Out of Turn Bet (1 Viewer)

[mattross1313]

@moose @BGinGA

Thanks guys, I always thought it was an odd scenario So good to know
I guess if I was to make a bet larger than his premature bet - we're back into the OP's situation about what happens to his original chips. It's pretty relaxed at my home games so likely slide the chips back to them. But at the pub game they'd likely stay in the pot as they were past the line

 

[BGinGA]

No, if you bet -- regardless of size -- his premature action is void.

 

[RainmanTrail]

I don't know where you guys are playing poker at, but in every card room I've ever played in, his money would stay in the pot.

 

[CHP TD]

again i chime in at these ruling questions. all ruling questions are should never occur. the only problem is - that game dose not have any rules.

get rules and use em.

 

[bradiggy]

I don't know where you guys are playing poker at, but in every card room I've ever played in, his money would stay in the pot.

I'm glad a Cali player chimed in, as that is where most of my experience comes from. While I couldn't describe a specific time, I'm almost certain that similar situations have occurred at my table at Gardens and Bicycle, and the out of turn bet stayed in the pot regardless of action.

More than likely though, these situations played out where the out-of-turn bettor gladly called the raised amount - therefore not creating a questionable scenario such as mine.

 

[RainmanTrail]

I'm glad a Cali player chimed in, as that is where most of my experience comes from. While I couldn't describe a specific time, I'm almost certain that similar situations have occurred at my table at Gardens and Bicycle, and the out of turn bet stayed in the pot regardless of action.

More than likely though, these situations played out where the out-of-turn bettor gladly called the raised amount - therefore not creating a questionable scenario such as mine.

Not just California though. All over the west coast, Canada, and even Vegas. If you're heads up and the second player acts out of turn, it is binding. Always. Because the action comes back to you. You are not an intermediate player changing the action. When intentional, it is usually an intimidation tactic aimed at getting you to check. It's probably the most common angle shoot that exists in all of poker. You always have the option to make his bet stand or not. You can choose to nullify it if you want you by saying something like "I haven't acted yet, I was going to bet", followed by your bet, but if you want his bet to stay in there, he can't take it back. And if you announce a raise, then by definition, you are taking your second action, not your first.

FWIW, I wasn't just a casual player. I worked in several card rooms as both a dealer and as the poker manager back in my early 20s. I also played full time professionally all over the west coast for over 12 years. I know the rules very well. I've never played on the easy coast though, so perhaps things are different over there? I don't know.

 

[bradiggy]

Not just California though. All over the west coast, Canada, and even Vegas. If you're heads up and the second player acts out of turn, it is binding. Always. Because the action comes back to you. You are not an intermediate player changing the action. When intentional, it is usually an intimidation tactic aimed at getting you to check. It's probably the most common angle shoot that exists in all of poker. You always have the option to make his bet stand or not. You can choose to nullify it if you want you by saying something like "I haven't acted yet, I was going to bet", followed by your bet, but if you want his bet to stay in there, he can't take it back. And if you announce a raise, then by definition, you are taking your second action, not your first.

FWIW, I wasn't just a casual player. I worked in several card rooms as both a dealer and as the poker manager back in my early 20s. I also played full time professionally all over the west coast for over 12 years. I know the rules very well. I've never played on the easy coast though, so perhaps things are different over there? I don't know.

Interesting, as much as I expected this to be the case, their ruling and the rule (quoted below from Robert's Rules) seem to confirm that they are technically correct.

Seems to me that the best course of action in the future is verbally clarifying my options with the dealer before any action takes place. I hate it, because it is pretty revealing to verbally ask, "Soooo, are his chips in the pot binding orrrr?"

"Betting and Raising
11. 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."

 

[RainmanTrail]

Interesting, as much as I expected this to be the case, their ruling and the rule (quoted below from Robert's Rules) seem to confirm that they are technically correct.

Seems to me that the best course of action in the future is verbally clarifying my options with the dealer before any action takes place. I hate it, because it is pretty revealing to verbally ask, "Soooo, are his chips in the pot binding orrrr?"

"Betting and Raising
11. 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."

My reading of and experience with this situation is consistent with Robert's Rules of Poker though. It's clear from the part you quoted that his wager is binding. It's up to you whether or not you want to cancel his bet or let it stand. If you say nothing, act like you didn't see him bet, and just place a wager in front of him, I suppose a floorman could try to rule that his wager could be pulled back, but that's entirely within your control. If you don't know, just ask "so, is that a bet? Can I raise?" The answer should always be that his bet is binding. The only reason an exception even exists in the first place is for multi handed action where a player in between has not acted yet and the out of turn player may not have seen that the other player/s were in the hand (maybe they were covering their cards, or something). Then if one of those players changes the action by betting, the out of turn player can take his chips back. But if you're heads up, it's different because the action is back to you once he bets. There is no in between player that you guys need to wait for. You betting now doesn't "change the action" since the action is already back to you if you want it to be. You get to choose, 100%, whether his out of turn bet stands or not.

 

[Steve Birrer]

To me this seems like a mistake in the rules. If a player bets out of turn then they should be held to that bet. What is the downside?

1. Eliminate this approach to angle shooting.
2. Its the out of turn bettors mistake they should have to live with it. They have provided free information to the rest of the table. That's on them and not the other players.

 

[JustinInMN]

saying it probably definitely crossed a line and could have been considered was an angle shoot

Fify

 

[JustinInMN]

I indeed looked up the rules and that does appear to be correct, but doesn't this rule ruin any integrity of chips moving over the betting line?

Most places use the "released into the pot" standard and not the betting line when determining action. And be glad or that. If the betting line is what's binding you will see all kinds of garbage from angle shooters that will donal kinds of motion and bullcrap with chips right up to the line without crossing it.

I don't know where you guys are playing poker at, but in every card room I've ever played in, his money would stay in the pot.

Fwiw, my understanding of "the gross misunderstanding" rule is to provide leeway to the floor to protect a player that missed something, not to require the opportunity to take it back if other players have acted.

If rooms want to rule in such a way that those chips are surrendered, it's surely their perogative.

I think it's okay to have a carve out so ameturs don't feel screwed over the first time they have a $300 misunderstanding, because they are just learning whole the floor should expect more from experienced players.

But that should be the understanding of how rarely this rule should be applied.