blonde poker forum

A really rather weird thing happoened at Luton last week, perhaps someone can enlighten me as to the thinking behind this rule.

Steve Read, to my right, has a habit, when Raising (which is almost every hand) of saying "raise", then FIRST putting the CALL in the middle, then he counts out the Raise & places that in. No prob there. I never heard him say "Raise", but saw his "call" chips go in, so I Passed. Naturally. Then the domino effect took over, & Joe Grech, to my left, also passed. No prob, no fuss, case closed, it was a mistake on my part, I apologised, end of story.

Except......

Young Scott Sadler, still to act, said, "is Steve Read's hand still "live"?

Everyone chuckled. Of course it is, why should it not be?

He went on to explain that they have a Rule at Luton, indeed all Grosvenors, that if two people Pass out of Turn, as myself & Joe Grech mistakenly did, the RAISERS hand is DEAD.....!

We all rubbished poor Scott, so the TD was summoned. "Well, it' not "two people acting out of turn, it's "more than two" people actng out of turn. If they do so, the Raisers hand is killed".

What?

Why?

Any clues as to the logic behind the innocent party (the Raiser) being penalised?

And think of how this could be exploited!

And think what, say, Barry Neville might have to say if his hand was voided because two players behind him Passed out of turn.......

Anyway, apologies from the whole table to Scott, who was, bizarrely, proven right. What a weird thing. Scott was NOT challenging Steve, just making the point, & Scott did nothing wrong at all.

Any ideas why this Rule exists?

And I thought that string betting in USA was wierd!! (Where you can pick up a handfull of chips, cross the line and drop as many as you like, when you like. ie you can drop say 5x1000 chips, keep your hand over the line, glance at your opponent, and then continue to drop more chips!!!!)

How strange TK - I would also like to know.

It does seem quite a bizzare rule, but this is the possible thinking behind it.

The amount of players still to act might affect the size of his raise.

Perhaps the rule came into being to stop people, after one person has already passed out of turn, to deliberately dwell in order to induce more out of turn actions. Trying to gain more information than their position allows them, whilst still protecting their right to choose the size of their raise.

You'd need a few players acting together to exploit this, and all it takes is for the raiser to say "hang on, my go still" to stop it. 3 players would have to muck very quickly, be sitting tofether, and another player still would get the benefit. This would be relatively difficult.

To exploit it the other way, (ie, without this rule) you just need to get the guy to your left to pass out of turn before you announce your raise size. This would be relatively easy.

I hear you Tank. But it's a fundamental, surely, that an innocent player cannot be penalised for the improper actions of others? It's not HIS fault they choose to act out of turn.

It's the "out of turn" guys, if anyone, that should suffer the penalty, surely?

Perhaps it's his fault for not saying "hang on" and 3 players was deemed a reasonable number to allow him to do this by.

He has no obligation to "police" the rest of the table. It's for them to stay in line. He is being deemed the guilty party. I don't buy that.

seems a mad rule to me.

maybe would be better if the player was prevented from raising rather than his hand deemed dead.

people can fold very quickly especially if not concentrating fully like a domino effect.

surely the dealer has to take some responsibility here he/she should be listening for the players verbal actions and stop the rest of the table folding after the death old man who was next to act did  ;D

Apart from it being a daft rule i would also add i have never seen it used, ever!! and i have played at grosvenor Walsall hundreds of times, never heard of it ???

Actually, you wouldn't even be needing to work with anyone to exploit the lack of this rule. You'd just need the guy to your left to be of fall into one of these categories...diddy, elderly or fishy. So they arn't paying attention and start off the desired chain reaction.

In the case of the cited example, all three. :)  ;goodvevil;

If you know something to be happening that is benefiting you (extra information from a folding chain reaction) then you'd have no reason to speak up and correct matters without this rule.

Indeed it may slow the game up to a snails pace, if every time someone raises, they wait a minute for the extra information. Nothing bad can possibly happen to them, their raising right will be protected whatever.


I see what you're saying. Maybe that's a good plan.

