blonde poker forum

Quick ruling question.
We're four way at the river, and there's been action pre, post and turn.
Seat 4 (nervous newbie) checks,
seat 5 insta-bets,
seat 9 insta-raises.
Seat 2 says "I haven't acted. It's me to speak first."
Ruling is his hand is dead because of the action.

The check, bet, raise was REALLY quick. 5 seconds max.
No question that seat 2 was angle shooting. As soon as he realised there'd been out of turn action, he spoke up.

I understand that because of the two actions after him, it makes sense not to cancel the action and let him speak first, but it seemed very harsh to rule his hand dead, when he's made no mistake.

Surely more in the interests of fairness to allow him to call, raise or fold?

His hand is never dead. Like you've said, as so much action has taken place, they'll stand and Seat 2 now can call, raise or fold.  Why on earth would his hand be dead?

depends entirely on the dealer to explain to floor how fast action took place in regards of changing the usual ruling here, none the less you cant have a confidence issue in live poker and if you are watching the table you should speak up asap. i think a verbal check should rule his hand dead and little tap on the table should rule his hand live, as its harder to recognise someone has acted out of turn this way. personally i would like to rule seat 2 player cant make aggressive action but let him make a decision to call or fold in this betting round.

Passive action only for seat 2 would be my choice.

rules declare that if you get two actions after you, your hand should be dead as you have gained an unfair advantage, standard rule in most places. seen this happen plenty of times but seen put into practice maybe once or twice.

The "normal" Ruling is that his hand would be ruled "Dead".

It's a bit harsh, because arguably he has done nothing wrong, & been penalised, but you have to draw the line somewhere & that's the general (& correct, imo) rule.

I have seen this ruling given out before, and it is indeed correct.

Although I'm not sure I agree with it, as the player in seat 2 is the innocent party in all of this, and IMO this ruling is exploitable.

Because he never objected until at least 2 players behind him had acted.

He COULD have been acting to gain info. We are assured he was not - fine - but the Rule is there for a reason.

lol yeh unfortunately this hand is dead. Two positive actions is considered "significant." Got to give penalties to seat 5 and 9 in this situation tho, as the rule can be manipulated both for and against.

If he didn't say anything and it gets to him now what? Rule his hand dead he could claim he checked! And now have all options open to him!

when seat 4 checks, seat 5 and 9 have no responsibility to check he acted in turn do they?
Don't understand why they would need penalizing.

Seat 4 apologised immediately and was clearly fairly new to live poker.
It was so fast, seat 2 could not reasonably have alerted the dealer to being missed out until it was too late.
Dealer never mentioned the speed to the TD, just the action, and it was a snap ruling that the hand was dead.

I don't see how seat 2 has benefited by this if he's allowed to call, raise or fold, because if he'd kept quiet about being missed out (which I'm sure he'll do in future) he'd have had that anyway. He only benefits unfairly if bets are taken back and he's allowed to act first, but even then, the only way he really takes advantage is by check raising, which he can do anyway if he keeps it buttoned.

Seemed to me the only person that had made a mistake was seat 4 (absolutely unintentionally) but it was seat 2 who was the only one to suffer.

Hand dead.  Penalty to seat 4.

The only leeway is if the dealer says the action was so ridiculously quick seat 2 didn't get a chance to stop the action, then TD discretion. 

This happened at the big game on Saturday. Imo it's pretty unfair and length of time should be taken into consideration.

I think this - that's the problem with any cardroom that just applies rules uniformly without taking context into account.

Seat 2 should have his hand killed for just being an idiot imo, why on earth would you speak up?? Just pretend like you have checked, its gone bet/raise what more could he want, somehow became button in the pot and has seen people show strength.

well, yes, he's learned a lesson.
keep it buttoned, use the info available.

was a nice change that it wasn't caused by headphones/phone use/tvs/etc

So if the action had got back round to seat 2, he'd be able to call, raise or fold?  But because he's complained, his hand's dead? 

(Edit - think I'm being an idiot.  He couldn't check could he, he had to at least call?  Makes sense now.)

If you missed your turn to act and two players or more have acted your hand is dead from gaining that edge of knowing what's happening after you wether or not it gets back to you, if you miss your turn but everyone checks it may well be different. I doubt you should be allowed to  make aggression.

It really pissed me off in live games when people open fold aswell for the same concept, you know for instance if you want to bluff you have one less player to go through. I've brought it up a few times and no one seems to understand what I'm saying. Backing it up with, but you can open fold on stars #facepalm

If it was post-flop and you were first to act, then it would be the same as checking, wouldn't it? Obviously different preflop.


