Cash Game Two Rules Questions (1 Viewer)

[Leonard]

I've been playing long enough that I don't have a lot of rules questions anymore, but they do still come up. I'm not at all sure that it would/should change the rule, but in both the situations below, no player was suspected of angle shooting.

Situation A: What constitutes a change in the action:
Player one (short stack) pushes. Player 3 calls out of turn. Player 2 (between Players 1 and 3) calls. Another player and I disagreed on the ruling. We both agreed that the out-of-order verbal call was binding unless there was a "change in the action". He said the call constituted a change, I disagreed. Google searches produced mixed results, suggesting that ultimately, it may be a local decision. After consideration, I am tempted to say that for a friendly cash game, I would tend to be lenient and rule that the call does constitute a change and that the verbal call is not binding. In a tournament, I might tend to rule differently. Opinions?

Situation B: Dealer error helps the dealer:
Playing Shuck - a 5 card stud variant with a discard after 5th street. If you discard and exposed or "up" card you get another up card. If you discard a down card, you get a down card. Dealer is dealing after the discard. He shucks a down card, and the other two players in the hand discard up cards. He accidentally deals his card up also, exposing a King. His hand is obviously going low, so the King is terrible for him. There is 100% agreement that he did it accidentally. If this had happened to another player, we would rule that the exposed card gets shuffled into the stub, and another down card is dealt. I ruled that even though the dealers mistake clearly benefitted him, the card should be treated exactly as if it had happened to a different player. Thoughts on this ruling?

L

 

[DoubleEagle]

Situation A. Intervening action takes player C off the hook. C can call, raise or fold after B calls.

Situation B: not a stud player but this is what the TDA says:
If the first river card is dealt face-up in heads-up play, the opponent’s card will also be face-up; if multi-way the opponents’ cards are dealt down. In both cases, play opens with the player first to act on 6th street. Players with an exposed river card may elect to declare all-in (and not participate in any further betting for the main pot) but they must do so prior to opening of betting by any player on the river.

 

[Leonard]

Situation A. Intervening action takes player C off the hook. C can call, raise or fold after B calls.

Yes but a "check, call or fold by the correct player does not change action" per TDA...

 

[DoubleEagle]

Yes but a "check, call or fold by the correct player does not change action" per TDA...

I stand corrected. I mis-remembered this rule.

Rule 43-A: Action Out of Turn (OOT)
Example 1: THE 50-100. Post flop Seat 3 opens for 300, Seat 4 folds, action is on Seat 5 when Seat 6 declares “raise to eight hundred”.
Step 1: Action backs up to the correct player in order (Seat 5) who is facing a bet of 300. Step 2: If Seat 5 calls or folds then the action (a 300 bet) has not changed and Seat 6’s OOT raise is binding (raise to 800). However, if Seat 5 raises, (say, to 600 total), then the action to Seat 6 has changed from a 300 bet to a 600 bet. If action changes, the 800 chips may be returned to Seat 6 who has all options open: call 600, re-raise to at least 900, or fold.

 

[moose]

A Players should pay attention. A call is not a change in action. It is binding.

B Ban shuck.

 

[BGinGA]

Situation A: What constitutes a change in the action:
Player one (short stack) pushes. Player 3 calls out of turn. Player 2 (between Players 1 and 3) calls.

Player 3's out-of-turn action is binding (unless specifically addressed by a house rule deeming otherwise). A change in the actual bet amount faced by Player 3 is considered a change in the action (i.e., a bet, raise, or re-raise). An intervening fold, check, or call does not change the bet amount faced by Player 3, and his out-of-turn action (regardless of type) is binding.

From RROP v11 (Betting and Raising, Rule 11, applicable sentence in bold type):

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.

From 2017 Poker TDA Rules Version 3.0 (Plays: Betting and Raising, Rule 44, applicable sentence in bold type):

The OOT action is subject to penalty and is binding if action to the OOT player does not change. A check, call or fold by the correct player does not change action. If action changes, the OOT action is not binding; any bet or raise is returned to the OOT player who has all options: call, raise, or fold. An OOT fold is binding.

Situation B: Dealer error helps the dealer:
Playing Shuck - a 5 card stud variant with a discard after 5th street. He shucks a down card, and the other two players in the hand discard up cards. He accidentally deals his card up also

Don't play Shuck.

If this had happened to another player, we would rule that the exposed card gets shuffled into the stub, and another down card is dealt. I ruled that even though the dealers mistake clearly benefitted him, the card should be treated exactly as if it had happened to a different player.

^This.^ The ruling should be applied uniformly in all cases. If the exposed card would otherwise be ruled a re-shuffle/re-deal if dealt to another player, it should be done in this instance also. I also fail to see how an exposed King (if going for low) would benefit the dealer/player vs it being dealt as a down card. The actual card value is irrelevant, and the misdealt card should be re-dealt.

To avoid similar issues in the future, Don't play Shuck.

 

[bivey]

In my opinion, the penalty is the information that player gave away: that he intends to call. In a home game I’m lenient. It’s more about players feeling welcome and comfortable. You say there was no angle shooting suspected, so I let it slide. In no way is my opinion meant to be an interpretation of standard rules.

So many times, a player can’t see the cards of another player or gets legitimately distracted.

 

[surfik]

You need to tell how big we're the stacks of B and C. In this situation if the B just calls, C call stands. If B raises, C player has a decision to make..
This is cash game table decision. I have made a ruling like this. Tournament decision will vary depending on casino...