new ruling questions (2)

Goodluck2me

1) Player A goes all in, and counts it himself, and shouts 21k, (blinds are 4K.8K) player B, with around 70K in chips says call immediately, as its only another 13 for him to call. the delaer looks at player As stack and its actually 35K and player B asks what is his situation....

2) Player B acts out of turn and bets 500, player A is first to act what happens when i) player A bets 200 ii) player A bets 300 iii) player A bets 2000.

both these situations happened tonight, spoliers later.

TheDuck32

1. Always get the dealer to double check, a poker player that can count is a rare creature. His intention was to call 21k, so that much is in the pot and I would give him the option of folding or calling for the extra 14.

2. i. Bet stands
ii. Insufficient raise, calls 300
iii. 500 is in, call for extra 1500 or fold.

The Duck

http://www.duckedagain.blogspot.com/

5starpool

1. Tough, he should have been more vigilant. Also, player A gets a kick to the nads. Call stands though.
2. 500 bet stands.
same as duck. Was going to say that if he said raise he must make it 600, but I believe acting out of turn nullifys this option.
can't take it back. Can call or fold.

NickyOD

1. It's a dealer error, but nothing you can do about it. This is why dealers should be trained to count out an announce all bets themselves, because what a player says might be 21K but what he pushed into the pot beforehand is always a mystery until the dealer counts it. Player B must put in 21K and has the option to call another 14.

2. i) Player B's raise to 500 stands. Player A now has all his options to call 300, raise or fold.

ii) Player B should be forced to make it 600 because he has put in more than half a raise. (i.e. he must double the initial bet if he makes it between 450 and 600, anytihng less then its a call)

iii) This one is where a lot of TDs are split.
I rule that Player B is allowed to take back his 500 bet and has all his options.

TheDuck32

NickyOD wrote:

iii) This one is where a lot of TDs are split.
I rule that Player B is allowed to take back his 500 bet and has all his options.

Your too much of a softy Nicky, that 500 is deader then disco.

Also disagree with your ruling on point ii. The player’s intention was never to raise another players bet so to force him to commit more chips to the pot for his BET out of turn is unfair.

connie147

In point 1, why cant player A's bet be limited to the 21k he announced. Why does his wrongdoing has to affect player B

jacQues

connie147 wrote:

In point 1, why cant player A's bet be limited to the 21k he announced. Why does his wrongdoing has to affect player B

Player A first declared all-in, and then counted/declared 21K. The first declaration stands.

jacQues

NickyOD

TheDuck32 wrote:

Your too much of a softy Nicky, that 500 is deader then disco.

Also disagree with your ruling on point ii. The player’s intention was never to raise another players bet so to force him to commit more chips to the pot for his BET out of turn is unfair.

Point 1. The reason for the ruling is not to be soft to player B but to protect Player A's intentions. Let's say Player A moves all in preflop to try and take the blinds, If player B folds and leaves 500 daed money int he pot it leaves a player behind him with better odds to call. This rule was introduced on the EPT by Kremser, I think about 2 years ago. I'm not ssaying either rule is more correct than the other. I just prefer this ruling because it gives no disadvantage to the player who acted in turn.

Point 2. This is an unusual one actually but if Player B's bet stands then it must be a raise not a call (because he has put in more than half a raise). Regardles of whether the action was out of turn or not, in this instance it is binding. If Player A had bet 300 and then Player B made it 500 in turn, he would have been forced to make it 600 so why not the same ruling when out of turn?

sendic

NickyOD wrote:

1. It's a dealer error,

How is this a dealer error? The OP says player A goes all in and announces 21k and that player B says call immediately. I don't think you can fault the dealer here. player A is a muppet but player B should have waited for the dealer to confirm the amount. its the same as mucking your cards before the pot is awarded, its a mistake you only make once.

as for the 500 out of turn. (imo)
i: its a raise to 500 (although why you would bet 200 in this instance is beyond me)
ii: its a call of 300
iii: 500 is dead, fold or call for 1500 more.

jacQues

With all due respect Nicky, but I question the following:

NickyOD wrote:

ii) Player B should be forced to make it 600 because he has put in more than half a raise. (i.e. he must double the initial bet if he makes it between 450 and 600, anytihng less then its a call)

I do not see how this "works" (rules-wise). Say player A raises to 550. Then player B must make it 1,100? Wouldn't it be more logical to say that since underraises aren't allowed and player B lost his/her action because of the out-of-turn action its a call?

