Check Out Of Turn Can’t Make Aggro Action
I’ve been playing live for decades, and I guess this has just never happened to me or I’ve never seen it.
Obviously we all know that if someone bets out of turn, does something out of turn it stands. If the action in front hasn’t changed.
But tonight we’re heads up on the flop, this scummy fish who plays a lot, checks out of turn immediately as the flop is out. It’s on me… I bet $70
He now raises to $200
Dealer isn’t paying attention and I’m just like “Wow sick move, happy to check now you’re also happy to raise? Nice.
The dealer goes “He checked? Oh I didn’t see” the Fish says “I thought it was on me and checked”
Anyway I fold.
But the dealer then explains that because he checked out of turn he can “no longer make an aggressive action”. This reduces angling
In my mind, if I check, he check stands. But me betting the $70 changes the action and he can do anything.
1 floor didn’t care, was too dumb to comprehend.
Another floor agreed, all he can do is call
A 3rd floor was like “you changed the action”
Even though there was no action
But has anyone heard of this “can’t make an aggressive move” if you check out of turn or bet out of turn?
So same spot, it’s on me, moron bets $50 out of turn. If I were to now bet $10 he can’t raise many in the room were claiming
I’ve been playing live for decades, and I guess this has just never happened to me or I’ve never seen it.Obviously we all know that if someone bets out of turn, does something out of turn it stands. If the action in front hasn’t changed.But tonight we’re heads up on the flop, this scummy fish who plays a lot, checks out of turn immediately as the flop is out. It’s on me… I bet
Yes very common. In fact would call it standard.
Room rules will dictate this, but RROP does say an OOT checker cannot raise.
As for your last question on the $50 out of turn bet and you betting $10 in turn to him: He can call, raise any legal amount, or fold.
Ignoring strategic implications, if you're playing with this guy and he acts out of turn, call floor and hopefully he gets a warning. Happens again, call floor. Hopefully he changes what he's doing, or gets kicked out for a 24hr period.
It’s a good rule to have, and I have heard of it.
I am not sure I agree with most of the posters above. TDA opens up all options to the player who checked OOT if action changes (though it is also subject to penalty after the hand if the floor believes it is warranted). The only time TDA restricts players to non-aggressive actions is if they do not defend their action and let OOT action proceed behind them before speaking up.
53: Action Out of Turn (OOT)
A: Any action out of turn (check, call, or raise) will be backed up to the correct player in order. The OOT action is subject to penalty and is binding if action to the OOT player does not change. A check, call or fold by the correct player does not change action. If action changes, the OOT action is not binding; any bet or raise is returned to the OOT player who has all options: call, raise, or fold. An OOT fold is binding. See Illustration Addendum.
B: Players skipped by OOT action must defend their right to act. If a skipped player had reasonable time and does not speak up before substantial action (Rule 36) OOT occurs after the player, the OOT action is binding. Action backs up and the floor will rule on how to treat the skipped hand given the circumstances, including ruling the hand dead or limiting the player to non-aggressive action. See Addendum.
and
Example 2: THE 50-100. Post flop Seat 3 checks, Seat 4 checks, action is on Seat 5 when Seat 6 declares “check”.
Step 1: Action backs up to the correct player in order (Seat 5) who is not facing a bet.
Step 2: If Seat 5 checks then the action (a check) has not changed and Seat 6’s OOT check is binding. However, if Seat 5 bets, (say, 300), then the action to Seat 6 has changed from a check to a 300 bet. If action changes, then Seat 6 has all options open: call 300, raise to at least 600, or fold.
I am not sure I agree with most of the posters above. TDA opens up all options to the player who checked OOT if action changes (though it is also subject to penalty after the hand if the floor believes it is warranted). The only time TDA restricts players to non-aggressive actions is if they do not defend their action and let OOT action proceed behind them before speaking up.
One of the many places where the TDA rules are bad and RROP are much better.
It’s a good rule but I’ve never seen it.
