Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Action out of Turn: Best Rule??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Action out of Turn: Best Rule??

    Due to the recent flux of threads on “Action out of turn”, I was wondering what do people think is the best way of dealing with it.

    As far as I am aware there are 3 main ways of dealing with it, they are:
    1. Old Rule: Chips in Stay In
    2. TDA Rule: Action out of turn “may” be binding
    3. Poker Stars Rule: Action out of turn “may” be binding

    I’ve given more details of each one below including where possible quoting the rules and linking to them. Below that I have given examples and shown what would happen in each specific circumstance:
    1. Old Rule: Chips In Stay In
    This is the old fashioned rule that I’m sure we’ve all played under at some stage, basically if someone puts chips into the pot out of turn they stay in the pot no matter what. If someone raises more then them, then they get the option to call that bet, or forfeit the chips they have already put in. Generally they cannot raise when they have acted out of turn, and been raised more than their bet.
    2. TDA Rule: Action out of turn “may” be binding
    This rule is from the TDA and can be found here (link to a pdf doc). It states:
    “Action out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call or fold does not change action. If action changes, the out of turn bet is not binding and is returned to the out of turn player who has all options including: calling, raising, or folding. An out-of-turn fold is binding.”
    So basically if you act out of turn, it is binding if action remains the same to you i.e. the amount to call does not change. However if the action changes i.e. the amount to call changes, then you receive all your options back.
    3. Poker Stars Rule: Action out of turn “may” be binding
    This rule is used at all Pokerstars events world wide and can be found here under the action tab. It states:
    “Verbal Action In and Out of Turn – Verbal declarations in turn regarding wagers are binding. Players must act in turn at all times. Players who intentionally act out of turn to influence play before them may receive a penalty. Action out of turn may be binding if the action to that player has not changed. If the skipped player(s) check or call the existing minimum bet, the out of turn player will also be forced to check or call the minimum existing bet. If the skipped player(s) fold, the out of turn player will be held to their out of turn bet. If the skipped player(s) raise, the out of turn player will have their out of turn action returned to them with all their options restored.”
    This is similar to the TDA rule but slightly different. It becomes much easier when you see the examples below. Also the rule below it deals with Plysical Action out of turn but it is the same as Verbal Action.


    EXAMPLES
    SPOILER

    (All examples are post flop):
    Example 1:
    Player A bets 200, Player B is skipped, player C raises to 800. Player B decides to fold.
    Ruling
    Rule 1: Raise to 800 stands
    Rule 2: Raise to 800 stands
    Rule 3: Raise to 800 stands

    Example 2:
    Player A bets 200, Player B is skipped, player C raises to 800. Player B decides to call 200.
    Ruling
    Rule 1: Raise to 800 stands
    Rule 2: Raise to 800 stands
    Rule 3: Player is forced to call and take his other 600 back

    Example 3:
    Player A bets 200, Player B is skipped, player C raises to 800. Player B decides to raise to 400.
    Ruling
    Rule 1: Raise to 800 stands
    Rule 2: Player B gets to take his 800 back and has all his options back
    Rule 3: Player B gets to take his 800 back and has all his options back

    Example 4:
    Player A bets 200, Player B is skipped, player C raises to 800. Player B decides to raise to 1600.
    Ruling
    Rule 1: Player B’s 800 stays in the pot, he has the option to call the 800 more or fold and forfeit the 800 chips.
    Rule 2: Player B gets to take his 800 back and has all his options back
    Rule 3: Player B gets to take his 800 back and has all his options back

    Example 5:
    Player A checks, Player B is skipped, player C raises to 400. Player B decides to check.
    Ruling
    Rule 1: Bet of 400 Stands
    Rule 2: Bet of 400 Stands
    Rule 3: Player C is forced to check and must take his 400 back.


    I will not give my opinion here yet, as I don’t want to influence anyone but I will give my opinion in a few days time.

