Trouble with out of turn action (1 Viewer)

[WedgeRock]

We were playing for quarters, but we were playing 3 cards, so if all three hit the flop, that's $0.75 to another player.

What if we were playing for dollars? Let's say I am in the hand and lose $3 on the flop while the guy that wins the prop bet is not in the hand. That's $3 less that the other players in the hand can win from me, regardless of whether it stays on the table or not. That's 5% of my stack in a $60 buyin.

Not as big of a deal for quarters, bigger deal the more the prop is, especially if everyone at the table is not playing it.

IIRC, someone busted in a hand that they were AIPF and ended up owing a prop. I think they paid it out of their pocket before leaving.

 

[BGinGA]

Either keep a tally of prop bets and settle up afterwards, or pay them off between hands. Chips/cash cannot move between players if either one is actively involved in a hand.

 

[Chicken Rob]

Either keep a tally of prop bets and settle up afterwards, or pay them off between hands. Chips/cash cannot move between players if either one is actively involved in a hand.

unless everyone in the game agrees that it can...

 

[BGinGA]

But who in their right mind would agree to such a thing?

So a player is all-in, makes a prop bet and loses, and drags chips off his stack to pay another player before shipping his stack to the winning hand?

That's stupid as shit....

 

[Chicken Rob]

But who in their right mind would agree to such a thing?

So a player is all-in, makes a prop bet and loses, and drags chips off his stack to pay another player before shipping his stack to the winning hand?

That's stupid as shit....

I have been in games where tapping on the glass is not worth it. Let the fish bet on their flops. So what if there is $5 less in my stack when I felt them, they're in the game donating.

 

[Jambine]

......This rule explicitly allows for discretion when the situation in the OP is created via accident or misunderstanding. The context here, however, says that's it's not misunderstanding... it's someone intentionally taunting, jumping in prematurely, and then getting charged, in return.....

That is (probably) the most important point here. If it was my call, I give NO love to player B

 

[DealerScott]

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

I didn't begin to read this whole post. But here's the point. The reraiser has to be held accountable. He has to raise whatever the raiser bets. Or in this case call. Otherwise it is a built in shot. He is acting out of turn and therefore making it unfair to the raiser or anyone else who hasn't acted. He could cost himself as well if the raiser decides to raise the minimum now. I am all about being friendly in home games. But saying reraise before the other raiser determines the amount is taking a shot.

 

[Poker Zombie]

First time seeing this thread, props to Scott for bumping it. It took a while to read the whole thing, but I did.

I agree with everyone that some unpleasant duchebaggery is going on here. Before I can comment on how this should be ruled, I have a question (because I don't play lots of limit) in a limit game, if you declare "raise" but the the pot has already been capped, can you declare "fold" instead, or does the "raise" automatically become a "call"?

No matter what, Mr re-raiser needs a warning/time-out for acting out of turn. Let's not have a repeat of the situation.

 

[DealerScott]

First time seeing this thread, props to Scott for bumping it. It took a while to read the whole thing, but I did.

I agree with everyone that some unpleasant duchebaggery is going on here. Before I can comment on how this should be ruled, I have a question (because I don't play lots of limit) in a limit game, if you declare "raise" but the the pot has already been capped, can you declare "fold" instead, or does the "raise" automatically become a "call"?

No matter what, Mr re-raiser needs a warning/time-out for acting out of turn. Let's not have a repeat of the situation.

It definitely has to be a call. It is a players responsibility to pay attention to the action in a game. They can't use the excuse I wasn't paying attention. Otherwise any smart player could use that to their advantage.

 

[Poker Zombie]

It definitely has to be a call. It is a players responsibility to pay attention to the action in a game. They can't use the excuse I wasn't paying attention. Otherwise any smart player could use that to their advantage.

Then I agree that the re-raiser has to call. I was trying to give him an out by saying his re-raise was no longer valid because he couldn't raise when he was already all-in.

 

[DealerScott]

Then I agree that the re-raiser has to call. I was trying to give him an out by saying his re-raise was no longer valid because he couldn't raise when he was already all-in.

Yeah. No need to give him an out. Many lessons to learn in poker. Let this be one of them.

 

[JustinInMN]

*** Results ***

The original raiser offers the re-raiser a deal = = = give me $200 and we'll call it even. Then the original raiser shows one card, the . The re-raiser wants to see a flop then decide, but the raiser doesn't budge. Play for stacks or give me $200. In the end the re-raiser paid the $200.

Wow, that's amazing poor form by the re-raiser in this situation.

I don't really love this result, but I think the ruling of re-raiser's obliged to his verbal statement is correct. He's the first bad actor here. If he waited for the action to be completed, he'd be in no jeopardy. If the re-raiser had claimed he thought he heard the raiser say a number, like "raise to 10" or whatever, I could see applying the gross misunderstanding protection. But absent any such claim, I think that's an irrelevant clause. Clearly this was an angle shoot on the re-raiser's part.

I do empathize with the view that the raiser is taking advantage here. But I think since his action was interrupted, he's entitled to know his options and the consequences for the out of turn player.

None of this happens if the re-raiser just acts in turn, I just can't find any sympathy or reason here to rule otherwise.

 

[RiverAce01]

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

Not to hijack the thread...I once was hosting a card game with friends and one of them (arguably the person I'd been friends with at the table the longest) played some dumb hand like J-6 suited OOP and he made a flush out of it and beat me for a big pot.

I went full Hellmuth and flipped my lid at him. I mean literally "what the f*** are you doing playing that hand" came out of my mouth.

He took it in stride and I later apologized and we're still friends. But for a couple seconds there I really wondered if that was it

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Not to hijack the thread...I once was hosting a card game with friends and one of them (arguably the person I'd been friends with at the table the longest) played some dumb hand like J-6 suited OOP and he made a flush out of it and beat me for a big pot.

I went full Hellmuth and flipped my lid at him. I mean literally "what the f*** are you doing playing that hand" came out of my mouth.

He took it in stride and I later apologized and we're still friends. But for a couple seconds there I really wondered if that was it

Lol as someone who has been on the receiving end of that many times, I secretly enjoy it. Also, you'd probably have an aneurysm if you played at our donkfests.

 

[Rhodeman77]

Lol as someone who has been on the receiving end of that many times, I secretly enjoy it. Also, you'd probably have an aneurysm if you played at our donkfests.

Yea, same here. I love when I can put someone on life tilt like that!!! One of my best poker friends is notorious for his blow ups. His tirades are legendary in our group. He has wished ass cancer on most of us. He is a lot of fun and we all laugh it off (while we stack his money)!!

We go out of our way trying to put a bad beat on him because once it happens any semblance of good poker disappears from his game.

 

[RiverAce01]

Lol as someone who has been on the receiving end of that many times, I secretly enjoy it. Also, you'd probably have an aneurysm if you played at our donkfests.

I'm usually pretty calm at every table. If I have a Hellmuth moment I keep it in my head. I once lost a big 1-2 NL pot in a casino to a guy who had something like Jacks full of 8s and he played J8 in his hand and I think he was OOP too. I just said "wow" and sat there. I've seen weird donk moves in 2-4 limit too with all the nitty old guys but I usually don't let myself get beaten by them. But it happens.

But this one time with my buddy I flipped my lid and was really vocal about it. I was just beyond pissed that he didn't fold pre flop

 

[Leonard]

New to this thread and I haven't read the entire thing, but there is zero chance I would rule that the re-raiser is is required to call or raise a massive over-bet in a HOME CASH game. Tournaments and casinos are just different. It's just too punitive for a relatively small mistake and rewards angle-shooting by the original better. I would invoke the "for the good of the game" rule or ask them to read the side of the button. If I had to make a ruling, I would tell the original raiser that he could make any "standard" raise that he wanted and I would require a min-raise from the re-raiser -or- he could make an "unusually large raise" and then I would void the requirement that re-raiser call/raise. This allows a modest penalty to the re-raiser but it shouldn't be enough to ruin the game or even just the evening.

 

[BGinGA]

New to this thread and I haven't read the entire thing, but there is zero chance I would rule that the re-raiser is is required to call or raise a massive over-bet in a HOME CASH game.

You should read the entire thread.

 

[Mental Nomad]

It's just too punitive for a relatively small mistake and rewards angle-shooting by the original better.

Yeah, you're assuming the raiser made a mistake and that is the original bettor who was angle - shooting. Read the thread.