I am not sure I agree with most of the posters above. TDA opens up all options to the player who checked OOT if action changes (though it is also subject to penalty after the hand if the floor believes it is warranted). The only time TDA restricts players to non-aggressive actions is if they do not defend their action and let OOT action proceed behind them before speaking up.
In most places deferring to TDA for cash games makes sense, but in this case you can protect players’ action with a very simple deviation I think you should do that. Playing out of position is hard enough without the mind games.
I agree I personally prefer the RRoP rules on this matter. And as you probably remember I carried the water for RRoP for many, many years here. But there is no central source for them and they haven't been updated in 20 years now, while TDA is managed by a group of capable experienced PRMs and gets updated every year or two.
It is great that some rooms with a long history of cash games, being run by experienced room managers, will continue to use their RRoP-based rulesets for cash games. But I think probably most agree that over time rooms are going to continue to shift towards TDA based rules, even for cash. I'd bet that the majority of rooms nowadays use TDA even for cash.
Hopefully, someday TDA adopts a cash game specific ruleset as well.
Either way, there is nothing about this issue that should make it different between cash and tournament. Hopefully sometime soon they update TDA to allow for restricting OOT checks to non-agressive action for 1 round. Until that time though, shrug. As long as the table knows a change in action will give the OOT actor all options again, and its enforced consistently, I have no problem with it. Play your hand like you would have without the OOT check rather than trying to take advantage of it yourself.
If the room doesn't follow the rule being discussed, there should still be a punishment for the angle. I would let the raise stand, then immediate remove the player from the room at the end of the hand.
Everywhere I've seen it in cash games, they're allowed to raise and there is no penalty. Honestly, I don't know if it's even a +EV angle if you average it out. It screams strength and will often backfire because it allows the other player to check their draw and get a free card. You're usually only going to stack someone if they were strong enough it was going to happen anyway or if it's the first time they've seen the move.
Everywhere I've seen it in cash games, they're allowed to raise and there is no penalty. Honestly, I don't know if it's even a +EV angle if you average it out. It screams strength and will often backfire because it allows the other player to check their draw and get a free card. You're usually only going to stack someone if they were strong enough it was going to happen anyway
But what if the guy who acted out of turn really did want to check? Now you've given the in position player a free card to beat you.
I like the consistency of the TDA rule better. In this instance, the guy checked out of turn. What if he bet $100 OOT, then action is backed up and someone bets $10, should he be limited to a call? I don’t think so.
I agree I personally prefer the RRoP rules on this matter. And as you probably remember I carried the water for RRoP for many, many years here. But there is no central source for them and they haven't been updated in 20 years now, while TDA is managed by a group of capable experienced PRMs and gets updated every year or two. It is great that some rooms with a long history of
Generally agree though I would love to see RRoP revitalized. Obviously not easy to do as there is no central non-proprietary organization to take charge. There there is also getting the Permissions from Robert's heirs (or whoever has the copyright now). Though the latter issue is less of an issue.
Heck, even rooms under the same corp umbrella have differing rules. I don't even think MGM or Caesars are completely consistent even on the strip (though I could be wrong.)
But finding the central body with the resources and influence AND the willingness to expend some of both for no particular gain is likely impossible to find.
Someplace like 2+2 could do "it" but I don't know if any of these have the necessary influence. But maybe it could be developed.
Just to be clear, this was cash.
I've since asked 3 people who were "Floor" and each person truly had no idea really.
I agree it's a dumb angle, it's 100% strength and you're just going to get the initial flop bet out of it
The RRoP rule only restricts him to a nonaggressive action if he checked OOT, not if he bet.
I meant to quote the RRoP rule but was on my phone at the time. Here it is. I forgot that an OOT call also binds him to non-aggressive action.
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. A player who has called out of turn may not change his wager to a raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn is binding unless the action to that player is subsequently changed by a bet or raise. If there is an intervening call, an action may be ruled binding.
