Tourney Tournament All In out of turn ruling (1 Viewer)

Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
1,687
Reaction score
3,596
Location
Lexington, KY
Ok, here’s the situation. T2500 tourney. Blinds start at 5/10. We are later in tourney, down to 6 players. Blinds are at 200/400.

Dealer deals out cards.

BB thinks he is UTG and declares all in for 2900 before anyone else acts. Host tells him he has to pull back the 2500 for now. Folds to cutoff who says he “calls the all in for 2900” or raises to 2900 depending on your viewpoint.

Dealer folds and SB folds. BB then goes all in or calls the 2900 depending on viewpoint.

After the hand one of the players says that once BB said all in before anyone acted that he was bound to that action regardless of what action any one on the table takes.

Poker TDA rule 53 seems to cover this issue.

So what ruling do you make.

Is BB committed to all in even after cutoff bets/calls 2900.

Or did the cutoff’s action of 2900 open the BB back up to any action.

The table was split.
 
BB isn't committed to the all in if cutoff made a raise. However, sounds like it didn't mattered since both players want to bet 2900.

Did the action pause at any point so any confusion can be resolved? Did the entire table hear the host tell BB to pull back the 2500 while UTG and HJ are folding?

Cutoff's verbal statement is "call." Everything he said afterward is meaningless. His action is call 400.

Let's pretend BTN and SB knows what's going on, not interested in asking for a ruling on CO's action, and folds. Then BB, because there are no raises that will change the action, is committed to his OOT all-in. It is now on CO who must call or fold.
 
Cutoff's verbal statement is "call." Everything he said afterward is meaningless. His action is call 400.
Verbalizing your action is binding, but that doesn't mean that you literally take the first utterance of one of the magic words to be the verbalization. I mean, you usually do, but that's not the principle at play here.

In this case, the actual verbalization reflects an incorrect understanding of the action to them. RROP suggests "a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker", and while there is no comparable rule in the TDA ruleset, it is also not precluded by the TDA ruleset and is a good practice that's well within the Director's discretion under TDA Rule #1.

All of this is moot, though, as no objection to the hand or action was raised during the hand, so the action and awarding of the pot stands as it was played. As an academic matter, though, the CO should have been advised by the dealer that his action was invalid as the wager to him was 400 from the blinds and not 2900 from an all-in, and the CO should then have been allowed to revise his action as he sees fit after having his gross misunderstanding corrected. Good to know for future reference, but certainly in the case at hand no harm was done by having failed to stop the action and correct the betting.
 
Correct. Both these players were getting in all in on that hand preflop. Queens v Jacks.

The host did pause the action and tell BB he was in the BB and had to pull the 2500 back and just leave his blind in.

CO I think said call the all in but pushed out 2900 chips as he said it.

Nobody had an issue with how the hand played out but it was after the hand the argument assumed.

One guy kept saying that BB was committed to the all in no matter what everyone else did. I tried to tell him that wasn’t the case; that intervening action changes what the BB can or has to do but he wasn’t buying it.
 
One guy kept saying that BB was committed to the all in no matter what everyone else did. I tried to tell him that wasn’t the case; that intervening action changes what the BB can or has to do but he wasn’t buying it.
So on that specific matter, you were of course correct; intervening action (a raise, but not a check, call, or fold) renders the premature declaration non-binding.

However, the argument was made more complicated by the fact that at least some of the players were confused as to what the intervening action was. It doesn't make sense to say that the CO's call of the BB's all-in is or is not intervening action that would allow the BB to change his prematurely-declared action, because the CO couldn't call the BB's all-in (since it had not yet been made). The CO's action can only be understood as intervening action if it's understood to be a raise to 2900. Until the misunderstanding regarding the nature of the CO's action has been corrected, it's impossible to properly interpret the BB's obligations.
 
So on that specific matter, you were of course correct; intervening action (a raise, but not a check, call, or fold) renders the premature declaration non-binding.

