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 al
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.
The surrender thing tends to happen when it is actually somebody's turn after a bet and a raise. if they don't see the raise but put out chips to call the original bet then the ruling will be they don't have to call the raise but they have to surrender the chips they put out for the call.
I hate this rule and when I am in the hand as the raiser I always say to the dealer that the player can take back his erroneous call. I would say about half the time the dealer and the rest of the table (in tournaments) agree that the player can take it back.
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.
Surrendering the undercall is only when the undercall is in turn, according to TDA:
51: Binding Declarations / Undercalls in Turn
A: General verbal declarations in turn (such as “call” or “raise”) commit a player to the full current action. See Illustration Addendum
B: A player undercalls by declaring or pushing out less than the call amount without first declaring “call”. An undercall is a mandatory full call if made in turn facing 1) any bet heads-up or 2) the opening bet on any round multi-way. In other situations, TD’s discretion applies. The opening bet is the first chip bet of each betting round (not a check). In blind games the posted BB is the pre-flop opener. All-in buttons reduce undercall frequency (See Recommended Procedure 1). This rule governs when players must make a full call and when, at TDs discretion they may forfeit the amount of the intended undercall and fold (see Illustration Addendum). For underbets and underraises, see Rule 52.
C: If two or more undercalls occur in sequence, play backs up to the first undercaller who must correct his or her bet per Rule 51-B. The TD will determine how to treat hands of the remaining bettors based on the circumstances.
The rule about OOT action I quoted earlier is what holds for OOT calls.
RRoP does not have any rule about forfeiting part of the bet. Either the player is forced to make the correct sized bet, or their bet is returned to them and they have all options (gross misunderstanding).
I think dealer is wrong.
Player can lose the right to bet, and be forced to check, but should largely never lose the right to raise.
FWIW, I noticed this interesting language in the Glossary of Terms that is appended to the 2025 World Series of Poker® Official Tournament Rules -- i.e., not in the enumerated rules but included in the document.
ACTION OUT OF TURN: Subject to a penalty and is binding to the Out of Turn Participant if the action to that Participant has not changed. A check, call or fold does not change the action. If action changes, the Out of Turn bet is not binding and is returned to the Out of Turn Participant who then has all options available including making a call, raise or fold. An Out of Turn “FOLD” is binding; the dealer should immediately muck the hand. If the Out of Turn action is passive and occurs during a betting round that began heads-up and was not accidentally prompted by the dealer, the Out of Turn Participant will be limited to a passive action (fold, check, call) when action is on the Out of Turn Participant.
When I went to the WSOP last summer, I planned to ask a floorperson whether this language accurately reflected how the rules would be enforced (or if the enumerated rule that generally addresses out-of-turn action -- all options are available if the action changes, without exception -- would be followed), but I never got around to asking anyone there. The language seems to track RRoP, and I suspect it has been in the Glossary of Terms for years without anyone giving it a second thought.
Good catch. I assume that the enumerated rules control.
The glossary should not include such specifics for this reason. It could refer to section numbers so that their drafting software (presumably, hopefully) propagates changes gracefully.