NickyOD wrote:

iii) This one is where a lot of TDs are split.
I rule that Player B is allowed to take back his 500 bet and has all his options.

I agree with you on this, but only if its done either fully or not at all. Meaning: either all out-of-turn actions are ignored or all are applied (after the first card hits the velt).

Thus, in my opinion, either:
2i/ii/iii) Player B didn't do anything yet so can fold, call, raise etc.
OR:
2i) Player B raises to 500.
2ii) Player B calls 300 (?)
2iii) Player B can only fold (leaving 500 on the table) or call, but not re-raise.

jacQues

NickyOD

jacQues wrote:

With all due respect Nicky, but I question the following:

I do not see how this "works" (rules-wise). Say player A raises to 550. Then player B must make it 1,100? Wouldn't it be more logical to say that since underraises aren't allowed and player B lost his/her action because of the out-of-turn action its a call?

Yeah, this is a really wierd situation because it can only happen if Player A doesnt' see player B's out of turn bet (who doesn't see that Player A has yet to act) I guess it might happen if both players were completely blind.

While TheDuck's ruling might be right his logic for his ruling is definitely wrong as he says that player B's action is only a call of 300 because he hasn't made a full raise. If a player makes half a raise he must be forced to make a full one. If the fact that his action is out of turn doesn't change anything then the same rule should apply.

Yes, underraises are not allowed, but that doens't make them a call. In your example, if player a bets 550 and player B makes it 825, he must now be forced to make it 1100 because he has put in half of a full raise. I've seen Luke make this ruling. At blinds 50-100 a player on the button made it 150 and was forced to make it 200.

However by the same logic we should probably argue that Player A cannot put in 300 amd must put in another 200 (making it 500) to call Player B's bet. I think this is the best option.

jacQues wrote:

I agree with you on this, but only if its done either fully or not at all. Meaning: either all out-of-turn actions are ignored or all are applied (after the first card hits the velt).

This from Cairo and Cooke should clarify.

"A player who makes action out of turn shall be held to that action when it is his turn, unless intervening action changes the action the out-of-turn actor is facing."

RoundTower

NickyOD wrote:

Point 1. The reason for the ruling is not to be soft to player B but to protect Player A's intentions. Let's say Player A moves all in preflop to try and take the blinds, If player B folds and leaves 500 daed money int he pot it leaves a player behind him with better odds to call. This rule was introduced on the EPT by Kremser, I think about 2 years ago. I'm not ssaying either rule is more correct than the other. I just prefer this ruling because it gives no disadvantage to the player who acted in turn.

Point 2. This is an unusual one actually but if Player B's bet stands then it must be a raise not a call (because he has put in more than half a raise). Regardles of whether the action was out of turn or not, in this instance it is binding. If Player A had bet 300 and then Player B made it 500 in turn, he would have been forced to make it 600 so why not the same ruling when out of turn?

Where are you getting the "because he has put in more than half a raise" from? Normally if A makes it 300 and B declares "make it 500", he must call the 300.

Also the reasoning in your point 1 is crap, you don't take the 500 out of the pot so that player A has a better chance to win it uncalled. A should be delighted to get the extra dead money in the pot whether he is called or not. I like to let B take back his money here anyway, at least the first time let him take it back and warn him not to do it again.