However, the argument was made more complicated by the fact that at least some of the players were confused as to what the intervening action was. It doesn't make sense to say that the CO's call of the BB's all-in is or is not intervening action that would allow the BB to change his prematurely-declared action, because the CO couldn't call the BB's all-in (since it had not yet been made). The CO's action can only be understood as intervening action if it's understood to be a raise to 2900. Until the misunderstanding regarding the nature of the CO's action has been corrected, it's impossible to properly interpret the BB's obligations.
Completely agree. It kind of got overlooked because they were both so eager to get it in.

But you are right. I’ll mention that to the host so if it happens again he can be clearer.
 
What were the hands, btw? Curious to see what got them so revved up...
 
Never seen this happen at dealt games, seems dealer will make sure blinds are out before dealing 2nd card. Officially any raise changes the action to BB so his all in is not mandatory, but any move other than all in I could see floor being not so lenient and assessing a penalty
 
Never seen this happen at dealt games, seems dealer will make sure blinds are out before dealing 2nd card. Officially any raise changes the action to BB so his all in is not mandatory, but any move other than all in I could see floor being not so lenient and assessing a penalty
Yeah but this was a self dealt home game and an honest mistake by the BB.
 
Yeah but this was a self dealt home game and an honest mistake by the BB.
I remember playing a tournament one time - nice room in NH, they were always pretty good with the rules. Better than Foxwoods in that regard, in my experience.
Anyway, this was a big MTT and there was a tourist from Florida at my table. This guy was one of those guys who made you wish you had headphones. He was just a poker expert, who had something to say about everything. Nonstop. Rules, strategy, etiquette - he gave us quite the education that day. And every time somebody acted out of turn, he told us that in Florida, that’s a one orbit penalty. Innocent enough actions like folding before the guy on your right acts, because you just didn’t notice - that sort of thing happens a few times an hour, and nobody cares, because it’s innocent enough. But every single time, he’d tell us how that was a one orbit penalty in Florida.
Anyway, that’s just my long way of saying that I’ve never seen anybody get a penalty for acting out of turn. I’ve see warnings issued from time to time, but never an actual penalty for that. But I’ve never played in Florida.
 
One guy kept saying that BB was committed to the all in no matter what everyone else did. I tried to tell him that wasn’t the case; that intervening action changes what the BB can or has to do but he wasn’t buying it.
So on that specific matter, you were of course correct; intervening action (a raise, but not a check, call, or fold) renders the premature declaration non-binding.
I wonder if it should be binding, even if there’s a subsequent raise. Because, he’s “already” all in.
If we’re saying that his all-in is binding if every subsequent player calls - why should it be any different if he gets a call then a raise then a reraise? The raise and the reraise don’t affect his hand any differently than calls would, right?
 
Innocent enough actions like folding before the guy on your right acts, because you just didn’t notice - that sort of thing happens a few times an hour, and nobody cares, because it’s innocent enough.
A few time an hour in a tournament is pretty excessive, I wouldn't be happy as it definitely can effect play and can give an unfair advantage.

Maybe turn the lights up in the poker room?

I wonder if it should be binding, even if there’s a subsequent raise. Because, he’s “already” all in.
If we’re saying that his all-in is binding if every subsequent player calls - why should it be any different if he gets a call then a raise then a reraise? The raise and the reraise don’t affect his hand any differently than calls would, right?
That is a fair point, he's already bet the max he can and no matter what anyone does it isnt going to change that.
 
A few time an hour in a tournament is pretty excessive,
You think? 9 players per table, times 30 hands per hour, times what, maybe 1.5 actions per hand? That’s 400 actions per hour. If 3 actions out of 400 are out of turn, you think that’s excessive? I dunno, maybe I’m overestimating.
 
I wonder if it should be binding, even if there’s a subsequent raise. Because, he’s “already” all in.
If we’re saying that his all-in is binding if every subsequent player calls - why should it be any different if he gets a call then a raise then a reraise? The raise and the reraise don’t affect his hand any differently than calls would, right?
The rule about premature declarations being binding isn't there to penalize or screw over the bettor - "Hah, you said raise, now you're stuck with it!" The penalty, if any is needed, would be rendered separately from the hand itself, i.e. sitting out for an orbit like apparently they do in Florida.

