Interesting Situation at Wynn... Correct Ruling?

Hey Rick, what time is it?

[Benoit]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I wouldn't know for sure if he really wanted to call my eventually larger bet when he acted out of turn. He could be on a draw and hoping his out of turn call will unsettle me into reducing the size of my bet. He could also be on a weak hand and would only call a small bet incase you are bluffing while folding to a larger bet. This out of turn call could be his attempt at feeling out if your bet was a bluff (if he assumed you would give up on it and stop stacking more chips as a result).

I actually think the current rules are probably good enough, but it's something to think about. Thanks for getting me thinking. Now that I have thought about it, (whether I am betting for value or on a bluff) I would just pretend he hasn't acted yet to finish my bet. I would hate to change my actions in case I was being angle shot.

[meep_42]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this case players out of turn action is binding. I would say the ruling was correct, if OP was cutting chips in to the pot, IOW he was clearly betting. So bet is 800 and next to act is all-in as he decleared.

How much did they make you to bet? If more than 800, that part of ruling was incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

The dealer, who is a friend of mine, said that I had 700 already cut out so that was my bet. Afterwards, he said he thought I was going to bet 1200.

[/ QUOTE ]

That dealer needs to be fired for a ethics problem.

-d

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Rick, what time is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just got in. It's late, really late.

~ Rick

[EasilyFound]

I hope that many people read this thread and offer their comments. My thinking about this problem has been clarified by this thread and the comments to it. There really is no one rule that applies to this problem, as another poster to this thread has already said.

Viewed as a purely ethical matter, and in an ideal world, each party, the original bettor and the out-of-turn actor, should be required to act as originally intended. For the original better, that means placing the bet that was intended, whatever the amount. That is why, it seems to me, that the dealer said you were bound to put in as much as you intended. And for the person who acted out of turn, that means calling as much of a bet as the caller originally intended to call. Under these circumstances, whether the out-of-turn actor calls whatever size bet the bettor makes (the originally intended be bet) depends on the size of it. Perhaps the out-of-turn actor intended to call any sized bet, in which case the out of turn action---call---should be binding. Or maybe he intended to call a bet up to a certain size, but no more, in which case the out of turn action would not be binding if the bet was more than the out of turn actor intended to call. Only the out-of-turn actor knows the answer. That is why I believe that the rule says that an action out of turn "may" be binding.

But as a practical matter, you can't implement the rule that I just announced. For two reasons. First, people don't always act in the ehtically correct manner, and there is no way to establish what the ehtically correct manner is without reading someone's mind. (And I don't intend to say that the OP is unethical b/c he changed the size of his bet. I can't say that I would not have done the same thing that he did.) Second, sometimes people don't know how they would have acted. Suppose that the bettor said, "I raise," but had not yet calculated how much to bet, and the next player to act says, "I call," before the original bettor decides how much to bet. In that situation, the only rule that you can enforce against the original better, as an ethical matter and as a practical matter, is to say that you have to make the minimum raise. So any rule that you create has to be flexible enough to cover all situations and take into account that, as a practical matter, it may be impossible or difficult to determine how a person would have acted if everyone had acted in turn.

Again, this all assumes that the person acting out of turn is not intending to shoot an angle or influence the original bettor's action.

Now, if the person acting out of turn is acting unethically, intentionally acting out of turn to shoot an angle or influence the action of the person whose turn it is to act, then I think that the person who acted out of turn should have his hand declared dead. If nobody else was in the hand, then the pot would go to the person whose turn it was to act. If there were other people in the hand, then the person acting in turn should complete his bet and the hand should continue. As a practical matter, that remedy is never imposed because, I suspect, you can never know for sure, absent an admission, that the out of turn actor was acting unethically. And in most instances it is probably true that the person acting out of turn made an honest mistake and did not act out of turn intentionally to influence the betting.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
That dealer needs to be fired for a ethics problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you elaborate?

~ Rick

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That dealer needs to be fired for a ethics problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you elaborate?

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sorry, but you are plain wrong. The dealer did nothing wrong, in fact, he is the one who called the floor when I tried to bet the minimum. The rule was that I had to stay with what I had cut out which was 700 at that point. He said he thought I was going to make a bet of 1200 if the guy didn't say all in out of turn. He is also a very good dealer.