Trouble with out of turn action (4 Viewers)

[Chippy McChiperson]

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.

Doesn't seem too friendly if reraiser is baiting the raiser. You mess with the bull you get the horns.

 

[courage]

If only a hero like @Scott Keller were available to tell us the rules.

 

[krafticus]

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.

I agree with this stance 100% of the time.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

Doesn't seem too friendly if reraiser is baiting the raiser. You mess with the bull you get the horns.

Since it seems like it was accidental but it only happened because re-raiser is being a total dickhead I agree.

 

[dickzapper]

All I can add is that this situation makes me cringe. But it's certainly valuable to ponder such a unique spot.

Any chance the outcome of the hand be revealed? Very intrigued at this point.

 

[jbutler]

I'm a huge asshole, but tbh if I were in this situation as the raiser and Berg was the reraiser, I wouldn't shove on him. I'd bet about 15% of his stack, forcing him to raise to 30% of his stack then I'd insta-shove and show him aces and let him decide whether to gamble.

Though admittedly it's a lot easier to be nice in the above situation because Berg will gamble enough that it's 50/50 that we'll still get all the money in after he sees my aces.

 

[pltrgyst]

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

If those chips cross the betting line, or are released before he says the amount, it's a raise to 200.

 

[Mental Nomad]

I'm replying to Mental Nomad saying "raise" in and of itself is a complete[] action...

I said no such thing.

... and therefore re-raiser is not acting out of turn.

I said that "raise" clearly declares a binding action. I didn't say it was complete.

This is why this is a tough one - it's treading into an unusual and ambiguous situation.

Since the raiser has declared a binding action, and there is no intervening player, how can the next player's action declaration be "out of turn" in the traditional sense? We're simply outside the norm.

For that matter... if you want to argue that a raise is not an action until the amount is specified, how is the re-raiser raise an action until an amount specified? Can he be out of turn without finishing his raise? Does he have to "complete" the re-raise with an amount before it's considered an action?

Of course not! ... when he declares re-raise, he has fully committed to a choice of action, even though the amount is not yet determined.... Which also makes clear which way I'd rule on this in a formal setting. In an informal setting, I might cut the re-raiser some slack if it appeared to be an innocent error, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

I might be even more inclined to cut the re-raiser some slack if it seemed like the raiser was angle-shooting to get unfair advantage... but I think that only applies if the premature re-raise was an innocent error, which again, is not the case.

You mess with the bull you get the horns.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

I just hope that the raiser actually has the big pair. It's possible, to me, that he's just trying to make the bully back down... we've all wanted to hammer a maniac from time to time.

 

[Ronoh]

I just hope that the raiser actually has the big pair. It's possible, to me, that he's just trying to make the bully back down... we've all wanted to hammer a maniac from time to time.

How's he back down if he's unable to fold?

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I'm a huge asshole, but tbh if I were in this situation as the raiser and Berg was the reraiser, I wouldn't shove on him. I'd bet about 15% of his stack, forcing him to raise to 30% of his stack then I'd insta-shove and show him aces and let him decide whether to gamble.

Though admittedly it's a lot easier to be nice in the above situation because Berg will gamble enough that it's 50/50 that we'll still get all the money in after he sees my aces.

Yeah but if its Keith your shoving half your stack then nutter buttering...

 

[jbutler]

Yeah but if its Keith your shoving half your stack then nutter buttering...

If it's you I ask you what you want me to do, explain that I don't want to be an asshole here, but that I have a hand and then say, "Look you call it, tell me what you want me to do. I'm not going to be a jerk to a friend for money." Then no matter what you say we're all in.

 

[Mental Nomad]

If those chips cross the betting line, or are released before he says the amount, it's a raise to 200.

I agree. All I'm saying is that mid-action, it's still ambiguous... but as long as they've already said, "raise," they are committed to that action.

If re-raiser knows that verbal actions are binding, then this is all moot - the OP did not make this clear. Could have been a first-timer at the game, for all we knew. Everyone was friendly until this hand, sure, but that doesn't mean they've played poker together, before...

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

If it's you I ask you what you want me to do, explain that I don't want to be an asshole here, but that I have a hand and then say, "Look you call it, tell me what you want me to do. I'm not going to be a jerk to a friend for money." Then no matter what you say we're all in.

Perfectly fine. The only reason I'm protesting is because I have aces and it's a perfect set-up for the slow roll.

 

[Mental Nomad]

How's he back down if he's unable to fold?

Yeah, the raiser pretty much has to have it, since they made sure the re-raiser can't fold before committing.