The rule is to prevent something like this:

Seat #6, out of turn: "Raise!"
Seat #4 and #5: fold
Seat #6: "Oh, woops, I acted out of turn. Okay, I'll just call now instead." - This opens the door for angle shooting.

The reason that the rule applies if Seat #4 and #5 fold or check or call, but doesn't apply if one of them raises, is because there is a reasonable possibility that Seat #6 mistakenly but honestly thought that the earlier players took passive actions - folding, checking, or calling - and that the action was now on him with the amount of the wager being unchanged by their (non-existent) actions. If the players then take their actions and they are in fact passive, then for the reason above Seat #6 is held to his premature declaration; his decision now that he knows the actions were passive should be the same as his decision when he mistakenly thought they were passive. But if one or both of them instead take an aggressive action, the amount of the wager to him will be different than he reasonably and honestly (but mistakenly) might have thought it was when he prematurely declared; it's reasonable and fair to allow him to make a new decision based on the correct information.

This leniency does also open the door for angle shooting, but the out-of-turn declaration is still an infraction, and the TD can impose a penalty if he thinks the bettor might not have been making an honest mistake.
 
Yeah but this was a self dealt home game and an honest mistake by the BB.
Honest mistakes can be avoided by good home game protocol. Deal the first card, and announce "Small, Big" to the missing blinds, and continue dealing. If the blinds are still not posted, the dealer pauses and announces "Jim, you're 400" or something else friendly but similar.

When the player announced "I call the all-in", I would have paused for clarification, as there was officially no all-in yet. If he clarified "I call" the all-in would then stand. If the player clarified by raising (unlikely given how this played out) then the BB would be free to fold.

Once all action was complete, the arguing was moot. The hand was complete.

I know some people call a game "friendly" by slipping on protocols - but seriously, following proper protocols keep a game friendly.
 
The rule about premature declarations being binding isn't there to penalize or screw over the bettor - "Hah, you said raise, now you're stuck with it!" The penalty, if any is needed, would be rendered separately from the hand itself, i.e. sitting out for an orbit like apparently they do in Florida.

The rule is to prevent something like this:

Seat #6, out of turn: "Raise!"
Seat #4 and #5: fold
Seat #6: "Oh, woops, I acted out of turn. Okay, I'll just call now instead." - This opens the door for angle shooting.

The reason that the rule applies if Seat #4 and #5 fold or check or call, but doesn't apply if one of them raises, is because there is a reasonable possibility that Seat #6 mistakenly but honestly thought that the earlier players took passive actions - folding, checking, or calling - and that the action was now on him with the amount of the wager being unchanged by their (non-existent) actions. If the players then take their actions and they are in fact passive, then for the reason above Seat #6 is held to his premature declaration; his decision now that he knows the actions were passive should be the same as his decision when he mistakenly thought they were passive. But if one or both of them instead take an aggressive action, the amount of the wager to him will be different than he reasonably and honestly (but mistakenly) might have thought it was when he prematurely declared; it's reasonable and fair to allow him to make a new decision based on the correct information.

This leniency does also open the door for angle shooting, but the out-of-turn declaration is still an infraction, and the TD can impose a penalty if he thinks the bettor might not have been making an honest mistake.
Yeah, you’re right. My brain went south for a bit there. Once the CO put in 2900 chips, that’s an intervening action, and bb shouldn’t be held to his out of turn declaration.
And @Poker Zombie has it right - somebody needs to stop these whackos and clarify their actions.
 
The rule about premature declarations being binding isn't there to penalize or screw over the bettor - "Hah, you said raise, now you're stuck with it!" The penalty, if any is needed, would be rendered separately from the hand itself, i.e. sitting out for an orbit like apparently they do in Florida.

The rule is to prevent something like this:

Seat #6, out of turn: "Raise!"
Seat #4 and #5: fold
Seat #6: "Oh, woops, I acted out of turn. Okay, I'll just call now instead." - This opens the door for angle shooting.