This one's not as simple as that for me. I understand what you're saying, but sometimes it speeds the game up and it's better than people acting out of turn, etc. I think there are worse crimes at the poker table than this.

Yeah in regards to ruling dead heads from missing your turn, we just can't assume people wanted to check, during anytime time pre/post ruling is the same. If you miss your chance to act and don't speak up asap wether it be hiding your hole cards, or dealer being oblivious to where action starts, you can't be allowed to continue in a hand where you find out what's going to happen after you, it's just decided that two actions afterwards is significant to warrant you gained too much free info to carry on.

the guy actually looked devastated.
The board was something like K,5,5  K,  5 and I think he was considering his opening bet size when all this action fired round.

His hand was taken off him and it passed round to seat 9 who raked in the pot.
Straight to a break, so there was no follow up discussion about his hand but UI think there's a good chance he had a king taken off him

Don't agree with this - given that the OOT action is binding, what info does seat 2 get, that he wouldn't have got by checking?  Presumably seat 5 and 9 assume that he checked?

There is imo a clear distinction between facing a bet (including pre-flop opens) and being able to check.

Also the TDA rule states:

A player skipped by OOT action must defend his right to act. If there is reasonable time and the skipped player has not spoken up by the time substantial action (Rule 35) OOT occurs to his left, the OOT action is binding. The floor will be called to render a decision on how to treat the skipped hand.

So clearly there is discretion available and killing the hand isn't mandatory.

Everytime I see these threads on here I always think everyone is outrageously harsh on "reasonable time to act/bring it to everyones attention", if you're playing live poker and action is on you, by this time you're probably trying to count the pot, think of betsizes and ranges etc and you're not looking at all to he people on your left (made even harder if a dealer is sitting between you) because you would never expect them to do anything until you have done something.  When they acted, maybe he was looking at his stack/cutting out chips and there was no way he could reasonably see the next people acting behind him nevermind react to it and by the time he could notice it might take them a few secs to think wtf is going on and then speak up.  By this time is absolutely reasonable that 1 person has acted out of turn and 1 or 2 others have followed on with the domino effect and have checked/bet/raised very quickly before the player speaks up.  I think speaking up within a second or two or else your hand is dead is quite unreasonable and I think players should get a reasonable amount of time depending on their point of focus when everything kicked off, its absolutely unfair for them to have their hand killed every time when theyre the one person that didnt do anything wrong.

Personally I think the dealers should be more on top of this type of thing and stopping the action and returning it to the original player before it gets out of hand.

All of this, and doubly so for the bolded bit.
Too many dealers looking at the football/valets/middle distance and not controlling their table.

This tilts the shit out of me at DTD!!

You're at f**king work!! Stop watching TV!!!

We can't always assume seat 2 was going to check! the info theyve now got is if they wanted to bet but now they seen  the following action and figure they are behind and fold or flopped nuts and shove ect, other players lose out whatever that bet couldve been or lose out on folding if action went in another way.

OFCOURSE killing a hand is not mandatory, there is so much discretion involved but no one has eyes everywhere, and it's rarely been the case when I've seen players get missed out.

I don't agree with it either, but I'm aware of nearly all UK card rooms stating hands getting killed if you miss your turn and two players act after you, therefore you've gained a 'significant' edge.
How much easier would poker be if you knew what the next two betting actions were going to have been if you checked. So I understand why it's there as a rule.

Simply, dealers should be better at their jobs. Millions of mistakes could be rectified/stopped from escalating just from a competent dealer concentrating.

Or trying to be evryones mate or giving your life story. Do your job.

Quite interesting how this thread developed.

It was quickly established that the player had erred, & his hand - according to the rules - should be declared dead.

But then it changed direction, & 4 or 5 players blamed the Dealer.

We don't know at what venue this arose, so we have no idea if the dealing standard is good, bad, or indifferent.

The original ERROR was by the player, not the Dealer. No question about that. And it's possible that the Dealer should have spotted it, though the OP says "it all happened VERY quickly".

How do we end up pointing fingers at the dealer? The original error was not by the dealer, it was by the player.

Even Matt The Hoople Russell chimed in, "it tilts the shit out of me". How would he ever know, he rarely lasts more than an orbit. Is that the dealers fault, too?



(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWIZbGdtP05CEIjwZFChto6AmR0BIEOeM56iu9hpYZ-ydMKg4B)

 ;applause;

Well spotted David, that would have whooshed all the young dudes.

Huh?

Surely the dealer and player that was punished are equally at fault, if at all.  Both should be paying attention so that the next 3 people shouldn't act before the player that was punished. 

