had Cbet pot and gotten a call. If Villain had folded properly in turn, they face a different situation entirely, especially since AM was the preflop raiser.
 
Is this the case? I've always thought the if the action changed you're not bound by your action, so you can make a new decision including raising.
Nope, I was wrong. :D

Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. A player who has called out of turn may not change his wager to a raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn is binding unless the action to that player is subsequently changed by a bet or raise. If there is an intervening call, an action may be ruled binding.
 
Maybe I’m giving the guy too much credit, but I do have a huge problem with this when we are talking about “reads”. I’m assuming this guy was just a doofus and not paying attention, but this type of goof would put me on tilt and I agree with @Anthony Martino that the dealer screwed up.

IF a player is allowed to throw out chips out of turn and be able to pull them back, I can see a lot of angle shooters doing this to get reads on the bettors in front of them.
While this situation is not as sticky as this one below, and likely not done on purpose... it still is a piss off and I’d be quite unhappy if I were in @Anthony Martino position.

this is so gutless. Greasy. Gutless. If you haven’t seen it...

 
The players after Villain were going to fold no matter what Villain did. They had garbage hands and knew it.
I think that's the most likely outcome, but there is a sliver of strategy where players can call wider if only heads up, especially closing the action. I think if this were the case in reality, we may have heard a protest from one of the other players.

I don't think seat 1 was angling at all

I do think the dealer fucked up

Agreed, just because something isn't an "angle" doesn't make it harmless.

Also, the dealer got off easy, if either folder finds a call after the fact this ruling gets hella messy.
 
To be fair, we’re only hearing things from Anthony’s POV, and it is very easy for seat one to miss the action from seat 8 with the dealer in between them. I’m sure it was an innocent mistake, and not an angle, and Anthony’s just bitter because he was already stuck.
Was either the Dealer or Seat 1 of Cuban descent?
We also have to remember that OP is a loud weeble wobble ass with a cat loving wife so who knows what REALLY happened. ;)
Compelling arguments, worth consideration.
 
Here in California if the person that’s next “didnt know” it was raised before them he can pull his bet back whether it’s verbal or by putting chips in they won’t force you to call. It’s not always favorable but I get it if it’s an honest mistake. Dealer has some skin in the game as well to ensure table knows what’s going on
 
Here in California if the person that’s next “didnt know” it was raised before them he can pull his bet back whether it’s verbal or by putting chips in they won’t force you to call. It’s not always favorable but I get it if it’s an honest mistake. Dealer has some skin in the game as well to ensure table knows what’s going on
Soli4.jpg
 
I don't disagree with your analysis, but... The players after Villain were going to fold no matter what Villain did. They had garbage hands and knew it. They were planning to fold as soon as they saw the flop and were simply waiting for someone to bet ahead of them and have the action get to them. (Granted, I'm speculating here, but I think this was probably the situation.)

After Hero made his bet, as soon as Villain did anything that looked like action, up to and including scratching his nose, they're going to throw their hands at the dealer.

Can the dealer be faulted for not stopping the action quickly enough to prevent a couple of insta-folders from insta-folding before he can even talk to Villain to clarify his bet?
You don't know this was going to happen, and this kind of speculation doesn't help us arrive at a ruling.

Moreover, it was the dealer's job to have this issue handled in the first place. Why is Villain putting out his $50? Because during miscommunication #1, dealer failed to make it clear that he shouldn't. Miscommunication #2 only even had a chance to occur because of miscommunication #1.

This is what can happen when a dealer fails to control the game.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, we’re only hearing things from Anthony’s POV, and it is very easy for seat one to miss the action from seat 8 with the dealer in between them. I’m sure it was an innocent mistake, and not an angle, and Anthony’s just bitter because he was already stuck.
I'd also guess it was an innocent mistake in this case. Sounds like an old man fumbling his way through the game or some millennial grinder distracting himself with his headphones. But the ruling should be based on sound, consistent logic that protects against angling generally, even if it wasn't the case here.

Dude only gets to screw up so many times. Here, his second screw-up is in an especially bad spot, where it's not fair to everyone else to allow him to decide what his action is after he has seen the rest of the field act.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom