Home game ruling
 

We try to play as close to casino rules as possible. And this situation came up the other day.

I was in the CO, folded to me I announce all-in, the BB immediately says call but it's not his action yet. The action is then folded around to him and then he decided to fold.

Is he forced to call or can he change is mind?

Re: Home game ruling
 

I would rule that he is obligated to call since no intervening action has occured which negated his verbal declaration..

see this recent thread: SEARCH is your friend

Re: Home game ruling
 

I'd make his action stand if you are trying to be strict. If it is a more casual home game, I'd give him the option.

Re: Home game ruling
 

I'm not sure but I thought casino rules were a bet out of turn is illegal and therefore withdrawn.

Re: Home game ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure but I thought casino rules were a bet out of turn is illegal and therefore withdrawn.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's usually true, unless the out of turn action significantly affects other players actions. This is usually true in big bet games, when a player says call out of turn to a large bet which causes people acting in between to fold marginal hands they may have otherwise called with.

Re: Home game ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]

I was in the CO, folded to me I announce all-in, the BB immediately says call but it's not his action yet. The action is then folded around to him and then he decided to fold.

Is he forced to call or can he change is mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rule that he is verbally committed. That should cut off the act-out-of-turn problem.
I'd also put specific rules in your rulebook about this situation.

Re: Home game ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
We try to play as close to casino rules as possible. And this situation came up the other day.

I was in the CO, folded to me I announce all-in, the BB immediately says call but it's not his action yet. The action is then folded around to him and then he decided to fold.

Is he forced to call or can he change is mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I know many people who will contend that the call should be binding, I believe that it should not.

Here is my reasoning. In the ordinary course of the game every player who acts has to be concerned about the cation that a player behind them will take. It would be a significant advantage to a player to know what the player behind them is going to do.

So Now player 1 bets, before player 2 acts player 3 announces his action. This is a huge advantage to player 2 if the action is binding. But if the rule is that the action out of turn is not binding Player 2 no longer has this advantage and he is back where he should be -- unsure about what Player 3 will do.

Acting out of turn should not be tolerated, sure it will happen accidently from time to time, but if a player constantly does it, it is time to stop inviting him to the game.

Re: Home game ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
...So Now player 1 bets, before player 2 acts player 3 announces his action. This is a huge advantage to player 2 if the action is binding. But if the rule is that the action out of turn is not binding Player 2 no longer has this advantage and he is back where he should be -- unsure about what Player 3 will do.

Acting out of turn should not be tolerated, sure it will happen accidently from time to time, but if a player constantly does it, it is time to stop inviting him to the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem still remains that player 2 knows what player 3's likely intentions are. Even if you make Player 3's declaration non binding, player 2 still has the advantage of more information.

Technically, I don't believe the rules state the out of turn verbal declaratioon is bindng, but your game could be subjected to some serious angle shooting if you don't have some type of out of turn rule in place (and I need to address this issue as well in my rules).

Re: Home game ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem still remains that player 2 knows what player 3's likely intentions are. Even if you make Player 3's declaration non binding, player 2 still has the advantage of more information.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that if all playes know that the out of turn action isn't binding, then this is no different than Player 3 picking up the chps to call and acting like he is going to call. Player two gets this information but doesn't know whether it is indiciative that Player 3 is going to call or that Player 3 wants Player 2 to think he will call.

Re: Home game ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Technically, I don't believe the rules state the out of turn verbal declaratioon is bindng, but your game could be subjected to some serious angle shooting if you don't have some type of out of turn rule in place (and I need to address this issue as well in my rules).

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, you are correct. If there is the potential of angle shooting going on, then making a verbal statement binding and giving Player 2 the power and the information will teach Player 3 to NEVER NEVER do it again.

But I'm going to have to relook at this in my rules and decide if our setup is too strict, because both arguments have merit

Re: Home game ruling
 

why don't we look at a rule book?
[ QUOTE ]
10. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn may be ruled binding if there is no bet , call, or raise by an intervening player acting after the infraction has been committed.

[/ QUOTE ]
thus it is a call.

Re: Home game ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
why don't we look at a rule book?
[ QUOTE ]
10. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn may be ruled binding if there is no bet , call, or raise by an intervening player acting after the infraction has been committed.

[/ QUOTE ]
thus it is a call.

[/ QUOTE ]

This works if you don't have someone trying to angle shoot. If you have someone playing games, you commit them to their verbal raise and let the person in front raise first, forcing the mouth to reraise.
One or two times of that, you won't have any more problems.

Re: Home game ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
why don't we look at a rule book?
[ QUOTE ]
10. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn may be ruled binding if there is no bet , call, or raise by an intervening player acting after the infraction has been committed.

[/ QUOTE ]
thus it is a call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at a rule book works, but how do you decide which rulebook?

Re: Home game ruling
 

Around here, out of turn actions were stopped by killing the out of turn player's hand and making him call, dead, any action to him. Having to give away $100 or $200 will teach him never to act out of turn again...

Re: Home game ruling
 

Home poker should go by Roberts Rules, or some other widely availible, comprehensive rule set. It isn't like we are at the Palms, and any ruling is subject to how the floor feels because "there is no rule book".