    So what option do you guys prefer:
    1. Old Rule: Chips in Stay In
    2. TDA Rule: Action out of turn “may” be binding
    3. Poker Stars Rule: Action out of turn “may” be binding
    4. Some other rule, please explain
    29
    Old Rule: Chips in Stay in
    34.48%
    10
    TDA Rule: Action out of turn "may" be binding
    58.62%
    17
    PokerStars rule: Action out of turn "may" be binding
    0.00%
    0
    Other (please add details in a post)
    3.45%
    1
    Atari Jaguar
    3.45%
    1
    Last edited by DonkeyPokerTour; 20-11-11, 23:22.

    #2
    The Pokerstars rule is already gone.

    Myself and Toby were blue in the face explaining the reasons why it was a bad rule and it at EPT London and decided to change it ourselves during the event as we knew it was going to be changed for EPT San Remo.

    I will explain my reasons for this later as I've just finished in Greece and about to have a drink.
    €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
    Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
    €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
    CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by JP Poker View Post
      The Pokerstars rule is already gone.

      Myself and Toby were blue in the face explaining the reasons why it was a bad rule and it at EPT London and decided to change it ourselves during the event as we knew it was going to be changed for EPT San Remo.

      I will explain my reasons for this later as I've just finished in Greece and about to have a drink.
      Updated the above post, cannot update the poll, if you dont mind JP please give the reason as to why the Pokerstars rule was bad, it would be much appreciated.

      Comment


        #4
        Action out of turn happens and forcing the player who acted out of turn to call/check if action doesn't change is stupid. They weren't acting out out on purpose, so they should keep their option to raise. The skipped player now has a big advantage.

        The didn't see a player and assumed they folded/called. The TDA rule is the one that keep action as close as possible to the player's intention. Which should the the aim of these rules.
        Allowing all options if there is a raise is good too as it is what should have happened too.

        If a TD thinks a palyer is abusing any rules, he should punish him directly, not include blanket punishments in the rules that will catch mostly genuine mistakes.

        Comment


          #5
          i think tda rule is best but it should be tweeked alittle as you might have read on here about a hand that happened in jps game a few weeks ago,if lets say player B acts out of turn and player A acts without noticing player b has acted out of turn play should be frozen dealer should let player A take back his chips and explain what his options are and then play resume as normal playerA should not be expected to notice playerB acting out of turn, i think that might be the fairest way in my opinion

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by imidg View Post
            i think tda rule is best but it should be tweeked alittle as you might have read on here about a hand that happened in jps game a few weeks ago,if lets say player B acts out of turn and player A acts without noticing player b has acted out of turn play should be frozen dealer should let player A take back his chips and explain what his options are and then play resume as normal playerA should not be expected to notice playerB acting out of turn, i think that might be the fairest way in my opinion
            The TDA rule does that as far as I can see

            Comment


              #7
              Will be interesting to see JP's take on the Stars rule as it looks kind of appealing to me, no doubt he has experienced problems with it.

              How do people feel about a mandatory one hand penalty for acting out of turn? Would encourage everyone to pay more attention.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by 8611 View Post
                How do people feel about a mandatory one hand penalty for acting out of turn? Would encourage everyone to pay more attention.
                Would like this, and escalating penalties for repeated offences

                Comment


                  #9
                  It would never work.
                  Paying attention just doesn't cut it al the time.

                  Say action in on player in seat 10, player 1 one folds out of turn, i see him fold and assume its on my. I bet/raise.
                  I've now acted out of turn. It's not my fault in any way, a penalty is over the top imo

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by 8611 View Post
                    Will be interesting to see JP's take on the Stars rule as it looks kind of appealing to me, no doubt he has experienced problems with it.

                    How do people feel about a mandatory one hand penalty for acting out of turn? Would encourage everyone to pay more attention.
                    This is the penalty already given at jp's games! But one hand meh it isnt much of a punishment realy?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Ah it is, you'd pay a lot more attention sharpish, but as mellor says it could be unfair. Seats ten and one are disasters for seeing what's going on as it is. In the example though I think only the first person out of turn should be punished, ie the guy who induced the other to act.

