NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”

Rick Nebiolo · #1 10-11-2005, 11:45 PM

This situation comes from a 5/10 blind fixed buy-in no limit.

Action up to the river was unimportant.

On the river Player A takes a stack of twenty or so $5 chips held inside the palm of his hand and reaches well forward of his cards to place a bet. He clearly is in the process of cutting off several stacks of five chips. Just as he finishes cutting off the second stack of five, Player B says “call”. Note in these smaller fixed-buy games it’s common for players to place small bets (any that can be held in ones hand) in this fashion. The more proper manner of cutting off stacks behind ones cards and then pushing forward or placing them into the pot in one motion is considered “too nitty” by most of the player base [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Just as Player B says “call”, Player A stops cutting off his bet leaving two stacks of five chips ($50 total). It was apparent Player A was betting a weak hand of some sort and didn’t want to commit the amount he planned (probably the $100 or so held in his hand) when he was “sure” to be called.

At this point there is a brief dispute regarding how many chips were cut off but it is quickly settled at ten chips ($50). Action is now on Player B. Instead of calling, he now pushes all-in (about $300 more). It turns out he had a strong hand but not the immortal nuts.

Initially Player A, the dealer and most of the table say “you can’t do that – you already called” or something similar. Player B immediately indicates that his verbal action was “out of turn and not binding” and his all-in raise should stand.

Naturally the floor was called to the table. What’s the proper decision?

~ Rick

PS Player B was "very curious" regarding the proper ruling so I will email him a link to this thread. I'll be back with comments, results and a brief discussion of a similar hand from a WPT final table (the Shoten-Francisco hand) very late tonight.

Randy_Refeld · #2 10-11-2005, 11:57 PM

Action out of turn MAY be binding.

One of tow things is true, player B was shooting and angle or he thought player A was done betting and he was in turn.

If he thought player A was in turn the actions stands as a call. This most likely isn't the case, so we should look at what to do with an angle shooter.

When someone intentionally cats out of turn (shoots an angle) we should interpret the rules in the way that is least favorable to him. In this case since he stated "call" and action out of turn MAY be binding the floor should rule that the call stands. Note: this principle only applies if there was no intervening aggressive action.

As far as how plyaer A was betting. In NL there is an understanding that a player might have to return to his stack for more chips. THe general rule is his bet must be made in a continuous motion as opposed ot the limit rule that his bet must be made in a single motion, so plalyers at NL have an obligation to wait until the player in front of them is done betting.

Rick Nebiolo · #3 10-12-2005, 12:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Action out of turn MAY be binding.

One of tow things is true, player B was shooting and angle or he thought player A was done betting and he was in turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify things, it was very clear to all that Player B knew that Player A had not yet completed his bet. He stated as much when the floor came to the table.

~ Rick

Randy_Refeld · #4 10-12-2005, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Action out of turn MAY be binding.

One of tow things is true, player B was shooting and angle or he thought player A was done betting and he was in turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify things, it was very clear to all that Player B knew that Player A had not yet completed his bet. He stated as much when the floor came to the table.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a firm believer that angle shooting has no place in poker so he definitely should not be allowed to raise.

MisterKing · #5 10-12-2005, 12:14 AM

When people start shooting angles, I think the best thing to do is to instantly get right to the letter of the rules and begin enforcing it. Also, I am assuming this is a heads-up affair.

If the house rule is that chips that cross one's cards have been wagered (e.g. if I bring 10 chips in front of my cards in my hand, I must bet all 10), then Player A's bet is however many chips he has in his hand. Player B announced call when this bet was made (doesn't matter that the chips hadn't been cut... they'd crossed "the line"), so Player B must call and cannot raise.