If their hand is declared dead by this rule, do they get the chips that they've already put in the middle back? (The calling part)

If my hand was "killed" because the guys behind me acted out of turn, I might even throw a mini-tantrum. Quietly, like.

It's just wrong.

Now you know the rule, there's no excuse  ;)

Not at all, no way. I will accept the Rule while it is in place, of course I will. But unless the blondes can explain to me some good reason why it should stay, in case I am missing something, I intend to politely ask Grosvenor to review it.

Grrr.....!

Thats my whole point, & the erudite Tank is gently & very cleverly teasing me here, bless him.

"no excuse" for WHAT? Doing nothing wrong? The Raiser has no control over, or responsibility for, what players behind him do!

Pack it in Tank, you know I'll rise to the bait....

Off to bed now.

The way it should be!

They always string bet to buggery on The West Wing.

"I'll see your five...... and raise you five" makes for much better TV, than some dodgy greaseball knowitall in the corner piping up "You can't, that's just a call."

I'm all for stopping angle shooting where necessary, but the string bet rule being religiously enforced (as it is in Glasgow) only seems to serve to makes things harder for the beginner.

Tikay,been running comps in swansea for quite a while now, and we never use that "company" rule, don't know where that came from, as it wasn't explained to us that it was in force over the week just gone.

It's just one more illustration of the need to get a set of cardroom rules published WITH EXPLANATIONS. Grosvenor might want to include one or two players in their rules committee as well.

I've never heard of that rule, but its ridiculous.  If you do something correct you are penalised for something the players to your left do incorrect

Then again there was another rule I didn't agree with at Luton last week , 3 card from bottom when the first card on the flop had come out.  That card needs the opportunity to come back into play and should have been shuffled into the deck after everything had been sorted

ALL GROSVENORS ?????????

Never heard of this one.

The third card from the bottom that IS a rule that is used all grosvenors. Although you and i dont agree

3rd from Bottom. HEHEHEHE. I dont agree with it either. And like Dani I can't say I've ever seen the more than 2 people to act rule. But I only ever read what I wanted to read so Who Knows?

I seem to remember bringing up the 3rd card from the bottom rule being wrong at the very first rule meeting. Jeff at the Vic must still be trying to get hold Of Mr. Kremser to find out the exact rule, and if he likes it or not before it comes into being I would suppose. Altho I wouldn't be surprised if it had been swept under the carpet again, now that no-one is harrassing him to change it.

Yogi

Simon at luton said the rule will be changing but hadn't yet, so looks promising although you can never tell :) 

WTF?? :dontask:


And I agree  with Dani :ironside: Card must have a chance to come back out!

When the argument was raging, a bet was struck, Scott bet a Tenner that he was correct, & the Rule existed. A Supervisor was summoned, & apart from saying "it's MORE than 2 players acting out of turn", as opposed to just two, the Supervisor confirmed 100% that the Rule existed in all Grosvenors.

I just think that the way to handle these apparent anomolies is to ask around, establish the facts, then try & get it changed, by polite lobbying, if indeed it does not serve a purpose, or is unfair.

But before I did so, I thought I'd run it past the blondes to see if I had missed something.

Isn't this the sort of thing that APAT are supposed to try to sort out?

Amongst others, yes. But the starting point was to see if my suspicions were correct, that indeed the Rule is wrong. Then we go to Step B.

The entire table, &, it seems, everyone on this thread, agrees the Rule is wrong, you can't penalise the inocent party & allow the guilty ones off un-penalised! So it's time to walk the walk, instead of just talking the talk, & actually try & do something about it. Which, as ifm rightly says, is one of the reasons I am involved with APAT.

I'm surprised tighty has never mentioned it, it does appear to be a Grosvenor Luton only rule as 2 TD's from other Grosvenors haven't even heard of it.
Maybe the players committee there can handle it?

Luton does not have a players committee (it should do, and may do soon, but thats another issue)

As you know I play there a lot and have never heard of this rule, let alone seen it enforced

Scott Sadler is a clever sensible chap, perhaps he has seen it enforced there once. He is not an angle shooter, but i would think he is after consistency in the application of rules as we all are

I agree it is barmy, sadly Luton's cardroom has a major problem with different supervisors giving different rulings on the same subject depending on who you ask.