                      I reiterate the point made in the other thread though, that td rule is very exploitable and that if the person who was to act first acts without knowing the other guy has acted he should also get his options back.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by imidg View Post
                        i think tda rule is best but it should be tweeked alittle as you might have read on here about a hand that happened in jps game a few weeks ago,if lets say player B acts out of turn and player A acts without noticing player b has acted out of turn play should be frozen dealer should let player A take back his chips and explain what his options are and then play resume as normal playerA should not be expected to notice playerB acting out of turn, i think that might be the fairest way in my opinion
                        If player B acts out of turn surely it's pretty much impossible for player A to then act without noticing it? TDA rule is the best available, no change needed.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I think punishing players automatically or too heavily for acting out of turn is a mistake. As Mellor says the vast majority of incidents are accidental and caused by lack of concentration or line of sight issues. Further, when a player acts out of turn they do not gain an advantage - it's the players who were skipped who are now acting with extra information. That should be punishment enough for one-off offenses.

                          I totally support TDs having penalties available for repeat offenders, but blanket penalties are a terrible way to run the game. For example there was an automatic two-hand penalty for folding out of turn at The Goliath in Coventry earlier in the year. This led to me calling the clock on an UTG player who couldn't decide whether to raise or fold preflop on the last hand before the break. I was absolutely bursting for a piss, couldn't leave without getting a penalty, and was losing my break time because this one guy couldn't make a simple decision.

                          I'm not saying it should be ok for me to get up and walk away any time I like, but there shouldn't be an automatic penalty for any and all circumstances either.
                          "I can’t find anyone who agrees with what I write or think these days, so I guess I must be getting closer to the truth." - Hunter S. Thompson

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re the Pokerstars Rule or the "Joe Hachem Rule"

                            At the PCA this year preflop action is folded to Player A who bets 1k (I'm not sure what the blinds were) Joe is next to act (with AA) but before he acted Player B to his left raise to 5k.

                            So using the TDA rule which was in place, action was brought back to Joe who just called the 1k forcing Player B raise of 5k to stand and action is folded back around to Player A who calls the 5k. Hachem then reraised.

                            Stars decided to change the TDA rule for situations like this as they thought Player A who had done nothing wrong was at a big disadvantage. As the TDA rule allowed Hachem to act twice on the same street putting him at big advantage.

                            The first time that the change in rule was explained to me (UKIPT Edinburgh) I thought it made some sense as it was only for multiway pots. It didn't really come up at that event but at EPT Barcelona and EPT London it did and there were some major flaws to the new rule as by this stage stars brought the rule in for heads up situations also.

                            1: With the new rule a player could go all-in (out of turn) on the flop knowing that his chips would never have to stay in the pot. Because if it is checked into him, he was forced to check behind and if there was a raise infront of him he'd have all his options back.

                            2: In a three way pot if your first to act and have flopped top set on a draw heavy board, knowing that the third player in the hand will raise, so you decide to check so you can check raise. Again this wouldn't happen if after you've checked player 3 raises out of turn, and is then forced to check behind if player 2 checks.

                            3: But the biggest reason to change it back to the TDA rule was that the new rule didn't improve on the TDA rule.


                            Re giving the player who acts in turn all there options back if they didn't realise a player had acted out of turn behind would never work.

                            As we would have to change the action in turn rule. Which currently is all action in turn is binding!!
                            Effectively we would be allowing for situations like Player A bet 10k, Player B (next to act) bets 8k not seeing the raise in front of him and then looking to get their chips back. It would just never work!!

                            The TDA rule as it currently stands is by far the best option out there which is the reason it's used at all major events worldwide!

                            Ultimately Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. You can gain an advantage if your paying attention to whats happening on your table when other players around you are not paying attention.

                            Also as keen poker player you should know the rules of the tournament that your playing in.