5starpool

NickyOD wrote:

Yeah, this is a really wierd situation because it can only happen if Player A doesnt' see player B's out of turn bet (who doesn't see that Player A has yet to act) I guess it might happen if both players were completely blind.

While TheDuck's ruling might be right his logic for his ruling is definitely wrong as he says that player B's action is only a call of 300 because he hasn't made a full raise. If a player makes half a raise he must be forced to make a full one. If the fact that his action is out of turn doesn't change anything then the same rule should apply.

Yes, underraises are not allowed, but that doens't make them a call. In your example, if player a bets 550 and player B makes it 825, he must now be forced to make it 1100 because he has put in half of a full raise. I've seen Luke make this ruling. At blinds 50-100 a player on the button made it 150 and was forced to make it 200.

However by the same logic we should probably argue that Player A cannot put in 300 amd must put in another 200 (making it 500) to call Player B's bet. I think this is the best option.



This from Cairo and Cooke should clarify.

"A player who makes action out of turn shall be held to that action when it is his turn, unless intervening action changes the action the out-of-turn actor is facing."

If Luke made this ruling then he is the only person in the Fitz who would do so, and I would be amazed if he did this as the half raise rule does not apply in the Fitz.

I think there are 2 distinct situations here that are similiar, but have different rulings attached.

1. Player A raises to 300, player B doesn't notice the raise but in turn makes it 500. If he said raise then it must be made to 600, no more no less. If he did not say raise then it is a call only as it was not a full raise.
2. Player A has yet to act. Player B acts out of turn making it 500. Player A then raises but to 300 (for some insane reason, but I have something similiar this happen myself too). I believe that by acting out of turn then player B does not have the right to reraise here. I am not 100% sure but I think this may even apply when player B said raise as he made it 500.

I have never seen a situation quite that idiotic though (with a raise to less than the other raise put in when he could have a live option later by just calling) but I believe that is what would happen in the Fitz, based on a Richie or Nic ruling at least, since Luke does not normally TD personally anymore unless a real argument ensues.

NickyOD

RoundTower wrote:

Where are you getting the "because he has put in more than half a raise" from? Normally if A makes it 300 and B declares "make it 500", he must call the 300..

You are completely incorrect. If you make half a raise or more, you must be forced to make a full raise.

" 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."
Roberts Rules of poker. V7.

RoundTower wrote:

Also the reasoning in your point 1 is crap, you don't take the 500 out of the pot so that player A has a better chance to win it uncalled. A should be delighted to get the extra dead money in the pot whether he is called or not. I like to let B take back his money here anyway, at least the first time let him take it back and warn him not to do it again.

Read the last line of my reply to Jacques. Actions out of turn are binding unless intervening action changes the action that player is facing.

5starpool

NickyOD wrote:

You are completely incorrect. If you make half a raise or more, you must be forced to make a full raise.

Not in the Fitz, which, while I know that is hardly the centre of the poker world, is somewhere that you say you have seen this ruling used. The half raise rule has never been used in the Fitz (except possibly in the SDPT, but that doesn't count). I know it is in force in some places, including PE tournies in Ireland for one, and your 500>300x1.5 rule would hold there if implemented properly.

NickyOD

5starpool wrote:

Not in the Fitz, which, while I know that is hardly the centre of the poker world, is somewhere that you say you have seen this ruling used. The half raise rule has never been used in the Fitz (except possibly in the SDPT, but that doesn't count). I know it is in force in some places, including PE tournies in Ireland for one, and your 500>300x1.5 rule would hold there if implemented properly.

Actually Luke made this ruling at the €300 event he directed at the Citywest. I have no idea why he would implement it in that tournament and not in the fitz. I also saw it used on the pro poker tour and there was some comments about it not being implemented properly. I can't find any written rules that state less thna a full raise is always a call, but the half raise rule is defintiely documented.