This is something that the players have reflected to management

I thought it was something Grosvenor brought in to all it's card rooms, must've been a misread.........

                                                 ;hide; ;scarymoment; ;hide;

 ;hide; ;scarymoment; ;hide; Or maybe the other grosvenor TD's dont know all their rules..........  ;hide; ;scarymoment; ;hide;

                                                     ;hide; ;scarymoment; ;hide;

;)

players committee's

maybe ifm is right but Luton never introduced one. This is not to say that all Grosvenors are not meant to have one....individual Grosvenors often plough their own furrow without others realising it!

We were informed, maybe wrongly, that it was  "Grosvenor-wide" Rule.

I hope nobody thought I was inferring tht Scott was angle-shooting, he was not, he just wanted to make us aware that the Rule existed, & he was the only one who got it right! But the angle-shooting WILL start if this Rule stays in place, you can be sure of that.

I just meant that as Danny hadn't heard of it it is not likely to be used at Walsall so in that respect it is not a rule enforceable there............though thinking about it, if someone were aware of it could they not force it to be implemented?
Interesting.........

I didn't mean to imply that anyone thought Scott was angle shooting! (stop digging)

with an APAT hat on, should our memebrs via their representatives decide the rule is not sensible and leaves scope for abuse then this would be an issue we could lobby to effect change.

Everyone except me.  ;yellowcard;

There are plenty of examples in real life of laws that exist whereby, although you've done nothing wrong yourself, failure to speak up will put you in a bit of bother.

If no-one seems to have heard of this rule, including some well respected TD's, I'm willing to wager that it has never been enforced.
A rule which in reality punishes no-one, but is in place to stop the odd bit of angle shooting, and keep the game moving at a reasonable pace, in all seriousness, I don't see the problem with it.

If it ever was enforced, it's not as if you're going to lose the raise and your hand is dead. You won't lose any chips, just the cards that you have in front of you. True that's a bugger, but considering that it never seems to have happened before, I don't see the point in taking issue with it.

There are other rules that do get enforced, and are used to punish beginners making mistakes every night of the week. I'd much rather the casinos looked at them.

"failure to speak up"....?

Maybe the Raiser never saw the action behind him, but I fail to see how he can be penalised because someone else breaks the rules, ehether he saw it or not!

But maybe I'm wrong. I need convincing, though, I really do. I am assuming, by the way, that the Raiser does not induce the Pass Out Of Turners deliberately.

If you are referring, for example, to the daft way the String Bet Rule is enforced by almost everyone, (usually the players!) I entirely agree.

Tank, he was in the middle of his action, it should be up to the dealer to stop people passing, as his action had not yet been completed.

ok what happens if ever time you were about to act the 3 guys to your left acted out of turn meaning that every hand you wanted to play was killed before you got to play

stupid rule needs changing

I understand the raiser is in the middle of his action, and yes, it should be up to dealer, I entirely agree with that.

Dealers don't always catch everything though, and often daydream.

This rule puts a little onis on the player, to make sure if the dealer misses that he is in the middle of his action, then the raiser can't just wait for as much extra information as he can get.

Another guy goes all-in... "How much was your rasie sir?"

"Ooh, just 200 with 200....and I think I'll pass"

Sack the dealer then :D or the train driver that missed his red signal

I think this highlights why it's such a ridiculous rule. If somebody does something wrong they should be the ones penalised. So if somebody acts out of turn and goes all in it's only right that they shouldn't gain as many chips as if they'd waited until they were meant to act.

i have had a similar experience at luton (as reported in a previous thread).         i was in seat 10 (to the dealers immediate right).     seat 8 limps in , i find k k. i put a chip on my cards , and as i have a smallish stack , i count my chips to decide whether to raise or move in.while i am counting my chips the player in seat 1 limps in as does seat 2.i notice this and bring it to the dealers attention that i have still to act.a ruling is called for and my hand is declared dead.

booder, that is slighlty different, if i am honest, the guy who announced raise has made his intention clear. Again the dealer is to blame, but you should also be aware of the action that is continuing without you, and should be stopped immediately.