                            Re the Mini WSOP ruling Eoin had a huge advantage given to him by Ciaran but because he didn't know the rule and wasn't paying attention to what was happening on the table he wasn't able to maximise from Ciaran's mistake.
                            Last edited by JP Poker; 22-11-11, 12:30.
                            €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
                            Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
                            €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
                            CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I think JP has adeptly shown the TDA rule is the best we have at the moment, however, it is an important rule and as i had essentially the same situation as eoin at the mini wsop (albeit less controversial) and kinda kicked off this debate i'll giv my 2 cents,
                              my issue at the time was "i couldn't be told which rule was in place as it gave me an advantage" (i was the in turn player)-this was ridic obv and jp subsequently sorted this but knowing the rules of a tourney can be tricky & this is one that clearly should be water-tight for dealers going into a tourney & imo the agrieved player as it were should have his options clearly outlined if the situation arises not have him guessing which rule he's working with

                              - as pointed previuosly the rule has one major flaw: heads up to the river, player b bets 3/4 pot out of turn-anything, other than check by player A basically=bluff..(issue if deep & pot big)

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Fair play to JP for engaging on this. TD's have a tough job and this does seem to be one of those rules which is about balance - no real right or wrong answer. From my perspectiive here is how it should work:

                                1) Acting out of turn is not good for the game. It is prone to angling and can create issues at the table. It should be penalised to some extent
                                2) One should never gain an advantage of any kind by acting out of turn
                                3) Persistantly acting out of turn should result in penalties of increasing severity
                                4) In a heads up scenario (where angling is most likely to happen), where action is on Player A and player B bets out of turn the following should happen:

                                - Player A retains all options. He can check or bet. He cannot simply 'call' what player B has bet out of turn.
                                - If player A checks, player B must check behind (this gives a good incentive to not act out of turn). In this example he gets his chips back because player A has elected to check.
                                - If player A bets, player B can only call the bet, he cannot raise and any difference in chips get returned to player B. Player B can fold and take back the chips he pushed in out of turn.

                                Using this rule heads up it means that player A gets to control the action on the street. Player B is not forced to leave any chips in the pot but he cannot raise the action once it gets to him.

                                I think this balances the rights of both players and punishes player B - but not too much.

                                If a multiway pot the same thing happens, player acting out of turn must check behind or call, he cannot raise. If the action is then changed after him by another player he gets all his options back once it returns to him.

                                Would this not work?

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by markc View Post
                                  Fair play to JP for engaging on this. TD's have a tough job and this does seem to be one of those rules which is about balance - no real right or wrong answer. From my perspectiive here is how it should work:

                                  1) Acting out of turn is not good for the game. It is prone to angling and can create issues at the table. It should be penalised to some extent
                                  2) One should never gain an advantage of any kind by acting out of turn
                                  3) Persistantly acting out of turn should result in penalties of increasing severity
                                  4) In a heads up scenario (where angling is most likely to happen), where action is on Player A and player B bets out of turn the following should happen:

                                  - Player A retains all options. He can check or bet. He cannot simply 'call' what player B has bet out of turn.
                                  - If player A checks, player B must check behind (this gives a good incentive to not act out of turn). In this example he gets his chips back because player A has elected to check.
                                  - If player A bets, player B can only call the bet, he cannot raise and any difference in chips get returned to player B. Player B can fold and take back the chips he pushed in out of turn.

                                  Using this rule heads up it means that player A gets to control the action on the street. Player B is not forced to leave any chips in the pot but he cannot raise the action once it gets to him.

                                  I think this balances the rights of both players and punishes player B - but not too much.

                                  If a multiway pot the same thing happens, player acting out of turn must check behind or call, he cannot raise. If the action is then changed after him by another player he gets all his options back once it returns to him.

                                  Would this not work?
                                  What if player A wanted player B to bet or was all in (like in the starbarr DN hand), this gives player B a huge advantage, if he is bluffing or has a marginal hand then he is shoving for no risk and gains an advantage by seeing player A's reaction.

                                  I think if you shove all-in out of turn there has to be a scenario where those chips stay in.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by gorrrr72 View Post
                                    What if player A wanted player B to bet or was all in (like in the starbarr DN hand), this gives player B a huge advantage, if he is bluffing or has a marginal hand then he is shoving for no risk and gains an advantage by seeing player A's reaction.

                                    I think if you shove all-in out of turn there has to be a scenario where those chips stay in.
                                    Ok - so modify my suggestion slightly and give even more advantage to player A. Allow him to call the out of turn bet from player B if he wishes, allow him to check and have player B be forced to check behind or allow him to bet another amount and then let player B have alll options available to him including raising (if not all in already).