It makes sense. If a player A bets 1000, and player B makes it 1950, then how can that be a call?

jacQues

5starpool wrote:

Not in the Fitz, which, while I know that is hardly the centre of the poker world, is somewhere that you say you have seen this ruling used. The half raise rule has never been used in the Fitz (except possibly in the SDPT, but that doesn't count). I know it is in force in some places, including PE tournies in Ireland for one, and your 500>300x1.5 rule would hold there if implemented properly.

x1.5? :eek:

So if player A makes it 333 or less, player B raises to 2x whatever player A bets and with a minimum of 500.

But if player A makes it 334 to 500, its a call.

However, if player A makes it 501 or more, player B can choose to call the amount over 500 as that is already in or fold.

And then lastly (according to Nicky) if player A goes all-in for 501 or more, player B can take back his/her 500 and then choose fold, call, raise as normal.

Whoa! Never realised its this complicated.

jacQues

5starpool

NickyOD wrote:

Actually Luke made this ruling at the €300 event he directed at the Citywest. I have no idea why he would implement it in that tournament and not in the fitz. I also saw it used on the pro poker tour and there was some comments about it not being implemented properly. I can't find any written rules that state less thna a full raise is always a call, but the half raise rule is defintiely documented.

It makes sense. If a player A bets 1000, and player B makes it 1950, then how can that be a call?

That explains it. Luke was directing the Charity Event based on PokeEvents ruels where the more than 1x5 times the previous bet must be rounded up.

Otherwise, then I am not arguing which ruling makes more sense, but I know for a fact that in the Fitz if the bet is 100, and a player makes it 1950 then it is not a vlid raise (unless all in of course), and if it is all in for 1950 then the betting is not reopened for the player that made it 1000 unless a player between the allin and him made it at least 3900 in the meantime.

I have not played often enough in enough venues to say with any certainty what happens elsewhere though. The only reason I know of the PE rule is that I read it while scanning the rules at the Team Event and noticed it.

5starpool

jacQues wrote:

x1.5? :eek:

So if player A makes it 333 or less, player B raises to 2x whatever player A bets and with a minimum of 500.

But if player A makes it 334 to 500, its a call.

However, if player A makes it 501 or more, player B can choose to call the amount over 500 as that is already in or fold.

And then lastly (according to Nicky) if player A goes all-in for 501 or more, player B can take back his/her 500 and then choose fold, call, raise as normal.

Whoa! Never realised its this complicated.

jacQues

The lack of standard rules is what makes it so complicated, especially in Ireland where some rules seem to be simplified more often than not, such as the double bet, rather than double raise rule.

NickyOD

jacQues wrote:

x1.5? :eek:

So if player A makes it 333 or less, player B raises to 2x whatever player A bets and with a minimum of 500.

But if player A makes it 334 to 500, its a call.

However, if player A makes it 501 or more, player B can choose to call the amount over 500 as that is already in or fold.

And then lastly (according to Nicky) if player A goes all-in for 501 or more, player B can take back his/her 500 and then choose fold, call, raise as normal.

Whoa! Never realised its this complicated.

jacQues

It's not jsut according to me, it's according to Cairo who dubbed the term "intervening action".

What makes it even more complicated. Lets say this game is not in Ireland, which is the only place in the world, except for some clubs in the UK and France, where you are forced to dsouble the total bet and not he total raise.

Lets say the blinds are 50/100. Player a makes it 300. Player A makes it 500. This is perfectly fine, as he has doubled the raise of 200!!!

Richard W

I've got another ruling question that probably doesn't need it's own thread.

Blinds are 800/1500, utg pushes for 1700. Now I just learned something about under-raising where, if you bet, and someone underraises by pushing for a small amount, then you cannot re-raise it when it comes back to you, you can only call. My question is what's the story with the blinds here? Do they get to re-raise this under raise as they haven't yet had a chance to act?

NickyOD

5starpool wrote:

That explains it. Luke was directing the Charity Event based on PokeEvents ruels where the more than 1x5 times the previous bet must be rounded up.