I guess I'm really hoping their pair holds up, whatever it is. Or even their AKs. I can see someone being pissed off enough to pull this, thinking the bully has crap-raised them often enough.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

I said that "raise" clearly declares a binding action. I didn't say it was complete.

If the re-raiser is not facing a complete action his action is out of turn. Just because he is held to it doesn't change that.

 

[WedgeRock]

God I missed these esoteric rules discussions...

 

[Mental Nomad]

If you win money through the play of a poker hand you have won the money in a poker way.

Unless it's angle-shooting... and, depending on the characters & their knowledge of the rules, something like this could have been.

That's all I'm saying.

F the reraiser. Pay dat man hiz money.

If these are regs, I agree. The Dr is not making that explicit, and I don't know if that's intentional.

The re-raise is out of turn. That's all I am trying to say to you.

I get that. I was just trying to explain that I see how the situation, as described, could be very ambiguous to a lot of people. If you take another look at that post of mine, the very next thing I did was try to explain how either side could be seen as the "foul player," depending on context.

On formal ruling, I agree with you. But I still think this is a tough ruling to make if you also want to protect the social aspect of a friendly home game. The Doctor said these people were "friendly..." but the situation described doesn't sound so friendly!

If he thought it was an easy one, I don't think he would have posted it. I guess I'm just agreeing that it's a tough call to have to make.

 

[Rhodeman77]

If those chips cross the betting line, or are released before he says the amount, it's a raise to 200.

That is very casino dependent. Most do not strictly enforce the betting line that anything that goes past it, even without being released is the bet. The Horseshoe before it was the JACK claimed that was the rule, but I never saw it enforced. A few dealers would warn players, but that was it.

 

[DrStrange]

*** Ok, so now what ***

As expected, I ruled the all-in bet must be called by the re-raiser. The re-raiser isn't happy - he yammers about how good his hand is and how he would like to see a flop. This likely means he has a hand like J2o or 74s (two of his favorite hands).

The original raiser is willing to negotiate. However, most of the table still has cards. So what should I do to a) facilitate a negotiation between the two parties and b) protect the interests of the rest of the table?

DrStrange

PS both parties are regulars.

 

[Mental Nomad]

And these two clowns are definitely putting the host in a crappy situation.

^^THIS^^

which is why my games usually go according to casino rule

Smart. Avoids claims of favoritism later.

That's nearly always what I do, aside from letting a newb off the hook, now and then. Still, I always feel a little put-off when I tell someone they need to post blinds to get back in after walking away and missing the blinds, and sometimes I'll try to post for them.

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?

Interesting question. If it's AA, unless raiser thinks there's someone who will call two big raises cold, all-in seems a shoe-in to be best. I mean, if the ruling was that the re-raiser must make at least a min raise, and raiser makes it $100, then re-raiser makes it $200... does anyone else call $200? Probably not. I think there's no gain to betting less when you know the all-in will be seen.

 

[Rhodeman77]

The ruling has been made that both bets stand. Action is now on the next player.

If everyone folds back to the original raiser they then can make a deal of some sort.

Each take some money back or run it 4 times etc. but until it is heads up they need to keep their mouths shut and let the rest of the table play their hands.

 

[krafticus]

*** Ok, so now what ***

As expected, I ruled the all-in bet must be called by the re-raiser. The re-raiser isn't happy - he yammers about how good his hand is and how he would like to see a flop. This likely means he has a hand like J2o or 74s (two of his favorite hands).

The original raiser is willing to negotiate. However, most of the table still has cards. So what should I do to a) facilitate a negotiation between the two parties and b) protect the interests of the rest of the table?

DrStrange

PS both parties are regulars.

At this point, I would say the action stays as is until the remainder of the table has acted. If the remaining players all fold, and it is heads up, they can negotiate. If another player calls after the reraise, I would say everything is now binding.

Mark

 

[Mental Nomad]

*** Ok, so now what ***

As expected, I ruled the all-in bet must be called by the re-raiser. The re-raiser isn't happy - he yammers about how good his hand is and how he would like to see a flop. This likely means he has a hand like J2o or 74s (two of his favorite hands).

The original raiser is willing to negotiate. However, most of the table still has cards. So what should I do to a) facilitate a negotiation between the two parties and b) protect the interests of the rest of the table?

DrStrange

PS both parties are regulars.

ARGH!

This is exactly what I would dread having to deal with.

The original raiser is willing to negotiate.

I worry he doesn't have aces, but I shouldn't be judging their choices or consequences.

PS both parties are regulars.