                                    All of these things are workable. As well as having a way for the chips to stay in there should be a way for player A to kill the action on that street by checking and forcing player B to check behind. This would totally prevent player B from gaining any advantage from moving in...

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      I have one question before I cast a vote. (dont know whether it should be asked here or in the other "out of turn thread".

                                      Why is it that when a player has shoved all - in (or just bet) out of turn, be it an attempt to angleshoot or not), why cant the player whos turn it is to act ask for what rule is in place? Surely by not letting the player know what his options are, we are ruling in favour of the player who has shoved out of turn?
                                      I know the simple answer is that each player should read and know the rules before each tourney. But remember, there are only a handfull of people who read on here about rules, and even less than a handfull that will ask at a tournament for a written set of rules before it begins. Why is it a problem to inform a player of the rule if and when a problem occurs? if the answer to that is that we are being unfair to the player who has shoved out of turn, then thats another problem, simply because it was his "breaking" of the out of turn rule that led to the issue in the 1st place.

                                      Connie
                                      Last edited by connie147; 23-11-11, 18:41.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        a penalty for 1st offence acting out of turn would be harsh, repeatedly doing it then i wouldnt have a problem

                                        I am relative novice live and heres one example where I acted out of turn at UKIPT

                                        I was watching players faces and movements and guy to my right gave a raised eyebrow / resigned sort of expression and leaned forward, i glanced down and didnt see his cards and i called wherupon he stated he hadnt acted..he had cupped his hands round his cards and i didnt see them. I felt a bit of a dick and apologised stating that i thgt he had mucked as i didnt see his cards. I was told i could take my chips back. Player to right then folded and i called.

                                        To get a penalty for that would be harsh imho

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Originally posted by connie147 View Post
                                          I have one question before I cast a vote. (dont know whether it should be asked here or in the other "out of turn thread".

                                          Why is it that when a player has shoved all - in (or just bet) out of turn, be it an attempt to angleshoot or not), why cant the player whos turn it is to act ask for what rule is in place? Surely by not letting the player know what his options are, we are ruling in favour of the player who has shoved out of turn?
                                          I know the simple answer is that each player should read and know the rules before each tourney. But remember, there are only a handfull of people who read on here about rules, and even less than a handfull that will ask at a tournament for a written set of rules before it begins. Why is it a problem to inform a player of the rule if and when a problem occurs? if the answer to that is that we are being unfair to the player who has shoved out of turn, then thats another problem, simply because it was his "breaking" of the out of turn rule that led to the issue in the 1st place.

                                          Connie
                                          Hi Connie,

                                          100% you can ask what the ruling is and you should be giving the ruling before you make your decision.

                                          The problem at the Mini WSOP was Eoin acted before he asked for a ruling.
                                          €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
                                          Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
                                          €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
                                          CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Surely to Christ the TD's at the PCA didn't come to the conclusion that the rule acted as a big advantage to Hachem? If I was him in that scenario I'd be livid as I basically have to announce that I'm holding AA or KK.
                                            I'm assuming that the blinds are something like 200 400 when player A bets 1000, player C then bets out of turn for 5000 and player B (Joe) has to flat the 1k for the 5k to stand, so he's basically saying I'm putting at least 12.5xBB in here. Well I'm sorry but if I'm sitting behind player C I'd fold JJ+ or AK even if I'm less than 5 BBs and if I'm player A I'm dropping KK. This ruling probably allows Joe to win the 1K plus 5K and the blinds but no more, he can't 3 bet and be perceived to be light or get 4 bet by a semi strong hand behind.
                                            Crazy summary by any TD who thinks Hachem was favoured here.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              If Player A was at any disadvantage it was because he either didn't understand the rule or else was just an idiot.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Originally posted by connie147 View Post
                                                I have one question before I cast a vote. (dont know whether it should be asked here or in the other "out of turn thread".

                                                Why is it that when a player has shoved all - in (or just bet) out of turn, be it an attempt to angleshoot or not), why cant the player whos turn it is to act ask for what rule is in place? Surely by not letting the player know what his options are, we are ruling in favour of the player who has shoved out of turn?
                                                I know the simple answer is that each player should read and know the rules before each tourney. But remember, there are only a handfull of people who read on here about rules, and even less than a handfull that will ask at a tournament for a written set of rules before it begins. Why is it a problem to inform a player of the rule if and when a problem occurs? if the answer to that is that we are being unfair to the player who has shoved out of turn, then thats another problem, simply because it was his "breaking" of the out of turn rule that led to the issue in the 1st place.

