Interesting Situation at Wynn... Correct Ruling?

Still no clarification on what the correct ruling is. It seems that I may have to keep out whatever I have already cut out and can pull the rest that is still in my hand back. Anyone confirm this? Al, what would you rule? And please don't let them kick me in the nuts.

[IceKing]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that I may have to keep out whatever I have already cut out and can pull the rest that is still in my hand back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. So ruling was correct. And I hope that the other guy got somekind of warning.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Still no clarification on what the correct ruling is. It seems that I may have to keep out whatever I have already cut out and can pull the rest that is still in my hand back. Anyone confirm this? Al, what would you rule? And please don't let them kick me in the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say forcing you to bet the amount you had cut out was typical but I'm not sure it's best or correct. It seems this sort of ruling gives a lot of power to the player acting out of turn.

Let's say the player acting out of turn said "call" and you decided to now stack off (which is possible even if he hadn't said anything since you in the process of releasing chips). Generally if you now stack off the floor will rule his call not binding since it was out of turn AND looks like it was based on a misunderstanding of the amount you bet. This gives a lot of information to the player acting out of turn with virtually no penalty (other than the fact he risks a ruling that forces him to call).

Perhaps a better rule is to make it clear that ANY action taken out of turn is NOT binding *; but when action is taken out of turn the player in the middle of making his action now has unlimited (or nearly unlimited) options regarding his own bet. Obviously this type of rule needs better wording.

Comments?

~ Rick

* Of course repeatedly acting out of turn subjects a player to being dealt out.

[IceKing]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say the player acting out of turn said "call"..

[/ QUOTE ]

..but in this case he didnt.. He said all-in, he raised, best and correct ruling in this situation was made.

You cant make such a rule that would be right in every situation, as you very well know. It is good to think better rules and try to improve things, but it is not good to try to figure out a rule that would fit to every situaton and solve all the problems. Poker is a complex game played by people - very different kind of people.

Rules are guidelines, floor makes the ruling.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say the player acting out of turn said "call"..

[/ QUOTE ]

..but in this case he didnt.. He said all-in, he raised, best and correct ruling in this situation was made.

You cant make such a rule that would be right in every situation, as you very well know. It is good to think better rules and try to improve things, but it is not good to try to figure out a rule that would fit to every situaton and solve all the problems. Poker is a complex game played by people - very different kind of people.

Rules are guidelines, floor makes the ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct ruling was arguably made but a better set of rules (not more complex) would take the burden off the floor, who are often poorly trained and lacking in good judgment. That said, maybe the current level of chaos is good for the games [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

OK, let's say he did say call? What should the correct ruling be? It seems like one of you is more in the spirit of the rules and agrees rules are situational so you can't just make the rule and another wants a set of complex rules [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps a better rule is to make it clear that ANY action taken out of turn is NOT binding *; but when action is taken out of turn the player in the middle of making his action now has unlimited (or nearly unlimited) options regarding his own bet. Obviously this type of rule needs better wording.

Comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if it's cool to comment on your own idea but now that I've thought about it the more I realize the above is a bad idea. I'll elaborate on the badness of my own ideas only upon request [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, let's say he did say call? What should the correct ruling be? It seems like one of you is more in the spirit of the rules and agrees rules are situational so you can't just make the rule and another wants a set of complex rules [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure which "one of you" I am. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I'd like simpler, very well written rules that are easily applied to the vast majority of situations without nitting up the game as it is played today. BTW, when I wrote a suggestion in a post elsewhere in this thread I now realize my suggestion doesn't achieve much good so it's been rescinded.

I'll try harder this time.

Let's say your opponent did say "call" while you were eight chips into the process of cutting off perhaps up to a palm sized stack of chips (should be about twenty) into the pot.

What should your options be? It's clear you must have some options since we don't completely know your intentions and your opponent made the first mistake.

1. If eight chips are already cut out, you probably should be forced to leave at least those chips in the pot. Whether you should be allowed to reduce the cut to the minimum (two chips) is debatable, but it looks wrong.

2. Clearly you should be able to continue stacking off the twenty or so chips already in the palm of your hand.

3. Since you haven't finished betting, you can try to take the shot of going back to your main stacks and continue to add chips. I don't like this form of betting technique, but I see it almost every day I play (mostly the 3-5, 5-5, and 5-10 fixed or spread buy-in games around LA).

Now your opponent's out of turn action is not automatically binding, but it may be ruled binding or his actions restricted under certain circumstances. If you have an hour to kill you might want to read the monster more angles than a protractor thread I started a month or so ago.

Anyway...