Otherwise, then I am not arguing which ruling makes more sense, but I know for a fact that in the Fitz if the bet is 100, and a player makes it 1950 then it is not a vlid raise (unless all in of course), and if it is all in for 1950 then the betting is not reopened for the player that made it 1000 unless a player between the allin and him made it at least 3900 in the meantime.

Of course. The half raise rule doesn't apply to an all in bet, The betting woudln't get reopened to a player who has already acted on his hand in this situation.

NickyOD

Richard W wrote:

I've got another ruling question that probably doesn't need it's own thread.

Blinds are 800/1500, utg pushes for 1700. Now I just learned something about under-raising where, if you bet, and someone underraises by pushing for a small amount, then you cannot re-raise it when it comes back to you, you can only call. My question is what's the story with the blinds here? Do they get to re-raise this under raise as they haven't yet had a chance to act?

Everyone else, including the blinds still have the option to raise and if they do they must make it a minimum of 3000 (they are raising the BB not the 1700 as it is an underraise)

If say UTG had limped, then UTG+1 pushed for 1700 and the BB called, then UTG does not have the option to raise because he has already acted. His options are just fold or call the extra 200.

5starpool

Richard W wrote:

I've got another ruling question that probably doesn't need it's own thread.

Blinds are 800/1500, utg pushes for 1700. Now I just learned something about under-raising where, if you bet, and someone underraises by pushing for a small amount, then you cannot re-raise it when it comes back to you, you can only call. My question is what's the story with the blinds here? Do they get to re-raise this under raise as they haven't yet had a chance to act?

The blinds always have the option to raise when it gets to them no matter what the action has been before hand. The only (for the pedantic) exception is when it is folded around and the SB folds also, leaving the BB as the only live hand.

jacQues

NickyOD wrote:

It's not jsut according to me, it's according to Cairo who dubbed the term "intervening action".

That "intervening action" is sound to me as long as all out-of-turn actions are simply ignored. Ignoring just one of them sounds weird to me. Also the reason you gave (not punishing the players that do act in turn) sounds a bit iffy to me since if player A *knows* what is going to happen (s)he can simply raise more to adjust to the new pot odds. Also, what I'm afraid off is the fact that player A now gains the ability to control some of player B action by betting everything bar the smallest chip instead of going all-in. This sounds like over-punishing the out-of-turn player. All of this is my opinion so doesn't really count.

NickyOD wrote:

What makes it even more complicated. Lets say this game is not in Ireland, which is the only place in the world, except for some clubs in the UK and France, where you are forced to dsouble the total bet and not he total raise.

That reminds me of an advanced rule question I have, but I'll ask that later in a separate thread. Though I am curious as to how many variants there are for this matter. A) double the total bet double the total raise C) bet at least as much as the last bet/raise etc. etc.

jacQues

5starpool

NickyOD wrote:

Everyone else, including the blinds still have the option to raise and if they do they must make it a minimum of 3000 (they are raising the BB not the 1700 as it is an underraise)

This I definitely disagree with. I see where you are coming from but I still disagree. Are you saying that if the UTG player made it 2900 on 800/1500 level, then UTG+2 could in theory raise to 3000? Also if 2 limpers call for 1700 as in example above, then Button could raise to 3000? I am talking about this situation in the double bet environment, as is here.

The fact that no sane person would do any of the above, especially the first extreme example, doesn't really matter, although I have seen people made min raise on button with 4 limpers and then complain that his AA got outdrawn despite raising, and other idiotic sh1t.

RoundTower

NickyOD wrote:

You are completely incorrect. If you make half a raise or more, you must be forced to make a full raise.

" 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."
Roberts Rules of poker. V7.

These Robert's Rules of Poker?

Robert's Rules of Poker wrote:

The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.

MickL

Richard W wrote:

I've got another ruling question that probably doesn't need it's own thread.

