Tourney Surprised by local casino raise ruling (1 Viewer)

the more I am thinking about it, the more I think this is actually a rule that punishes the out of turn action more harshly.

In our rulesets, the out of turn action is only binding if no player bets or raises in between the actual actor and the out of turn actor. So what this rule accomplishes the same thing as everyone checking in turn, action just immediately goes back to the person after the button and they have all options, instead of waiting for everyone to check in turn. However, this rule does not give the out of turn actor an "escape" if there is an intervening raise in turn, unlike our common rulesets in America.

So in short, I think rule hurts the out of turn actor more than our rules in two ways that I see.
1) The out of turn actor is denying himself position
2) The out of turn action no longer "benefits" from our provision that he may withdraw if someone makes a raise in turn

And I don't think one could argue the "skipped" players are at all damaged by missing their opportunity to check. They get to conceal their action longer because the player that made the mistake essentially forfeited his position.

I think I am actually warming to this as a good alternative.
I think a better approach is to retain the existing rule (out-of-turn action stands if the current bet amount is zero or remains unchanged), but if the current bet amount is changed (by a bet or raise, regardless of amount), the out-of-turn player -- in turn -- may then call, re-raise, or fold -- but whatever amount was bet out-of-turn goes into the pot regardless of their decision (even if folding).

This minor rule variation prevents the rule-breaker from getting an 'escape clause' but without artificially altering position in the hand, while the affected players still have the info of the premature act when deciding their own action.
It wasn't actually a rule under RRoP. He vaguely wrote, "because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker" and suggested 80% as a "possible rule-of-thumb"
The gross misunderstanding rule is covered separately from the topic at hand. Here is what he says about incomplete raises:

Robert's Rules: Section 3: Betting and Raising: 14 said:
Putting a full bet plus a half-bet or more into the pot is considered to be the same as announcing a raise, and the raise must be completed.
(That item starts off talking about string raises, so it's easy to miss.)
This is a rule that varies from room to room. Is either 50%+ is good enough for a raise, or the full min bet only. I'm drawing a blank for wsop. If have to look at the rule book again.
Exactly right. Most casinos if it’s over half and more than one chip it’s a raise. Lake Elsinore has a rule you must put the full amount in. This applies to cash games too. Guy bets $50 you put in 19 five dollar chips you are not allowed to raise. Odd rule. WSOP is a raise

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.

Top Bottom