                                                Connie
                                                One thing I always make sure about when facing a bet out of turn is the rule involved. If I'm not 100% satisfied that the dealer knows what will happen in each scenario (whether I check/call/bet/raise) I will ask for the floor to advise, and I've never had a floor say that they can't tell me. I agree, it would be ridiculous if they said that.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  Originally posted by JP Poker View Post

                                                  Stars decided to change the TDA rule for situations like this as they thought Player A who had done nothing wrong was at a big disadvantage. As the TDA rule allowed Hachem to act twice on the same street putting him at big advantage.
                                                  Stars weren't thinking straight.

                                                  How is Player A at a disadvantage? He has raised:

                                                  - does he think Hachem is flatting to then fold to a 5k bet that he knows is binding?
                                                  - does he think Hachem is flatting to only then flat a 5k bet that he knows is binding, where the original raiser still has the option of re-raising?
                                                  - does he not realise that Hachem can only be flatting to make a big play / value bet knowing that Player C's 5k at the very least is now in play if he flats?

                                                  As Azari points out player A should only be continuing in the hand with a monster (or a read that Hachem will make a play). He has more info re Hachem's hand than he would have if Hachem had simply raised him in turn. He is not in any way at a disadvantage (save in so far as Hachem arguably has a spot to make a massive bluff).

                                                  Also Hachem has not really been given the option of acting twice, unless player A is stupid enough to flat (which he obv did). Really Hachem is just being restored what was rightly his, the right to reraise with the preflop nuts. Its player C who is being punished, and rightly so.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #26
                                                    Originally posted by markc View Post
                                                    Fair play to JP for engaging on this. TD's have a tough job and this does seem to be one of those rules which is about balance - no real right or wrong answer. From my perspectiive here is how it should work:

                                                    1) Acting out of turn is not good for the game. It is prone to angling and can create issues at the table. It should be penalised to some extent
                                                    2) One should never gain an advantage of any kind by acting out of turn
                                                    3) Persistantly acting out of turn should result in penalties of increasing severity
                                                    4) In a heads up scenario (where angling is most likely to happen), where action is on Player A and player B bets out of turn the following should happen:

                                                    - Player A retains all options. He can check or bet. He cannot simply 'call' what player B has bet out of turn.
                                                    - If player A checks, player B must check behind (this gives a good incentive to not act out of turn). In this example he gets his chips back because player A has elected to check.
                                                    - If player A bets, player B can only call the bet, he cannot raise and any difference in chips get returned to player B. Player B can fold and take back the chips he pushed in out of turn.

                                                    Using this rule heads up it means that player A gets to control the action on the street. Player B is not forced to leave any chips in the pot but he cannot raise the action once it gets to him.

                                                    I think this balances the rights of both players and punishes player B - but not too much.

                                                    If a multiway pot the same thing happens, player acting out of turn must check behind or call, he cannot raise. If the action is then changed after him by another player he gets all his options back once it returns to him.

                                                    Would this not work?
                                                    I like your rule with one qualification; if player A bets and player B folds THEN PLAYER B MUST FORFEIT THE AMOUNT OF PLAYER A'S BET to a maximum of the full amount of his own out of turn bet.

                                                    This disincentivises him from betting out of turn.

                                                    Comment


                                                      #27
                                                      Originally posted by Arazi View Post
                                                      Surely to Christ the TD's at the PCA didn't come to the conclusion that the rule acted as a big advantage to Hachem? If I was him in that scenario I'd be livid as I basically have to announce that I'm holding AA or KK.
                                                      I'm assuming that the blinds are something like 200 400 when player A bets 1000, player C then bets out of turn for 5000 and player B (Joe) has to flat the 1k for the 5k to stand, so he's basically saying I'm putting at least 12.5xBB in here. Well I'm sorry but if I'm sitting behind player C I'd fold JJ+ or AK even if I'm less than 5 BBs and if I'm player A I'm dropping KK. This ruling probably allows Joe to win the 1K plus 5K and t the blinds but no more, he can't 3 bet and be perceived to be light or get 4 bet by a semi strong hand behind.
                                                      Crazy summary by any TD who thinks Hachem was favoured here.
                                                      Maybe you misunderstood my post re what happen at the PCA.