In number 1. above I would think your opponent would be bound to call at least the eight chips already cut out. If you were allowed to reduce to the minimum (which I don't think looks right) your opponent still can only call.

In number 2. above his call probably should not be ruled binding, but once he states call and sees weakness (because you stopped an apparent twenty chip bet at eight chips), he should not be allowed to now come back with a raise (this move was discussed in the 'more angles than a protractor" thread).

In number 3. above it would be unreasonable to force your opponent to call a massive amount of chips based on what is really a common mistake.

I think the above three examples show good judgment (if I were the floor), but I'm not sure I or others (who probably don' have as much playing experience as I do) would excercize this level of judgment on a busy day when tired.

I do think Ciaffon's latest online B&M rulebook covers out of turn and verbal decelerations out of turn pretty well. Here's a snip:

"8. A verbal statement denotes your action and is binding. If in turn you verbally declare a fold, check, bet, call, or raise, you are forced to take that action.

...

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."

I'd add that someone's out of turn action may be restricted (e.g., you can't now raise after verbally saying call out of turn) but otherwise I like Ciaffone's wording. Unfortunately, most clubs don't have rules as well thought through as Bob's.

~ Rick

PS Aren't you sorry you asked? My friend's wife said (to him privately but I know) that if you ask me what time it is, I'll describe how to build a watch. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Benoit]

[ QUOTE ]
1. If eight chips are already cut out, you probably should be forced to leave at least those chips in the pot. Whether you should be allowed to reduce the cut to the minimum (two chips) is debatable, but it looks wrong.

2. Clearly you should be able to continue stacking off the twenty or so chips already in the palm of your hand.

3. Since you haven't finished betting, you can try to take the shot of going back to your main stacks and continue to add chips. I don't like this form of betting technique, but I see it almost every day I play (mostly the 3-5, 5-5, and 5-10 fixed or spread buy-in games around LA).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say only the 2nd option is appropriate if there is a call out of turn. In addition, you should also have the option to making that your bet and obligating the out of turn player to still make the call. It was his mistake/angle after all.

If the one making the bet/raise decides to continue laying more stacks from his hand, the out of turn callers call should not stand and he can still call or fold. But should he still be able to raise if the bet is increased a good amount from when he acted out of turn? I'm not familiar with how that should be handled.

[EasilyFound]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. If eight chips are already cut out, you probably should be forced to leave at least those chips in the pot. Whether you should be allowed to reduce the cut to the minimum (two chips) is debatable, but it looks wrong.

2. Clearly you should be able to continue stacking off the twenty or so chips already in the palm of your hand.

3. Since you haven't finished betting, you can try to take the shot of going back to your main stacks and continue to add chips. I don't like this form of betting technique, but I see it almost every day I play (mostly the 3-5, 5-5, and 5-10 fixed or spread buy-in games around LA).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say only the 2nd option is appropriate if there is a call out of turn. In addition, you should also have the option to making that your bet and obligating the out of turn player to still make the call. It was his mistake/angle after all.

If the one making the bet/raise decides to continue laying more stacks from his hand, the out of turn callers call should not stand and he can still call or fold. But should he still be able to raise if the bet is increased a good amount from when he acted out of turn? I'm not familiar with how that should be handled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting thread. I guess this thread explains why there is no one, single rule for what to do when someone acts out of turn.

The goal of the rule should be to get everyone to act as if everyone acted in turn. Now that is not possible in every case, but that is why I think the person acting in turn here is required to bet something. That person clearly intended to bet, but the amount of the bet is unknowable unless the bettor confesses. Ideally, that person should be required to put in the amount of the originally intended bet. As a practical matter, that is not possible because there is no way to prove the size of that bet aside from reading the mind of the bettor. That would explain why you were required to put in at least as much as you counted out and apparently intended to include your bet, at least as it appeared to the caller (assuming that the caller was not shooting an angle and just mistakenly announced call thinking that you had completed your bet). But because you intended to bet at that pot, and apparently intended to bet at least $800, I don't think that you should be allowed to reduce the amount or check. You should not be allowed to alter your intention b/c you now know that the next player intended to call what you appeared (at least to that player) to bet.

You should, however, be allowed to continue betting if you were not finished and wanted to bet more, notwithstanding that you now know that the next player wanted to call. If you do, then the player who acted out of turn should be allowed to act without being bound by his previous, out of turn action, because the caller could not have intended to call an amount that had not been announced or that was more than what you appeared to be betting.

Again, this reasoning is based on the premise that the person acting out turn did not do so intentionally to obtain information and a tactical advantage.