Trouble with out of turn action (3 Viewers)

[DrStrange]

Playing 1-2 live, nine handed. The game is somewhat deep, everyone is having a good time. Then this happens.

There are a couple of limps bringing us to a middle position player who says, "I'll raise" but hasn't specified an amount yet.

The next player says "re-raise". The original raiser then asks if out of turn action is binding, which it is. So we tell him as much.

The original raiser goes all-in. Both players have in excess of $600, so the bet is enormous for a preflop raise. The re-raiser thinks he should be able to fold, since he no longer can re-raise.

How should this be ruled?

PS The dealer has gathered in all the mucked cards and is guarding the muck pile just in case. . . .

 

[brains613]

Hmmm. I'm not sure the "re-raise" should even be allowed, let alone binding... Seems like it would be pretty easy to shoot angles this way.

And if the "re-raise" is binding, then why the hell should he be able to fold??? He's the one who started it, so to speak.

I'm genuinely confused by this one....

 

[WedgeRock]

Out of turn action is only binding if they bet they are facing hasn't changed.

Tough, tho, because the amount of the raise hasn't been announced.

Might fall under the "gross misunderstanding" wager rule...

My initial thought is he has to at least min. raise, but I'm not sure that is the right ruling.

BTW, original raiser may have completed the ULTIMATE isolation play.

 

[Rhodeman77]

If this is a game among friends, they may not be friends after the hand!

I don't know how the "re-raise" can be binding since the actual action was unknown when it was said.

 

[T_Chan]

That's a really tough situation. Yes his re-raise is binding unless action before him changes. Since an amount was never stated, it doesn't really "change" perse... For the sake of the home game, I would say that if the raise is a min raise, the re-raise is binding. If it's anything other than a min-raise, the re-raise is voided and is considered a change allowing the re-raiser to act as he pleases.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

His call is binding. If initial raiser bet half his stack, he'd have to put it all in anyway. Like others have said, action before him didn't change. Sorry dude, but wait your turn next time and try not to angle shoot please.

 

[courage]

I asked 3 pro dealers, one of which is often a floor at various venues and all have dealt WSOP.

Player A's announcement of raise is binding and can minraise all the way up to all-in. Player B must then minraise the all-in if possible or is also all-in with players behind yet to act. Player B should have waited until an amount was stated from Player A.

 

[DrStrange]

It isn't likely anyone at the table is going to preflop raise to $4 (though it does happen).

Does that mean the re-raiser gets to make verbal bets like this knowing that worst case he has to make it $8 to go? Or even not ever having to call the raise much less actually re-raising?

It seems like the consensus is the re-raiser is the innocent bystander and the original raiser is the angle-shooter. Am I missing something?

 

[Rhodeman77]

Definetly a good reason not to be playing with head phones on and to make sure to be paying attention to the action at hand!!

 

[Pokerdweebz]

I asked 3 pro dealers, one of which is often a floor at various venues and all have dealt WSOP.

Player A's announcement of raise is binding and can minraise all the way up to all-in. Player B must then minraise the all-in if possible or is also all-in with players behind yet to act. Player B should have waited until an amount was stated from Player A.

This is what I was going to say but it's been a few years since I actually dealt and even longer since I looked at the manual.

It isn't likely anyone at the table is going to preflop raise to $4 (though it does happen).

Does that mean the re-raiser gets to make verbal bets like this knowing that worst case he has to make it $8 to go? Or even not ever having to call the raise much less actually re-raising?

It seems like the consensus is the re-raiser is the innocent bystander and the original raiser is the angle-shooter. Am I missing something?

Not sure what you mean. If this is a friendly home game the original raiser is 100% a douchebag and depending on how friendly the game is would probably never be invited back. I find it hard to believe the re-raiser doesn't have Aces or Kings because the only thing I can think of as a reason for why this happened is he was so excited to raise he didn't even wait to think.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

It isn't likely anyone at the table is going to preflop raise to $4 (though it does happen).

Does that mean the re-raiser gets to make verbal bets like this knowing that worst case he has to make it $8 to go? Or even not ever having to call the raise much less actually re-raising?

It seems like the consensus is the re-raiser is the innocent bystander and the original raiser is the angle-shooter. Am I missing something?

No, original raiser did nothing wrong. Re raiser either innocently messed up, or tried to angle the original raiser by saying reraise prematurely. Either way, it's all on him, and hopefully he learned from his mistake.

 

[links_slayer]

No, original raiser did nothing wrong. Re raiser either innocently messed up, or tried to angle the original raiser by saying reraise prematurely. Either way, it's all on him, and hopefully he learned from his mistake.

agreed. re-raiser is far from "innocent" here.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

No, original raiser did nothing wrong. Re raiser either innocently messed up, or tried to angle the original raiser by saying reraise prematurely. Either way, it's all on him, and hopefully he learned from his mistake.