If these are 2 experienced players that acted out of turn it could be concieved as a stroke on their behalf, but the other side is you now know their action and that may alter your betting.

Sounds like an argument for the rule.

In this instance, with the rule, the all-in out of turn player gains 400 less chips than without it. (as the raisers hand will be dead)  ;)

You Drunk Sir? :D

As a regular player at luton i have seen this rule used a few times in the past. it does though seem to be a cash game rule more than a tourny one.

every single rule that is quoted at luton is given as a company wide rule
this to me is stated so that if anyone complains about the ruling luton can complain that its not our fault its grovenors.

example being at luton all players must be in there seat for the first hand whereas in walsall the rule is the player must just be in the building for the first hand

i have seen several terrible rulings at luton mainly because the card room supervisor cant remember the rules

i was also told the other day that all grovenor employees are banned from posting on any forums. yet today i have seen staff from walsall and swansea posting so is this a luton rule or a company rule.

there are a lot of things that need fixing at luton and its a long road to recovery the problem is it seems to me that luton doesnt want to fix its problems.

ok rant over

would be interested to see what dani v's response is to my post

This seems like a very silly rule if you ask me.

I don't understand why a player who is following the rules can be penalised due to others making a mistake, If I am dealing I announce the action on the player, and if i see anyone about to pass their cards out of turn i ask them to hold them until the action is on them.

Really this only highlights the fact that we need a standardised set of rules across the board.

To me, it's blindngly simple.

The Raiser, unless he's deliberately inducing "Passes Out of Turn" by hiding his cards (in which case, he's guilty too), is INNOCENT & cannot be penalised in any way, shape, or form.

As to the Staff at Luton, I have no complaints with them at all - I believe them when they say it's a Grosvenor-Wide Rule.

It's no big deal, & I'm sure some sensible discussions will solve the problem.

I would hate to see how upset you got when Dierdre went to prison in Corrie.

She DESERVED to go to Prison. "Services to nagging". That poor Ken Barlow deserved a medal for putting up with her.

Wasn't it Mr. Rashid ? :D OOh No it was the Pilot wasn't it? God I need a life
But she did deserve to goto prison she's dang ugly!!

In walsall you must be in the building to register for a comp, when it starts they give you a couple of hands and then take your chips.

In Blackpool, Luton & The Vic, you must be in your seat at the table.

It's how they (differently) interpret the GC Guidelines.

Every time I play at a Grosvenor, I have to ask for clarification of the 'Showdown' rule.

Sometime I get two or three different rulings in the same tourney.

I'm surprised at that, i have only ever seen 1 version (apart from America).

Guideline 3

24 b) All entrants shall be on the premises at the start of the competition. No new players may be permitted to join a poker competition once it has commenced.

Tikay - Tank is correct here - you have a duty to stop out of turn action.  If you haven't acted (called raised) and 2 players fold out of turn it's normal for your hand to be declared dead. 

Although thinking about this there isn't any substantial action until a player(s) fold AND a player calls - then the slow player would lose the right to raise.

Here's a quote from a rule book.

10.02. ACTING PROMPTLY.
A player is entitled to a reasonable time to think about his action, but should in no other way slow the game down. If a player wishes to take time to act he must stop the action by calling "Time." Failure to stop the action before there has been substantial action behind a player may cause the player to lose his right to act. If the player is facing a bet when he has lost the right to act he shall be deemed to have folded, and his hand is dead. If he is not facing a bet when he has lost the right to act he will be deemed to have checked. A player does not forfeit his right to act if any player in front of him has not yet acted, so that the failure of another to act properly in turn shall not cause another player to lose his right of action, even if there is substantial action behind the second player who has not yet acted. All action made behind a player who has not acted shall be binding, so long as the action by the delaying player or any other intervening player does not change the action which the person acting behind him is facing. See Article 11 of Caro & Cooke's Rules relating to the deal for the dealer's response to a player not acting timely.

