Trouble with out of turn action (2 Viewers)

[Pokerdweebz]

Is there a reference for that?

Saying "raise" is not a legal action(in a NL game). I don't need a reference.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

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.

I don't think you know what an angle shot is lol. Original raiser didn't plan for reraiser to act prematurely, he was just clarifying what his options were before he acted. If reraiser had done the same thing, he wouldn't be in that predicament. This is all on reraiser.

 

[inca911]

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

One minor clarification (that is not relevant in this example): Player B must at least min-raise; however, he can still declare a larger raise if he wants to as his action was also not yet declared. I often declare a raise without an amount to try and get a read on a player before deciding how much. The original raiser should not try to exploit the other player's premature re-raise declaration, but I agree the WSOP ruling is clear and permits such an exploit in this instance. In home game setting, I would explain the situation and agree that the original raiser is within the rules to take his action; however, I would then give him the choice of either letting the re-raiser off this hook (i.e., in order to win this one pot) OR leaving after this hand and not being invited back ever again to my games.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Saying "raise" is not a legal action(in a NL game). I don't need a reference.

Uh, what?

 

[WedgeRock]

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

But he was in the middle of acting when the Re-raiser acted out of turn. The All-In was still one of his available options.

I've heard DD do this exact thing. Action to him, he announces Raise, contemplates his stack and the stacks still in the hand, counts off his checks in front of him, and then announces "All in". The only difference is that no one behind DD acted until it was there turn.

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

Actually, I can't say I disagree with this -- in a friendly game.

In a casino, though, Raiser is merely acting on the information given to him when the action is still his. In a casino, Re-rasier is obligated to min raise the all in, IMO.

As to the point that Re-raiser as AA or KK, then why is he trying to fold it without calling the All In?

 

[Pokerdweebz]

Uh, what?

If you say raise you have not completed an action until an amount is specified, therefore the action is still on you until an amount is specified. You obviously agree with this ruling or re-raiser would not be acting out of turn.

 

[Mental Nomad]

I've often seen people raise an unknown amount by putting chips forward. The raise is a complete action. The amount is later determined if anyone asks (which someone usually does.)

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

The action isn't complete, but saying raise is for sure a legal action. If you say raise and put in a call, the floor would make you minraise.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

The action isn't complete, but saying raise is for sure a legal action. If you say raise and put in a call, the floor would maker you minraise.

Yes I know. What I'm saying is saying raise in and of itself is not an action. You can't say raise and then stare at everyone else and expect action to proceed.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

I've often seen people raise an unknown amount by putting chips forward. The raise is a complete action. The amount is later determined if anyone asks (which someone usually does.)

Putting chips out is specifying an amount so not sure how this applies.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Yes I know. What I'm saying is saying raise in and of itself is not an action. You can't say raise and then stare at everyone else and expect action to proceed.

I don't see where anyone said that's what happened. Regardless, reraiser should have clarified the action before he acted.

 

[Mental Nomad]

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

But he was in the middle of acting when the Re-raiser acted out of turn. The All-In was still one of his available options.

I agree that the all-in was still an available, legal option.
I agree that the re-raiser acted prematurely.

But if the only reason the raiser chose the "all-in" option was because he knew that re-raiser was obligated to call because of the error of stating "re-raise" prematurely, then the all-in can be considered an angle shoot.

I'm not making a ruling here - I'm explaining how, to many people, raiser's action can also be seen as devious, after the fact of the erronoues re-raise being declared.

 

[Ben]

This is a tough one. Clearly the correct ruling in a casino setting is this:

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.

In order to avoid this scenario:

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?

But in a friendly home game? Unless re-raiser has a history of shadiness I'm inclined to let him off the hook, with a stern admonishment that if it ever happens again he's all-in. And an admonishment to original raiser as well for trying to use a minor procedural mistake to take $600 from his buddy - $600 is a bit excessive for a "lesson," for anybody, and could cause some seriously hurt feelings. (Although to be perfectly honest, in the heat of the moment I might or might not do the same - it's a cutthroat game, after all. )

 

[upNdown]

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.

Can you angle-shoot an angle-shooter?

 

[courage]

Saying "raise" is not a legal action(in a NL game). I don't need a reference.

How does this make any sense? So I can declare a raise then take it back?

 

[WedgeRock]

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.

*Maybe.* I assumed that Raiser announced All In before there was a ruling that Re-Raiser was bound to his verbal statement. But even then, the argument could be made that he only went all in expecting that is what the ruling would be. OTOH, I could make a strong argument that he wanted action on his premium hand too.

Either way, at least we both agree that Raiser wasn't angle-shooting when he announced "raise".

 

[Pokerdweebz]

How does this make any sense? So I can declare a raise then take it back?