If the House rule is that a bet is made when chips hit the felt in front of one's cards, then the bet is $50 plus however much Player A wants to wager from the remaining chips in his hand. If Player A started with 20 $5 chips in his hand, he can bet up to $100 in all... it is his action and he doesn't have to stop making his bet/putting chips on the felt just because Player B said something. So however much Player A bets, Player B must call. Player B may not raise and he may not fold. To hold Player B to any other standard would not only encourage but reward players acting out of turn. In big bet poker, acting out of turn can have a massive impact on how betting unfolds, as we see in your example. In a limit game, among casual players, Player B might be able to raise since the increment is only 1BB and it is possible the out of turn declaration was an honest mistake. Nonetheless, this is big bet poker, and Player A's action must be protected.

#6 10-12-2005, 12:18 AM

Ok so im kinda confused on the whole in one motion thing. I know that in limit, you must make one forward motion with all the chips to raise someone, or verbally declare a raise.

Now in no limit there is some dispute over this correct? I can see if someone says raise, and then goes back and forth to the stack to get the right amount, but if someone doesnt say anything and puts X amount of chips out, they would only be able to raise or bet whatever was in their hand or can they come back for more at this point.... mind you with no verbal decleration.

On a second note: in Lauhglin a few weeks ago, playing at the River Palms. They had a "house" rule there, that said whatever was in your hand when you crossed the line (their tables had a yellow betting line) was the amount you bet, so if in this case, the guy had $150 or more in his hand, and moved accross the line, then he would have to bet that much, didnt matter what he stacked out or what not.

Might be an angle shot, could be he got excited with the strength of his hand.....either way the guy was in the process of indicating a bet, guy said call. If he was next to act then that call should be binding regardless if the guy bet 50 or 500.

Randy_Refeld · #7 10-12-2005, 12:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If the house rule is that chips that cross one's cards have been wagered (e.g. if I bring 10 chips in front of my cards in my hand, I must bet all 10), then Player A's bet is however many chips he has in his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having this rule in a NL game is a very poor game structure. IN a case like this the player puts soime chips out and returns the rest to his stack. How would you suggest we determine how many were in his hand?

Normally in NL you can return for your stack for more chips; however, with the rapid growth of NL poker there are a lot of people both playing and working in poker rooms that are unfamiliar NL rules and procedures.

MisterKing · #8 10-12-2005, 12:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Action out of turn MAY be binding.

One of tow things is true, player B was shooting and angle or he thought player A was done betting and he was in turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify things, it was very clear to all that Player B knew that Player A had not yet completed his bet. He stated as much when the floor came to the table.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in that case I agree that Player B deserves the least favorable interpretation of the rule. Again, I don't know what the house rule is on what constitutes a legal bet and what constitutes a string bet, but the fact that Player B knew A wasn't done betting may mean the floor allows A to bet as much as he wants (as much as all in and as little as the $50 already on the felt) and make B call that amount.

In any event, there is no way Player A gets out of having bet the $50. He tabled it before anything out of the ordinary happened. Since Player B has (as far as we know in this thread) not shot this particular angle before, we cannot kill his hand solely on the basis of an angle shot. Player B does get a warning that next time his hand is dead and his stack may be forefeited at the Floor's discretion.

Rick Nebiolo · #9 10-12-2005, 12:22 AM

As an aside I'm still trying to send a link to this thread to Player B so he can make corrections in the facts or state his case since the decision was widely discussed later by the players and several of the casino staff. So far I can't read the the last letter of the address he gave me so it's already bounced twice. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

~ Rick

MisterKing · #10 10-12-2005, 12:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the house rule is that chips that cross one's cards have been wagered (e.g. if I bring 10 chips in front of my cards in my hand, I must bet all 10), then Player A's bet is however many chips he has in his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having this rule in a NL game is a very poor game structure. IN a case like this the player puts soime chips out and returns the rest to his stack. How would you suggest we determine how many were in his hand?

Normally in NL you can return for your stack for more chips; however, with the rapid growth of NL poker there are a lot of people both playing and working in poker rooms that are unfamiliar NL rules and procedures.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not advocating for the rule you quoted, and I agree it is problematic for deeper stacked NL games. I simply stated that IF it is the rule in effect (and I have often seen that exact rule enforced), then that is the way the ruling should go. Point being is that even if the rules suck, they must be enforced.