The rules discussion has been interesting so I do not want to take away from that, however I do want to comment on the strategy comments that have been made here in the thread so far.
It has been assumed that the villain's actions were an angle and show strength. I possibly disagree with this take. There weren't enough strategic details in the OP to fully make that determination. There are a few situations where if I was the villain I would be happy with a check, but if my opponent bets I might consider raising depending upon the details, especially if I mistakenly thought I was out of position.
As an example, assume you are the villain and you flop a gutshot with a backdoor flush draw. You mistakenly think you are out of position and check. Your opponent makes what you perceive to be a weak bet (be it bet size or actions or whatever), a small raise might be a reasonable line, especially if you suddenly get informed that you are in fact in position and can take a free card on the turn (or semi-bluff any flush draw turn).
Sure, I think more often than not that given the limited strategic information in the OP that it shows strength more often than not, but it could be closer than most think.
Again, I realize that this was mostly a rules question (so the lack of strategic info is understandable), but others have made strategic comments and I just don't think those are necessarily 100% a given.
As a follow up, if villain genuinely was confused when he checked out of turn, he might view OP's bet as taking advantage of that and raise to see if OP was serious about the hand or just taking advantage of his screw up.
For example, villain flops 2nd or 3rd pair and checks thinking he is out of position so he wants to keep the pot small with a mediocrehand. He then feels OP's bet might be taking advantage of his out of turn check so he makes a small raise to get more information knowing he won't be putting much more money into this pot (unless he hits a monster turn).
Good point Dinesh. I was just looking at the TDS definition that does make the distinction between different OOT actions.
I do see room for "deliberate" to be subject to interpretation in the Roberts rule as written.
As with all angles the ruling typically gives the angler the right to do what they intended to do from the start within the rules.
As Jim L points out it is possible that it wasn't an intentional angle. It could even have been a case where the player has a set and thought the other player had checked and wanted the other player to improve or pick up a draw so they could get paid off on one or two later streets. But now they might think they will get called by a raise and have a chance to double up.
I remember back in the day when the out of turn (OOT) check person was held to a fold or call and I wish the TDA ruled this way as well. Because basically every OOT action turns out badly for the other players (and for me).
Most of the time this type of bad news is not an OOT check but its an OOT bet or raise and so everyone will know what I have if I check/call prior action because I am always going to be faced with a bet/raise. So the only person I can make money from is the OOT player. Who if I am ahead of will typically fold or if I am behind will typically win a lot of my chips. But the biggest problem is that I will almost always fold to OOT action if I have not bet yet. Because I will likely win the minimum or lose the max.
How about in this situation (tournament)
Seat 2 :SB
Seat 3: BB
Seat 4: folds
Seat 5: raises
Seat 6 me: I'm thinking what to do
Seat 1: OOT calls seat 5's raise
I reply, "I haven't acted yet". I re-raise
dealer lets seat 1 pull his bet back
(floor agrees this was the correct decision)
is it?
How about in this situation (tournament)
Seat 2 :SB
Seat 3: BB
Seat 4: folds
Seat 5: raises
Seat 6 me: I'm thinking what to do
Seat 1: OOT calls seat 5's raise
I reply, "I haven't acted yet". I re-raise
dealer lets seat 1 pull his bet back
(floor agrees this was the correct decision)
is it?
Yes it is.
If you had just called or folded then Seat 1 would have to call. But because you changed the action Seat 1 can do anything including raise (which is the crazy thing)
Thank you for confirming.
It doesn't make sense to me, I would think that he would at least have to surrender the 'call', if he decides to fold. However, if that's the rule then it is what it is.
Thank you for confirming.
It doesn't make sense to me, I would think that he would at least have to surrender the 'call', if he decides to fold. However, if that's the rule then it is what it is.
There are some rooms that have this rule for cash games, though I don't like it. I don't know how that works under TDA rules for tournaments, maybe someone else can let us know.
