Action Out Of Turn Question

[EasilyFound]

I hope this post is okay here. I posted it in the Home Tourney section, but there aren't as many people in that forum.

In a professional casino, what is the rule for acting out of turn? Is the action binding no matter what? Or can the player take it back if nobody else has acted yet?

I will provide a link to my post in the Home Tourney forum describing the problem that arose in a home tourney in which I played. Answer here or there if you like. Link is here.

Thanks for your time.

[EasilyFound]

bump

[tonypaladino]

I beleive it depends on the casino. If this is a home game, you should ask the host to decided on a rule, and let all the players know.

[The Goober]

Here's what Robert's Rules of Poker has to say:

[ 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 ]

I.e. if the players that you acted before do anything except check, you are allowed to change you action. If the skipped players all check, then your original action can be binding.

I think that its pretty rare that the rulebook is actually hauled out in a casino unless it looks like you are angle shooting. If it was an honest mistake it usually doesn't make any difference.

[EasilyFound]

Well, that rule does not say when it shall be binding or must be binding. My home group follows a rule that says the chips put in out of turn are in the pot. You are not allowed to take them back before someone else acts. Was just wondering how many people follow that rule. Or whether they do something different or what happens in a casino if someone bets out of turn.

[The Goober]

No, I think robert's rules are pretty clear.

Suppose on the flop SB checks, BB checks, and now MP1 bets out of turn (ahead of UTG). The dealer stops the action and now its UTG's turn. If UTG checks, than MP1's bet must stand. If UTG bets, then MP1 can now either call, raise, or fold.

The idea is that you can't use betting out of turn as a way of scaring someone in front of you into checking (either b/c he's afraid of you or b/c he wants to check-raise) and then change your action into a check to get a free card.

It sounds like the rules in your game are a bit different, although I do like the simplicity of it. The problem comes when some bets out of turn as an honest mistake, and the skipped player now decides to bet instead. Especialy in a NL game, the skipped player could make a big bet and the guy who acted out of turn might be forced to throw in his original bet while folding his cards at the same time.

As with most of these rules, though, I think the point is that honest mistakes shouldn't be a big deal, and nits and angle shooters shouldn't be able to give someone grief because they made one. In my cardroom, for example, if you call one bet (in turn) not realizing that it was raised, you are allowed to take your bet back if you want to fold instead. Technically most rulebooks wouldn't let you take your bet back, but again, honest mistakes shouldn't be a big deal.

[ QUOTE ]

The idea is that you can't use betting out of turn as a way of scaring someone in front of you into checking (either b/c he's afraid of you or b/c he wants to check-raise) and then change your action into a check to get a free card.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an idea that makes no sense to me. Every player is aware that they can not be certain of what the players who act after them may do.

If you make the action out of turn binding, you unfairly give the player who was skipped a free shot because he know knows what one player after him is going to do. and he gets to act accordingly. While I don't mind giving this disadvantage to the player who acted out of turn, there is no reason to disadvantage everyu other player in the hand.

Example -- Player 1 has a good hand and wants to get as much money into the pot as possible. He considers the possibility of a check raise but is concerned that the three players behind him will check around so he decides to bet. (player 3 and Player 4 are both on a draw and would like free cards) before he actually acts, Player two bets out of turn. The action is now stopped and Player 1 asks the dealer whether that action is binding. If the dealer tells the player that the action is binding, Player 1 now gets to check knowing that he will get the chance to raise when the action comes around to him. But if the dealer pushes back Player 2s bet and tells them that the bet is not binding, Player 1 has to at the very least consider the possibility that the action will check around if he checks. Thus he is put back in the position he should have been when he first was supposed to act.

[EasilyFound]

Robert's Rule Of Poker, "Betting and Raising," Rule 13, allows you to take back your call and reconsider your action if someone behind you raised and you did not know it, so long as nobody after you has acted. We follow this rule in our game. If you call thinking that the pot has been unraised, you are allowed to retrieve your bet.

[EasilyFound]

[ QUOTE ]
If the dealer tells the player that the action is binding, Player 1 now gets to check knowing that he will get the chance to raise when the action comes around to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hadn't thought about that scenario before. Is it feasible to prevent Player 1 from check-raising in that spot? Or is that just too much rules imposed? But I agree, that in a friendly type game, where people aren't betting out of turn to get a tactical advantage, that the action should not be binding. But I think I'm in the minority on that one.

Thanks for the post.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Example -- Player 1 has a good hand and wants to get as much money into the pot as possible. He considers the possibility of a check raise but is concerned that the three players behind him will check around so he decides to bet. (player 3 and Player 4 are both on a draw and would like free cards) before he actually acts, Player two bets out of turn. The action is now stopped and Player 1 asks the dealer whether that action is binding. If the dealer tells the player that the action is binding, Player 1 now gets to check knowing that he will get the chance to raise when the action comes around to him. But if the dealer pushes back Player 2s bet and tells them that the bet is not binding, Player 1 has to at the very least consider the possibility that the action will check around if he checks. Thus he is put back in the position he should have been when he first was supposed to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally action out of turn MAY be binding. It would be a really bad idea to give player one a ruling on whether or not player two's out of turn action will be binding until after player one has acted.

When a plyer acts out of turn one of two things are true (1) they are shooting an angle, (2) they made a mistake and thought it was their turn. In the case of (1) they need to be forced to put the money into the pot. In the case of (2) if they thoguth it was their turn they thoguth it was checked to them, if in fact it becomes checked to them there is no reason to allow them to make some other action. If someone acts that they thought had already acted they can now act on their hand has they haven't already acted on that situation.