Muck Ruling at Bally's $1/3 NL

[PennDisc]

This happened a few nights ago at Bally's in AC.

One loose horrible player had been open-raising from all positions with hands like A5o or K9s. He opens under the gun for $20 with a stack of about $200. I am in middle position and I look down to find AKo and after a couple folds, I say "all-in" and push my $140 or so forward a bit. As it turns out, the player to my right had not acted yet. The dealer waves me off and motions for this player's action. He raises to $100. He was fairly solid for preflop raises (although a loose limper). While he could just be trying to get heads up with the bad player, I sensed that it was at best a coin flip, but given that he'd seen me say all-in already and still raised to $100, I believed I was even worse than that. I fold, and the dealer takes my cards and mixes them into the muck. All folds to the bad player who calls the $100.

Now, at this point, one old guy who was not involved in the hand calls for a ruling on my verbal all-in. The floorperson comes over and asks the dealer for the sequence of events. He says that since I verbally declared all-in, I am held to that action, but then upon seeing that my cards were accepted into the muck by the dealer, he says that my fold will have to stand since I don't have cards.

The raiser to my right (Tom) also made a comment that he might be "saving me" with his raise, leading me to believe that he wanted me to fold for my own sake. I believed this for a few reasons: (1) We had been friendly throughout the night and were privately chatting about when we'd get a hand to take down a couple of the bad players. All things being equal, he said he'd rather take the other players' stacks. (2) The original loose raiser had about $60 more than me, and it seemed likely that he'd fold for the second raise, so Tom would win more money taking his stack than mine, given that he wouldn't get both.

What is the right ruling here? Should they go into the muck for my cards and hold me to my verbal call / let my fold stand / add my stack to the pot as dead money? Also, is the old guy out of line asking for a ruling on a hand he's uninvolved in (it's not a tournament) and which neither participant in the hand is very interested in getting a ruling on? Am I wrong for trying to throw away AKo before the flop in the first place?

[blunch black]

This is kind of a rough call. The verbal call should be binding, and your money should have stayed in the pot. I don't know what the dealer was thinking. But as far as going into the muck to fish out your cards....I mean c'mon. You could say you forgot what you had. I doubt the player to your right was trying to save you as well, how would he know that you would be able to fold?

Edit: As far as the old guy's actions, there was just a post here about correcting dealer mistakes selectively. Maybe the old guy wanted the loose raiser's money and hoped to have the hand called dead.

[Randy_Refeld]

The typical rule is "action out of turn may be binding." Since the situation that existed whne the action reached you differed from the situation that existed when you acted out of turn you action should not be binding in this case.

Randy Refeld

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
The typical rule is "action out of turn may be binding."

[/ QUOTE ]

The same applies to bananas.

[RogerZBT]

I'm not sure I agree with the arguement that since the situation changed, the verbal "all-in," which was still a viable option, was no longer binding.

I think the floor got it exactly right. The verbal "all-in" should have stood, but given the circumstances, the fold had to stand. Unless the hand was tabled, there's no way to verify the holdings and just asking "what'd you have?" doesn't make sense. I can't see a floor making someone put in $140 dead money.

AS for the old man, some people make it their mission in life to make sure every rule is followed and the pot is correct down to the last dollar. I don't think most people would have said anything, especially after the cards had been mucked.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I agree with the arguement that since the situation changed, the verbal "all-in," which was still a viable option, was no longer binding.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have never seen an experienced floor man make someone's out of turn action binding when there has been aggressive action in between. The reason we have a rule "action out of turnj may be binding" is to prevent angle shooting (popular angle is for a late player to bet and then check when it is check to him). A player indicating he wants to bet prior to the action reaching him has gained no advantage if a player bets in the interim. Anytime it is clear that a player doesn't understand the action to him he is allowed to reconsider if nobody has acted behind (the key is it has to be clear there was a misunderstanding).

Randy Refeld

[blunch black]

[ QUOTE ]
A player indicating he wants to bet prior to the action reaching him has gained no advantage if a player bets in the interim.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the difference between being all-in against a super loose player or being all-in against a fairly solid player. He gained the knowledge that he's up against a potentially better hand than he originally thought. I'd go all-in everytime if I knew I could retract my bet whenever a good player calls it.

Edit: And, assuming solid play, the type of hands one would CALL an all-in with are significantly better than the hands one would GO all-in with. Raising in front of a player who has gone all in out of turn is essenially the same as calling an all-in and puts the raiser on a top notch hand. I vote unfair advantage.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd go all-in everytime if I knew I could retract my bet whenever a good player calls it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not what happened here. The player in front of him BET. This is not a situation where there was action behind. This is also not a case of an intervening player calling. When A bets and then C calls out of turn C's action "may be binding." Now that B has made a large raise it is up to C to act. By forcing C to put money into the pot when there was a gross misunderstanding gives B an incentive to hide his cards; now the game will grind to a halt as every player will need to verify that the players that appear to be out of the hand are in fact out of the hand.


Randy Refeld

[spadeclub99]

How is the room and the NL game at Bally's.

[PennDisc]

I actually do think that it is an unfair advantage because I was able to gain even more advantage about my opponent's hand given his action after my premature action. Knowing that I had a hand which I was willing to go all in vs. the first raiser, the second player must have had a very big hand to make a raise, knowing that I had a hand that I might push in behind him. Thus, I was able to put him on a very high pocket pair based on his reaction to my bet. I do think that there could be a little discretion here though, given that he didn't seem interested in holding me to my bet and he is the only player that I have gotten an advantage on. On the other hand, every player (well, at least the thinking ones) acting behind me has also gotten more information about this player's hand and can act accordingly, which is an argument for making the bet stand since I could have killed his action. But in this situation, it was a $100 reraise over a $20 UTG raise - so you'd figure that any players would put him on a big hand anyway.

So, in any case, this is what happened in the hand: The UTG raiser called the $100 and the flop came Q high rainbow. He then moved in for about $100 and was called by the preflop reraiser. He flipped over KQs and the guy on my right tabled AA. No help for the maniac and he lost his stack. As it turns out, I would have lost my stack even if I got it all in heads up with him as I had wanted to (although I would have gotten all in with him with a 3-1 advantage).

As for the room and the game: The room itself isn't anything special, although you can get free hot dogs in addition to drinks. The game in the late afternoon was full of rocks so it basically sucked. It was a blind-stealing contest and one dealer was even raking a quarter or $.50 out of those pots. After about 7 or 8 pm it got really good though and 3 or 4 people would routinely see the flop for a $15 (5xBB) raise. They also would overplay their hands. My buddy won a big pot that started out with $100 in it on the river and his $50 bet was raised by 2 players, and his $300 reraise was called. He showed aces full and both other guys had trip T's that they made on the turn. Another guy routinely moved in $100-150 on the flop, even into pots of $20. I got to pick him off with KK when 4 players called my $18 preflop raise. He moved in on a flop of J22 and showed J3o when I called his all in. In my mind, this game is fantastic but can hinge on the presense of 2-3 weak players.