Re: Home game ruling
 

Thats all well and fine, but decide the rules first. Not after. there are lots of rule books out there. Picking a rule book to get a ruling after the fact is no better than just making the rule after the fact.

But the problem is that once you start with the "rule Book" you invite legal arguments loopholes from the nits. There is some value to not having a rulebook.

Re: Home game ruling
 

Here's how I think this should be resolved. The out-of-turn is binding only if the interveing player folds. In that situation, there is no valid reason to allow Player 3 to change his mind. His call, out of turn, reveals his intent to call the all-in if nobody else had called or raised before him. So when the intervening player folds, you should make the verbal declaration out of turn binding.

But I don't think it should be binding if Player 2 calls or raises. I agree with psandman on this. Player 2 should be required to act without knowing exactly what Player 3 will do. Sure, Player 2 has got some information about Player 3's intentions, but that is not the same thing as being able to act knowing that Player 3's bet is not part of the pot and that Player 3 cannot raise. That is a huge tactical advantage to give Player 2, and for no good reason.

Plus, depending on the situation, stack sizes and stage of the tournament, it might be detrimental to the player who moved all-in to allow player 2 to call knowing that player's 3 bet is already in the pot and cannot raise. Player 1 might have moved all-in to create certain pot odds for Player 2 to act within, and those odds are destroyed if you now make Player 3's bet binding, perhaps to Player 1's disadvantage. Player 2 can now call and knows that that Player 3 cannot raise. Now Players 2 and 3 can check it down and hope one of them picks up a hand to eliminate Player #1. For such a situation, read the first and last comment on this thread.

Plus, if you do check out some of the rules, you'll see there is no uniformity. An action out of turn may be binding in some situations, but there is no iron-clad rule about when.

I had proposed the following rule for my home group:

A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act, but may call if an intervening player bets.

A verbal declaration out of turn is not binding if an intervening player bets, calls, or raises. In that situation, the player who acted out of turn is free to act in any manner when that player's turn to act arrives.

A verbal declaration out of turn is binding if all intervening players fold.

The hand of a player who deliberately acts out of turn shall be declared dead and the verbal declaration out of turn is invalid.

Re: Home game ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
The out-of-turn is binding only if the interveing player folds. In that situation, there is no valid reason to allow Player 3 to change his mind. His call, out of turn, reveals his intent to call the all-in if nobody else had called or raised before him. So when the intervening player folds, you should make the verbal declaration out of turn binding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I can think of a scenario where the players out of turn action didn't indicate an intent to call if there was no call or raise before him. Suppose that that player two is thinking about his action, and says something which is misheard by player 3. Player 3 mistakenly believes that player two has called. Player three had decided that if player 2 had called he would call because of the pot odds, but he would not call if player 2 folded. Player three announces his call thinking Player 2 had called. Now player two says hey I didn't act yet. This is particularly prone to happen if there is a player sitting between player 2 and player three who is already out of the hand

Re: Home game ruling
 

it's a home game, and no, it's not binding because it was not his action.

Re: Home game ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The out-of-turn is binding only if the interveing player folds. In that situation, there is no valid reason to allow Player 3 to change his mind. His call, out of turn, reveals his intent to call the all-in if nobody else had called or raised before him. So when the intervening player folds, you should make the verbal declaration out of turn binding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I can think of a scenario where the players out of turn action didn't indicate an intent to call if there was no call or raise before him. Suppose that that player two is thinking about his action, and says something which is misheard by player 3. Player 3 mistakenly believes that player two has called. Player three had decided that if player 2 had called he would call because of the pot odds, but he would not call if player 2 folded. Player three announces his call thinking Player 2 had called. Now player two says hey I didn't act yet. This is particularly prone to happen if there is a player sitting between player 2 and player three who is already out of the hand

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. I didn't think about the hypothetical that you posited.

Your hypothetical reveals why there shouldn't be an iron-clad rule. As soon as you create a rule, someone can think of a situation where the rule might not apply.

It is much more important to think about the reasons why acting out of turn is prohibited, and to impose a solution that is consistent with those reasons.

In a home game, a person will almost always act out of turn by mistake. They are not trying to gain a tactial advantage or shoot an angle. They forget someone else is supposed to act or they think that the intervening player has acted in a particular way (the hypothetical you posit).

In these situations, the solution to the problem is to do the best that you can to play the hand the way it would have been played if everyone had acted in turn.

So in the hypothetical at the top of this thread, that would mean that the call is binding if the intervening player folded.

In psandman's hypoethetical, I think you should make that action binding. The intervening player pretty much knows now that the out of turn player has no intent to raise. And there is no reason for the out of turn player to raise after calling out of turn, unless he's attempting to influence the action of player 2. Once player 2 knows player 3's intent, there really is no way to have the hand play out according to how it would have played out if everyone had acted in turn. So you should just make the out of turn call binding. Any other ruling opens the door to cheating.

Re: Home game ruling
 

I would rule he has to call.

Re: Home game ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would rule he has to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? What is the reasoning you have for that ruling?