Clearly I need to phrase things better. Obviously you cannot say raise and then call or fold (without at least putting min-raise chips in the pot). I'm replying to Mental Nomad saying "raise" in and of itself is a complete action and therefore re-raiser is not acting out of turn. I'm saying the word "raise" is not a complete action therefore the action is still on raiser and re-raiser is acting out of turn. That is all I am saying.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Putting chips out is specifying an amount so not sure how this applies.

You've never seen someone put forward two $100 chips and say, "raise to one and twenty total?"

 

[courage]

This is a tough one. Clearly the correct ruling in a casino setting is this:



In order to avoid this scenario:



But in a friendly home game? Unless re-raiser has a history of shadiness I'm inclined to let him off the hook, with a stern admonishment that if it ever happens again he's all-in. And an admonishment to original raiser as well for trying to use a minor procedural mistake to take $600 from his buddy - $600 is a bit excessive for a "lesson," for anybody, and could cause some seriously hurt feelings. (Although to be perfectly honest, in the heat of the moment I might or might not do the same - it's a cutthroat game, after all. )

Agree but the problem is adjudicating a solution, which is why my games usually go according to casino rule. If no players behind A and B wish to be in the pot, you could determine an amount where both players put in $100 - 300 then run out a board but someone is going to feel cheated.

 

[jbutler]

But raiser is definitely taking advantage of the situation to exploit the rules and win the money in a "non-poker" way.

Lol at "exploiting the rules" and lol haaaaaaard at winning money in a "non-poker" way. If you win money through the play of a poker hand you have won the money in a poker way. If you benefit from application of the rules you haven't "exploited the rules," you've applied them.

F the reraiser. Pay dat man hiz money.

 

[DrStrange]

A little more context.

The raiser is a little looser and a little more passive than an ABC tag and is frustrated by the re-raiser this session.

The re-raiser is a LAGtard who has been re-raising the original raiser over half of the time he raised this session. That really is not a lot of hands, but it is clear to the players that the re-raiser is not on a remarkable run of cards he is baiting the raiser. If the re-raiser held a top 2% hand he is snap calling and we would have never had the conversation.

The raiser clarified the rules for out of turn action before he went all in.

Everyone at the table is friendly.

I am in the blinds with garbage, so I don't have a dog in the hunt. I will be ruling on what it to be done.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Can you angle-shoot an angle-shooter?

Yes. You can also steal from a thief, or murder a murderer.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

You've never seen someone put forward two $100 chips and say, "raise to one and twenty total?"

I'm not sure how anything else you have said remotely applies to this statement:

"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 out of turn. That's all I am trying to say to you.

 

[courage]

Player B must at least min-raise; however, he can still declare a larger raise if he wants to as his action was also not yet declared

Somewhat splitting hairs but I don't think this is the case. Player B must be a minraise precisely because he acted out of turn yet action is binding.

 

[upNdown]

In home game setting, I would explain the situation and agree that the original raiser is within the rules to take his action; however, I would then give him the choice of either letting the re-raiser off this hook (i.e., in order to win this one pot) OR leaving after this hand and not being invited back ever again to my games.

I agree it would be a douche move in a home game setting. And these two clowns are definitely putting the host in a crappy situation. But how much do you tell the original raiser he's allowed to raise? I guess you'd just have to guestimate an appropriate amount? 10 big blinds plus the pot? I just have a hard time believing the re-raise is anything but an angle-shoot. He should be punished for that, and the re-raiser certainly shouldn't have to suffer for it.

 

[bergs]

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. . . .

If it's a home game with friends and the re-raiser has zero history of doing stuff like this, than I wouldn't bind him to the re-raise (particularly if there was drinking involved).

Casino, underground game, home game with acquaintances and not friends, then what Courage posted seems accurate.

 

[inca911]

Somewhat splitting hairs but I don't think this is the case. Player B must be a minraise precisely because he acted out of turn yet action is binding.

I agree the second player must raise as his re-raise declaration is binding; however, he can raise anything from min-raise to all in (i.e., just like the original raiser). In this instance, he doesn't have enough chips to do anything different but he still has the right to do so in a different situation.

 

[Ronoh]

Another view... forgetting everything else is the all in mov the best play? If stacks are both $600 and the other player has to reraise what amount would be the most +EV if he has AA?

Might it not be better to make it $200? If the raiser shoves that's good. If he makes it $400 we could always turn our cards face up and shove our remaining stack to see if he will fold

If we get it in we are playing for all of his chips and our chance of losing are x%. If he folds after his reraise we have 66% of his chips and our chance of losing is 0%.

Just curious if the good doctor or anyone else has a mathematical sweet spot for the possibility of a free chunk vs 80% or whatever shot at all or nothing.

 

[WedgeRock]

which is why my games usually go according to casino rule.

Smart. Avoids claims of favoritism later.

 

[inca911]

But how much do you tell the original raiser he's allowed to raise? I guess you'd just have to guestimate an appropriate amount? 10 big blinds plus the pot?

Per the rules, the original raiser can move all in if he wishes to do so.