The reason that the rule applies if Seat #4 and #5 fold or check or call, but doesn't apply if one of them raises, is because there is a reasonable possibility that Seat #6 mistakenly but honestly thought that the earlier players took passive actions - folding, checking, or calling - and that the action was now on him with the amount of the wager being unchanged by their (non-existent) actions. If the players then take their actions and they are in fact passive, then for the reason above Seat #6 is held to his premature declaration; his decision now that he knows the actions were passive should be the same as his decision when he mistakenly thought they were passive. But if one or both of them instead take an aggressive action, the amount of the wager to him will be different than he reasonably and honestly (but mistakenly) might have thought it was when he prematurely declared; it's reasonable and fair to allow him to make a new decision based on the correct information.

This leniency does also open the door for angle shooting, but the out-of-turn declaration is still an infraction, and the TD can impose a penalty if he thinks the bettor might not have been making an honest mistake.
Although, for the sake of argument, this rule isn’t perfect.
Suppose BB thinks he’s UTG and open jams for 2900. But he’s out of turn.
Suppose now, the 5 other players all call for 400.
Now BB is looking at a pot of 2400, with 5 guys who’ve VPIPed to play their cards, and he’s got 2500 behind?
That’s not remotely the same situation as it was before, but he’s required to push those chips in?
Kind of an extreme example, but in this situation, the rule would give us an unfair result.
 
Although, for the sake of argument, this rule isn’t perfect.
Suppose BB thinks he’s UTG and open jams for 2900. But he’s out of turn.
Suppose now, the 5 other players all call for 400.
Now BB is looking at a pot of 2400, with 5 guys who’ve VPIPed to play their cards, and he’s got 2500 behind?
That’s not remotely the same situation as it was before, but he’s required to push those chips in?
Kind of an extreme example, but in this situation, the rule would give us an unfair result.
Dunno how it’s unfair, BB made a potentially binding action out of turn, BB is potentially bound to make that action
 
Dunno how it’s unfair, BB made a potentially binding action out of turn, BB is potentially bound to make that action
That was in reply to @CrazyEddie explanation that the reason the rule exists is to protect a guy who acts out of turn thinking that no action occurred before him.
If that’s really the reason for the rule, then maybe it shouldn’t be applied in my hypothetical case.
In my hypothetical, although BB thought he was UTG and thought he was acting first, if you’re looking to protect a player due to his misunderstanding, and you accept that he misunderstood his position, then it’s pretty clear that at least from his perspective, the circumstances have changed significantly, even though no individual has acted significantly.
But I agree with you that if the purpose of the rule is to punish a guy who screws up (to prevent people from angling by pretending they screwed up) then yeah, he has to be held to it.
 
Although, for the sake of argument, this rule isn’t perfect.
Suppose BB thinks he’s UTG and open jams for 2900. But he’s out of turn.
Suppose now, the 5 other players all call for 400.
Now BB is looking at a pot of 2400, with 5 guys who’ve VPIPed to play their cards, and he’s got 2500 behind?
That’s not remotely the same situation as it was before, but he’s required to push those chips in?
Kind of an extreme example, but in this situation, the rule would give us an unfair result.
What's being overlooked in your example above is that each of those five callers did so with the knowledge that a potentially binding 2900 raise is coming. Freely giving away that information is the penalty paid by the BB for his illegal premature action. Seems fair to me.
 
Although, for the sake of argument, this rule isn’t perfect.
Suppose BB thinks he’s UTG and open jams for 2900. But he’s out of turn.
Suppose now, the 5 other players all call for 400.
Now BB is looking at a pot of 2400, with 5 guys who’ve VPIPed to play their cards, and he’s got 2500 behind?
That’s not remotely the same situation as it was before, but he’s required to push those chips in?
Kind of an extreme example, but in this situation, the rule would give us an unfair result.
Definitely see your point here. I'm not sure a perfect rule could be found in principle; as a compromise, "if the size of the wager to the bettor hasn't changed then the bet is still binding" is probably a decent line to draw.
 

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