Borgata ruling

[Paul2432]

I wasn't in this hand, but I thought the ruling was wrong. The game is NLHE 1/2 blinds.

Four or five players limp pre-flop, SB calls, big blind checks. On the flop BB checks and it gets checked around without the SB ever acting. This all happened fairly quickly.

At this point SB says that he has not acted and bets out. A couple of players fold and MP now raises and then all hell breaks loose. Everyone is shouting at each other. The floor is called and rules that the bet and raise stands. SB says MP can only call or fold.

Agree?

Question: If the player to your right acts out of turn and then you act thinking that he acted in turn, have you yourself acted out of turn (and thus your actions are restricted)?

Paul

[Thythe]

I think that if you act when someone has been skipped, you have acted out of turn. If you aren't paying attention and miss that someone has been skipped, then it's your own fault (though I'm sure I'm guilty of it many times). To me the ruling seems OK.

[Randy_Refeld]

First off when the SB fails to protect his action he loses his right to act. After the dealer and players allow him to act anyway the players that are after him may act on their hand in anyway they chose.

Randy Refeld

[italianstang]

Protect his action? The actions that happened after him were all checks, most likely non-verbal checks, which as we know can happen VERY quickly. The SB most likely did not even see what was happening, I don't think he should be expected to "protect his action" in this circumstance.

[Big O]

If the SB failed to let the dealer know in a timely manner than he has lost his right to act and play should proceed. The SB should have said something when the BB acted. Then there would not have been this hooplaa. The floor made the right call by letting it stand

Big O

[Mastermmmm]

This is exactly the way I have seen it happen in Las Vegas. There are usually even signs in the Pokerrooms that state the rullings from the floor stands.

[JoeU]

In my opinion, I think that the SB and MP are acting based on information they obtained due to a loss of control in the hand, possibly by the dealer. Since ALL players checked before the SB said anything, the floor should have ruled that it was checked around and proceed with the turn card. I think the SB was betting because he thought everyone was weak when they checked around. MP noticed that the SB noticed this and was acting accordingly.

Looks like a check 'round and 5 players to the turn, or at least should look like that.

Joe

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like a check 'round and 5 players to the turn, or at least should look like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. This opens the door to collusion. Two players are drawing, so they quickly check before a third player who should have been first in the round. I think the ruling was correct.

Regards,

T

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
The floor is called and rules that the bet and raise stands. SB says MP can only call or fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

The floor is correct. If the SB can bet, the action after can surely proceed normally. The SB is trying to protect his weak bet by saying this.

Regards,

T