I agree with you except for how this could possibly be an angle by re-raiser. If raiser has a top 1% hand he can just jam and re-raiser has to call/jam. If raiser was raising light he can min-raise and then see what sizing re-raiser uses and save himself money. Nothing good comes out of this for re-raiser

Edit: Obviously this is re-raisers fault though

 

[12thMan]

If this is a friendly home game the original raiser is 100% a douchebag and depending on how friendly the game is would probably never be invited back.

So confused by this. Why? Because he went all in?

 

[Pokerdweebz]

So confused by this. Why? Because he went all in?

In a friendly game this is essentially screwing your "friend" out of $600 because he made a mistake. Yes it is his fault. Yes he brought it on himself. Yes I understand why you would do it. So on and so forth, but at the end of the day if you are willing to force your friend all in to take his money when you damn well know you were only going to make a normal raise you are a dickhead.

Edit: Screwing is not the right word because you aren't doing anything wrong in terms of rules of the game, but you should know what I meant

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Not saying it was a great angle lol. That's why I think it COULD also be a innocent mistake. But it could definitely be used to influence original raiser's actions, especially if they had a non premium hand. Of course if original raiser has AA its no bueno. Also lol at reraiser trying to get out of having to call that for sure is an angle.

 

[courage]

I agree with you except for how this could possibly be an angle by re-raiser. If raiser has a top 1% hand he can just jam and re-raiser has to call/jam. If raiser was raising light he can min-raise and then see what sizing re-raiser uses and save himself money. Nothing good comes out of this for re-raiser

Edit: Obviously this is re-raisers fault though

Player B, the reraiser, is the angleshooter because he thinks he can fold. He's trying verbal intimidation to gauge reaction, then hoping to fold. Or, he's not angleshooting and just didn't pay attention to action.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

In a friendly game this is essentially screwing your "friend" out of $600 because he made a mistake. Yes it is his fault. Yes he brought it on himself. Yes I understand why you would do it. So on and so forth, but at the end of the day if you are willing to force your friend all in to take his money when you damn well know you were only going to make a normal raise you are a dickhead.

Edit: Screwing is not the right word because you aren't doing anything wrong in terms of rules of the game, but you should know what I meant

Didn't see where it said they were friends, only that everyone was having a good time.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

Not saying it was a great angle lol. That's why I think it COULD also be a innocent mistake. But it could definitely be used to influence original raiser's actions, especially if they had a non premium hand. Of course if original raiser has AA its no bueno. Also lol at reraiser trying to get out of having to call that for sure is an angle.

I disagree. This is not possibly an angle because the re-raiser gains nothing from it (unless the re-raiser is a complete idiot and thinks he does). Then I guess it could be, but I really don't see how. In every home game I've ever played this is an innocent mistake 99.999% of the time.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

Player B, the reraiser, is the angleshooter IF he thinks he can fold. He's trying verbal intimidation to gauge reaction, then hoping to fold. Or, he's not angleshooting and just didn't pay attention to action.

Well then he's a moron because I couldn't imagine someone thinking this and rest in peace to his money

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I disagree. This is not possibly an angle because the re-raiser gains nothing from it (unless the re-raiser is a complete idiot and thinks he does). Then I guess it could be, but I really don't see how. In every home game I've ever played this is an innocent mistake 99.999% of the time.

How is it innocent? He obviously heard him say raise, because he said reraise. He was trying to influence action by making it seem like he had a real strong hand, and it presumably backfired on him.

 

[Mental Nomad]

This one is a bit tricky...

Going by typical wording, the "actions" were raise, and re-raise.

The re-raise was not actually out of turn... it came after the raise. The fact that the amount of the original raise was unclear to the re-raiser doesn't change the order or the actions, just the knowledge/sizing. But the actions were in turn order.

Suppose the exact same action order had happened, but the raiser didn't say "all-in..." instead, the story was:

Player one: "I raise." (simultaneously pushing forward a stack, but his stack is four $1 checks and four hundos, and puts him all-in.)
Player two: "Re-Raise"
Player one: "That's four hundred and four, and I'm all-in."
Player two: "What? I didn't know you were were pushing it all! I didn't yet see how much was in the stack! I didn't ask for a count yet!"

It would be pretty much impossible to argue that the re-raise wasn't binding... the re-raiser acted hastily, prematurely, but in turn.

If this is a friendly home game the original raiser is 100% a douchebag and depending on how friendly the game is would probably never be invited back.

So confused by this. Why? Because he went all in?