Then they know the rules. I let the raises stand and other players can choose what to do.

When it gets back to the two raisers, then they can BS or chop or whatever they want... but I'm not going to hold up the flop very long. I don't want a ten-minute delay of game while they have a pissing contest; the all-in is standing, the action is done, the flop is coming. They either chop or flop, and they don't get a full 60 seconds to decide.

After the flop, they have time to have another pissing contest, but not much. I want to get to the next hand. I'll call the clock on the two of them deciding to chop, or run however many times, or whatever.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

*** Ok, so now what ***

As expected, I ruled the all-in bet must be called by the re-raiser. The re-raiser isn't happy - he yammers about how good his hand is and how he would like to see a flop. This likely means he has a hand like J2o or 74s (two of his favorite hands).

The original raiser is willing to negotiate. However, most of the table still has cards. So what should I do to a) facilitate a negotiation between the two parties and b) protect the interests of the rest of the table?

DrStrange

PS both parties are regulars.

Like everyone else said, "b". If everyone else folds then they can deal, but reraisers yammering is also influencing action (as is raisers offer to negotiate) and I'd caution them both to stop talking until the other players have all made their decisions.

 

[jbutler]

Unless it's angle-shooting... and, depending on the characters & their knowledge of the rules, something like this could have been.

Different people have different definitions of angle shooting. But no matter one's personal definition the rules don't turn on how others might characterize the maneuver. Either the rules permit his action and compel the call or they don't.

I have zero sympathy for anyone who complains about the rules of a game they've chosen to play. If someone's retarded poker strategy is so dependent on a particular interpretation of a particular rule then they should expect it to not go their way a significant amount of the time.

The original raiser is willing to negotiate. However, most of the table still has cards. So what should I do to a) facilitate a negotiation between the two parties and b) protect the interests of the rest of the table?

Most definitely let the rest of the table act in turn and then let the players negotiate whatever they want with the starting point for the negotiation being that all the money is in the middle.

 

[Quicksilver-75]

For me this out of turn re-raise is an angle shot. It was meant to affect the current bettor 's raise. And it backfired...he should be forced to re-raise the minimum over the all-in bet if there is still action behind him and his chip count allows. The following players must call HIS re-raise as action progresses. If all others fold he takes back his re-raise and the community cards are dealt. And if he loses that's a tough lesson learned...

 

[upNdown]

So what should I do to a) facilitate a negotiation between the two parties and b) protect the interests of the rest of the table?

These two really are quite a pair, aren't they?
Like everybody else said, let the table have it's turn and if there's another caller, there are no negotiations.
If everybody folds, tell these two that they're a pair of pantywaists, and if they each want to pull an agreed-upon amount out of the pot before the flop, they can. Because this is a friendly home game.

 

[12thMan]

So maybe they could negotiate a "buy out" from the reraiser to the original raiser if all other players fold and the hand ends there, but in no way would I allow a board to be dealt unless it was for all the money. What if everybody folds and then they have a negotiation and they agree to seeing a flop for a reduced price? That is then unfair to the people who folded to the $600 bet right? Maybe someone folds for $600 but would call for $200. It gets way too fucking messy.

 

[upNdown]

So maybe they could negotiate a "buy out" from the reraiser to the original raiser if all other players fold and the hand ends there, but in no way would I allow a board to be dealt unless it was for all the money. What if everybody folds and then they have a negotiation and they agree to seeing a flop for a reduced price? That is then unfair to the people who folded to the $600 bet right? Maybe someone folds for $600 but would call for $200. It gets way too fucking messy.

You're right. I didn't think it through very clearly. And in fact, any negotiation for cash becomes some kind of collusion, doesn't it? I guess the only thing I'd be comfortable with is letting them agree to run it how ever many times they want.
Maybe they could see if anybody would give them insurance bets?

 

[Rhodeman77]

So maybe they could negotiate a "buy out" from the reraiser to the original raiser if all other players fold and the hand ends there, but in no way would I allow a board to be dealt unless it was for all the money. What if everybody folds and then they have a negotiation and they agree to seeing a flop for a reduced price? That is then unfair to the people who folded to the $600 bet right? Maybe someone folds for $600 but would call for $200. It gets way too fucking messy.

I have seen it done with Mike the Mouth and Phil Hellmuth on Poker after Dark and thought the same thing. There was a preflop raise and the two of them raise then re-raise. Original raiser folds and Phil and Mike are all in. But they negotiate to take the money back since it was so close.

I thought it was bull shit since the original raiser lost money. If it was me at the table in that spot I would be making a stink for sure.