But he doesn't need to ask for time, he has already said what his action will be when he announced raise, he just needs to finish his action off by saying how much. Obviously stalling to see how players react when he call's raise, is a stroke. But the players after him are acting out of turn ,until he completes his action by putting the raise in or announcing how much.

I don't disagree that the rule as quoted is nonsense, in fact it is quite common for players to serial fold when some states raise.  I was merely pointing out that there is a duty on a player to shout when out of turn action occurs.  In this case out of turn action would only take place when someone called, not realising there had been a raise.

But They can't call because they don't know how much they are calling for. He has quite clearly announced raise (according to first post).

The raiser put out the amount required to call and then went back to his stack to count out the raise.  Players acting afterwards unaware of the raise would assume that he had just called.  If this occurs and he doesn't shout out he should lose his right to raise. 

Isn't it funny how these subjects bring out such heated debate.......maybe it's because poker players so rarely get anything wrong. Still it has been fascinating reading

The only worry, is that Tikay didn't hear him say raise, missed that in the first reading.
Now it is entirely down to the dealer, whether he heard it or not, and stopping any other action.

LMFAO

I just had to reply to this lol seeing as i'm officially out of action now i suppose i can post a bit lol.

Where to begin hehehe

Grosvenor-wide rules??? we all know they never are its usually something we were told to say at festivals to shut up players who argued about rulings.

I understand the point of view that the raiser  could be pulling a stroke by delaying his raise but its up to the dealer to keep an eye on this and stop players passing out of turn (tut tut TK and Joe you both should know better lol) but the rule is absolute bollocks (i thought some in Brum were stupid!!!) and for those suggesting that the young fella asking about the rule was shooting an angle i doubt it if hes seen the rule applied surely he wants a bit of consistenacy?

once again its a stupid rule lol

oh and hi again everybody lol

Welcome Back Dude :D

Good stuff this.....

To clarify.

Raiser (Steve Read) announced "RAISE" & then placed his ""call" chips in first, as he did every time.

I never heard "RAISE" (though he DID say it) & Passed out of turn.

Joe Grech fell foul of the domino effrect, & passed the nana-second I did.

Joe & I passed within a second - there is no way Steve Read could have anticipated or reacted to this in time. So, by the Rule, his hand would be killed.

(There is a Red Herring in here, as technically, neither myself nor Joe really passed out of turn, as Steve HAD acted, he'd said "RAISE", so Joe Grech's & my pass were bad etiquette(mistakenly) rather than Passing Out Of Turn).

Just assume this to see it clearly....

Steve had not acted yet, I had not realised & passed out of turn, & Joe Grech followed me due to "domino effect". Joe & I acted within a second, it's not fair or reasonable to expect the Dealer or Steve to react to our Passes that quickly. For which, Joe & I get off scott-free, & Steve gets his hand killed!

Those that argue this is fair & reasonable are whooshing me good & proper, I must confess. I'll have to have another think I guess.

I've had another think, & I still can't fathom how this is right.

I shall muse for a little longer....

Go away, I'm musing.

It's the 6 OClock Muse.

Surely musing this long will cause Hysteria? maybe you should plug in baby hehehe and hopefully find some absolution for tis ruling

sorry i'm bored but some one should get it lol

To me this rule seems to be a confusion between players acting out of turn because someone is deliberately not acting to slow the game down,
and players acting out of turn because they haven't noticed that somebody has made an action but not completed it.

In the first instance the player slowing the game down is (arguably, but a different argument) in the wrong and gets penalised, in the second the players acting out of turn are in the wrong, but the turn player still gets penalised.

The rule may have been created to counter the former situation, but because of the way it is worded it will also penalise people in the second situation and if any concerns were addressed to the casino then maybe a clarification of this rule would perhaps be more appropriate than the suggestion that it should just be removed.

But even if someone is taking their time you can still call the clock on them?

Sorry tikay, more than 2 people mused out of turn behind you...