Betting Out of Turn--What is the Ruling?

[EasilyFound]

This came up in my home tourney game.

We are three handed.

UTG raises 1000. I go all-in. While player C is thinking, UTG says, "I call." Player C says, "I'm still thinking." Then the dealer (another player who busted out but is dealing for us) asks if UTG is compelled to call. We ruled that UTG is compelled to call and cannot raise if Player C calls. Player C calls and UTG calls. UTG ane Player C are not all-in, so they play the hand while I watch.

Did we do this correctly?

I don't think actions out of turn are binding, though I'm not 100% sure.

[smoore]

yeah, call-call. he sure can't raise a call.

had he said, "I'm all-in." It may be different depending on the chipstacks.

Since he said "I call." He calls, he cannot raise unless player C makes a legal raise that villian can then reraise. (Not an angle, IMO, as he might well have not known C was still in and the raise reopens action.)

This ought to get good... I'm sure we'll have some people saying he CAN raise player C if C calls, others saying he can fold because he was out of turn and, "Didn't know C was in."

[EasilyFound]

The Home Tourney Poker site has a link to other links to many sites with poker rules.

Somes rule simply say that an out of turn be "may" be binding, but don't say when it "shall" be binding.

I guess the rule that we followed matches this rule:

Caro & Cooke's Rules of Real Poker

ARTICLE TEN - Betting Rounds, Action & Play Of Hands

10.08 ACTION OUT OF TURN.
A player who makes action out of turn shall be held to that action when it is his turn, unless intervening action changes the action the out-of-turn actor is facing. If a player checks or bets out of turn he may not then change his action when the action comes to him in turn. If a player checks out of turn he must check when it comes to him. If a player bets out of turn he must bet when the action comes to him. If a player calls out of turn and a player in between the better and the caller raises then the calling player may have the option to act on his hand as if he had not acted out of turn.

10.09 VERBAL DECLARATIONS OF ACTION --
1) In Turn: a verbal declaration of action is binding if when it is a player's turn to act he announces a fold, check, bet, call, or raise. The player shall be held to that action to the exclusion of all other actions. 2) Out of Turn: a player who makes a verbal declaration of action out of turn shall be held to that action when it is his turn, unless intervening action changes the action the out-of-turn actor is facing, in which case the player may act on his hand as if he had made no declaration.

[Khabbi]

So after reading those rules, I would interpret them to say that since player C called, UTG's out-of-turn call is binding and they continue to play the hand after the flop.

I run a weekly home game and here is my interpretation of how to rule on this.
For the sake of having an example lets say 3 players are in the hand. Button,Sb and BB.
Bt raises to 2dollars.
BB announces call.
The BB must call unless action by the small blind makes a call an illegal move.
For example the SB raises to 4 dollars the BB is not compelled to make that call because the small blind has made calling a 2 dollar bet an illegal move. At this point the bb can do what he pleases and is not gaining an advantage by doing this, in fact the sb is gaining the edge because he knows how bb is planning to act and has picked up information about BB's hand.

If I am wrong please correct me, thanks.

[EasilyFound]

But if the SB calls, then BB's call is binding? I don't like that rule because SB can now call knowing that he can't be raised behind him.

[EasilyFound]

I was the SB in the problem at the top of this thread. UTG open raised on the button. I was the short stack and made a move at the pot. Here is why I felt like, in this spot, that UTG's s call could not be considered binding unless the BB folded.

It is very deterimental to me, given the stack sizes of the other two players, to allow the BB to call knowing that UTG cannot raise and that UTG's call is money in the pot. It skews the pot odds that I tried to create by moving in and it eliminates my fold equity.

If UTG's call is binding if BB only calls, that gives the BB a huge tactical advantage in the hand. He can now call, see a flop, and require me to beat two hands instead of one.

As it turned out, it was ruled that UTG's call was ruled "binding," and BB called while getting somewhere between 3-1 and 4-1 to call after UTG's call was deemed in the pot.

So that is why in this instance I thought it should be ruled that UTG's call was not binding unless BB folded. BB should have to decide how to play the hand without knowing whether UTG is going to come over the top of him (UTG had both players covered at the table) or that he was getting great odds to call.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that was how I saw it at the time. As I said, my reasoning doesn't apply in a limit game or even in a NL cash game, or at least not as much. But in a tourney, late in the tourney, where the blinds are high and the stacks are shallow, and you want to make a move at the pot while you still have fold equity, adding money to the pot by making UTG's call binding if the BB calls has the potential to alter how the hand would have been played if it had been played out in turn.

BTW, I tripled up on the hand and went on to win the tourney, but it could very easily have turned out the opposite way.

Other thoughts are welcome.