Blinds are 800/1500, utg pushes for 1700. Now I just learned something about under-raising where, if you bet, and someone underraises by pushing for a small amount, then you cannot re-raise it when it comes back to you, you can only call. My question is what's the story with the blinds here? Do they get to re-raise this under raise as they haven't yet had a chance to act?

the 1700 is a BET that is a underraise tot he forced ante any raise thereafter must be 3400 as he is UTG every1 has the option to raise including the bb

As for the other case The player that makes it 500 Out of turn cannot be giving an option to re-raise there ios no possible way he can gain an advantage for acting out of turn! player a makes it 200 Player b anounces raise and makes it the 500 will stand out of turn every1 else has the option to call for 500 or raise except for the player that made it 400!!

Mick

Macspower

Hi guys,

I was the player A in the first question. Wasn't really happy with the ruling but here's exactly what happened.

I'm the SB out for 4000 everyone folds.I take a quick look at my stack and announce all in for 21k more....not seeing the two 5k chips that I had just been coloured up for (my own stupidity). The big blind immediately says call (before the dealer counted or anything). I then realised i actually had 31k not the 21k plus my blind. The dealer counted and the big blind asked what his options were. He wanted to know of he could still fold as he was prepared to call 21 and not 35

The TD came over and ruled that the bet was only 21k and that the BB call stands. I don't believe this was correct....

Anyway the end result was the same. I hit the flop and got the extra 14k in. In fairness to the other guy he couldn't fold for 14k so he calls. He hit runner runner to get 2 pair and that was the end of that.

I don't agree with the ruling but it made no difference in the end. If i had announced 35k all in i would have picked up the blind and who knows. Anyway 4th was ok.

BTW who won in the end? Enjoyable and friendly game with good play.

Paul Mc

Goodluck2me

hi paul, the problem with the ruling was that he was under the impression you said 21K all in, so therefore he took your first bet it appears. the turn and river were obv unlucky, and HE did go on to win it, although they did a deal for 700 cash+400 ticket each, he eventually won the extra 100 and the points. Hard Luck though.

DeVore

I dont like letting off the player who acts out of turn because it can be abused (and I have seen it BADLY abused before).

Suppose I'm in late position and I put in 3/4 of my stack. Now, if there is an intervening action you are saying I get to take that back and if there isnt then it stays in?

Sounds like having the benefits of early position to get my chips in AND late position to see if I want to leave them in or take them out if anything scary happens ahead of me.

Thats just not right in my head...

DeV.

Scouser in Dub

what others say

I know this is different to the second case player acting out of turn but it seems damn near impossible to get a consensus on the issue

Macspower

glad my chips went on to win

TheDuck32

NickyOD wrote:

Point 2. This is an unusual one actually but if Player B's bet stands then it must be a raise not a call (because he has put in more than half a raise). Regardles of whether the action was out of turn or not, in this instance it is binding. If Player A had bet 300 and then Player B made it 500 in turn, he would have been forced to make it 600 so why not the same ruling when out of turn?

It is not the same thing because the intent of player B was not to raise. there is very little that is binding in the rules of poker, it all depends on the room your in. In this case the advantage should go to player A, who can reduce the bet to 300, otherwise in this situation why make the bet.

Ruling should always be based on common sence and fairness, and to do this you must take into account the intent of a player when he makes an action.

fixer

a player putting chips in the pot, in turn or out of turn, is expressing his intent of committing that much to the hand. The chips cease to beloing to him and can never be removed from the pot. If preceeding action causes him to be required to commit even more chips, he has the option of folding (leaving his chips behind since they are not his anymore) or topping up to the appropriate amount. His penalty for acting out of turn would usually be to lose his re-raising ability in that round of action.

In the case of B's 500 out of turn bet and A then betting 300, B would have to fold or top up to the minimum raise of 600.

Players acting on information from other players, shame on them. Same as misdeclaring your hand at showdown and someone else mucking a better hand. Angle shooting or honest mistake, it's the opponent's job to get the correct info from the dealer before making the decision.