                                                      The rule that was in place is the TDA rule. So player acted out of turn, action was brought back to hachem who call the 1k bet, which in turn forced player 3's action out of turn to stand.

                                                      Hachem repopped when it came back into him.

                                                      During the summer, stars reviewed their rules and the action out of turn Rule was one of those rules. Which Was first implemented at UKIPT Edinburgh.

                                                      The change didn't improve on the TDA rule and at EPT London it was change Back again.
                                                      Last edited by JP Poker; 24-11-11, 04:49.
                                                      €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
                                                      Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
                                                      €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
                                                      CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

                                                      Comment


                                                        #28
                                                        Originally posted by markc View Post
                                                        Fair play to JP for engaging on this. TD's have a tough job and this does seem to be one of those rules which is about balance - no real right or wrong answer. From my perspectiive here is how it should work:

                                                        1) Acting out of turn is not good for the game. It is prone to angling and can create issues at the table. It should be penalised to some extent
                                                        2) One should never gain an advantage of any kind by acting out of turn
                                                        3) Persistantly acting out of turn should result in penalties of increasing severity
                                                        4) In a heads up scenario (where angling is most likely to happen), where action is on Player A and player B bets out of turn the following should happen:

                                                        - Player A retains all options. He can check or bet. He cannot simply 'call' what player B has bet out of turn.
                                                        - If player A checks, player B must check behind (this gives a good incentive to not act out of turn). In this example he gets his chips back because player A has elected to check.
                                                        - If player A bets, player B can only call the bet, he cannot raise and any difference in chips get returned to player B. Player B can fold and take back the chips he pushed in out of turn.

                                                        Using this rule heads up it means that player A gets to control the action on the street. Player B is not forced to leave any chips in the pot but he cannot raise the action once it gets to him.

                                                        I think this balances the rights of both players and punishes player B - but not too much.

                                                        If a multiway pot the same thing happens, player acting out of turn must check behind or call, he cannot raise. If the action is then changed after him by another player he gets all his options back once it returns to him.

                                                        Would this not work?
                                                        1: Players who act out of turn on a regular basis will and do receive a penalty.

                                                        2: Acting out of turn with the current TDA rule doesn't give the out turn player an advantage. By acting out of turn the in turn player (players) know the out of turn players intentions. The TDA rule allows the in turn player to control the betting action.

                                                        3: Again penalties are in place for repeat offeners.

                                                        4: Making the out of turn player to check behind if it's checked into him will result in more players acting out of turn (using it as an angle).
                                                        The reason for this is, say the out of turn player has a straight or flush draw and wants to see a free card. All they have to do is go all-in as they know 100% that their chips won't be committed to the pot, because if the in turn player checks their forced to check behind, if the in turn player bets that have all their options back and can fold. This is one of the reasons why the Pokerstars rule didn't work.

                                                        Also say the in turn players has the nuts and the out of turn player puts in a value bet on the river. With your rule above if the in turn player now bets, the out of turn player can't reraise more. When clearly the in turn player wants the out of turn player to reraise him.

                                                        Again using your rule if we use the example from the Mini WSOP. When Ciaran goes all-in, Eoin has no chance of these chips staying in the pot. Because if Eoin checks you're forcing Ciaran to check behind and if Eoin bets Ciaran will just muck as he was bluffing. This has to be a major disadvantage to Eoin and this is why the TDA is the best option.
                                                        Last edited by JP Poker; 24-11-11, 12:24.
                                                        €10,000 GTD New Monthly Tournament
                                                        Village Green Card Club, Last Thursday of the Month, €270 Freezeout
                                                        €1,000,000 GTD - Irish Open
                                                        CityWest Hotel, 6th-13th April

                                                        Comment

                                                        Working...
                                                        X