No, because he went all-in after coming to believe that the re-raiser was obligated to call whatever was bet. From the OP:

The original raiser then asks if out of turn action is binding, which it is. So we tell him as much.

The original raiser goes all-in.

Now, let's assume raiser has, say, aces. The action is just a few limps. Is the raiser going to go all-in? No. The raiser probably wants some action. There's virtually no chance raiser intended to go all-in at the time they said, "raise..." but, knowing that someone is verbally bound to see the bet, the raiser then decides to push all-in.

In a "friendly" game, this is fairly douchey. Any raise wildly outside of the standard "first raise" for this table gets douchey.

The re-raiser is still in the wrong and caused the problem... but the raiser is taking advantage of someone else's error to create an out-sized gain.

Re-raiser is a jerk for acting so hastily, and may even have been an ass about it, trying to be intimidating...
But raiser is definitely taking advantage of the situation to exploit the rules and win the money in a "non-poker" way.
Of course, the re-raiser is then trying to take advantage of the situation to get to fold and save money after trying to be a stack bully....

Both actions can rub other players the wrong way. Ruling on this is very, very difficult, in terms of protecting the integrity of the game, but also protecting the social aspect of the game.

 

[courage]

Well then he's a moron because I couldn't imagine someone thinking this and rest in peace to his money

Very well could be an innocent mistake. How many times do you let him keep making it? What do you do to compensate Player A who obv had a premium hand he wants to play for stacks?

 

[WedgeRock]

Player A's announcement of raise is binding and can minraise all the way up to all-in. Player B must then minraise the all-in if possible or is also all-in with players behind yet to act. Player B should have waited until an amount was stated from Player A.

Can't really argue with this in a casino with strangers... but...

For the sake of the home game, I would say that if the raise is a min raise, the re-raise is binding. If it's anything other than a min-raise, the re-raise is voided and is considered a change allowing the re-raiser to act as he pleases.

...this seems fair among known players in a home game, assuming re-raiser wasn't actually trying to angle shoot.

It seems like the consensus is the re-raiser is the innocent bystander and the original raiser is the angle-shooter. Am I missing something?

Um, no one did anything wrong until re-raiser prematurely announced his action... what did the original raiser do wrong? I mean if the facts were that he waited a prolonged amount of time (which wasn't stated in the OP), but its not uncommon to announce "Raise" and then contemplate the amount for a short time.

how this could possibly be an angle by re-raiser.

If re-raiser argues that "Raise" was only a min. raise to $4 and his "Re-Raise" is only a min. raise to $6, then he is clearly angle-shooting if he expects the ability to fold if the raise is ruled anything more than a minimum.

As I said, unless Raiser was taking an exorbitant amount of time (facts that are not in the OP), I don't think he did anything wrong... certainly not an angle shoot.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

How is it innocent? He obviously heard him say raise, because he said reraise. He was trying to influence action by making it seem like he had a real strong hand, and it presumably backfired on him.

OP really needs to clarify what happened. My understanding of the incident is that raiser said "raise" and without thinking or hesitation re-raiser said "re-raise". If the re-raiser paused for a solid amount of time while raiser was thinking then sure maybe, but I really don't think that happened.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

OP really needs to clarify what happened. My understanding of the incident is that raiser said "raise" and without thinking or hesitation re-raiser said "re-raise". If the re-raiser paused for a solid amount of time while raiser was thinking then sure maybe, but I really don't think that happened.

Why would the time matter?

 

[Pokerdweebz]

This one is a bit tricky...

Going by typical wording, the "actions" were raise, and re-raise.

The re-raise was not actually out of turn... it came after the raise. The fact that the amount of the original raise was unclear to the re-raiser doesn't change the order or the actions, just the knowledge/sizing. But the actions were in turn order.

The re-raise is 100% out of turn because in a no-limit game raise is not a complete action until an amount is specified.

 

[Mental Nomad]

As I said, unless Raiser was taking an exorbitant amount of time (facts that are not in the OP), I don't think he did anything wrong... certainly not an angle shoot.

If raiser did not choose to make the raise an all-in until after confirming that the re-raiser was bound by the re-raise then it's an angle shoot.

He didn't initially raise with the intent to angle-shoot, but after the premature re-raise, he decided to use the situation to angle-shoot.

 

[courage]

OP really needs to clarify what happened. My understanding of the incident is that raiser said "raise" and without thinking or hesitation re-raiser said "re-raise". If the re-raiser paused for a solid amount of time while raiser was thinking then sure maybe, but I really don't think that happened.

Irrelevant.

 

[Mental Nomad]

The re-raise is 100% out of turn because in a no-limit game raise is not a complete action until an amount is specified.

Is there a reference for that?