If the player is new to the game or a bit of an amateur it is this kind of ruling puts them off.  It is stated this all happened in a few seconds give the guy a break and don't muck his hand. Give the dealer a break as well, you can't concentrate 100% of the time. 

More pictures of valets please to help us make better judgements of situations like this.

 

The FIRST mistake was by the player. We can't blame the dealer for that, imo, especially as, allegedly, it all happened so quickly.


Valet photos? No problem.

(http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/UKIPT4_Nott_May_2014_Ben%20Mayhew_M3DM7801.jpg)

And the second mistake was by the dealer - I'm not sure how it was relevant that the player did something wrong first. Isn't it part of the dealer's job to control the table?

Not sure if you mean the original player in seat two but cannot see how he can be blamed for other players acting OOT.

Soo easy for the others players to collude if all they have two do is instantly make 2 bets that render the original players hand dead

Yeh I think this ruling needs adjusting.

Bill and Bob are best pals and are 3 handed with Jenny. Bill raises the button and Jenny 3 bets the small blind. Bill and Bob both call knowing that as soon as the flop comes down, hell, even before the flop comes down, Bill bets and Bob raises and Jenny's hand is now dead. 

And the follow up would've whooshed many of the older ones.....

Fwiw I wasn't blaming the dealer for this incident as I don't know what was going on. I just know that I've seen dealers miss lots of action because they aren't concentrating on what they're being paid to do.

If it all happened very quickly - how was seat 2 (who has had his hand killed) meant to stop it if the dealer couldn't?

Well the original mistake is by the guy that acted out of turn. The next players to act OOT have made a mistake but they have seen the guy in their right act and believe the action to be on them. The player who was supposed to act 1st hasnt made any mistake yet in the ruling he is the only one punished.

I think the dealer should be paying enough attention that when the first OOT guy checks and the next 2 are betting and raising that they are stopping the action and returning it to the original player before it has gotten out of hand. Obviously it's not the dealers fault that someone acted out of turn but I think the dealer should absolutely notice it and react to it way faster than the person who is losing their action.

The rule seems to be set up to say that the player who was supposed to act is supposed to notice this and act on it and if they take an unreasonable amount of time to do this or an unreasonable amount of action occurs behind them that their hand is dead, I think if the dealer is doing their job it should never get to that stage.

You don't even need collusion.  The second to act can just bet and hope to get an insta-fold and then first to act's hand is dead.  ez money

I think it needs "two positive actions" to rule the hand dead, a bet and a raise, or a bet and a call? (Positive action = action with chips?).

A bet and a fold wouldn't count as two positive actions so I think his hand would still be live in your example.

tda rules

35:   Substantial Action.

Substantial Action is either: A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds)....

There are quite a few generally accepted rules in poker that are utterly illogical and should be done away with. This is one of them.

There is no logical reason for his hand being declared dead. If this is the rule, then it is a very bad rule. If a rule is required to prevent the first player angle-shooting then it should be that once two players have taken any action after him (checking would be included) he is deemed to have checked, but his hand is still live.

Is the substantial action rule what is being applied here? I know that's the rule for preflop (no misdeal after substantial action), but is it different here?

If not it's even more absurd. Then Bill bets and Bob snap folds, then Jennys hand is also dead?!

What if there is substantial action before the player who misses out?

e.g. if someone goes all in  - player doesn't act - two players after them fold?

Yes that's my point.



 

I, like Matt wasnt necesarily blaming the dealer. I was merely affirming the assertion that in general, alot of dealers dont concentrate enough or marshall the table well enough. And, yes it tilts the shit out of me too.

I think Dtd aside they're often not given sufficient training or cba cos they're working on a zero hour contract for minimum wage and generally treated like plebs

So the conclusion is that if you're seat 2 and this kind of action happens behind, it's in your interests not to say anything?  Pretty sure if I'm seat 2 with 'the nuts' then I'm keeping quiet anyway.

FWIW the dealer wasn't the 'watch the TV' type, but she was a little distant and quiet. Looked a bit like she wasn't exactly thrilled to be there.
She wasn't aware that Seat 2 had been missed until he spoke up.

The action was described to the TD without reference to the speed, he ruled it dead, a few people, player 2 included then mentioned how fast it happened and the TD did look like he would like to have undone his ruling, but once it's out of their mouths, TDs rarely take anything back, and I understand that. Don't want to look indecisive or open to negotiation.

I think, if I remember right, when seat 2 said "I haven't acted yet, the dealer snap-called "FLOOR!" and I think seat 2 did try and say something like "no, it's ok, never mind" perhaps just intending to crack on but it was too late. It certainly wasn't seat 2 asking for a ruling.

I think the common sense ruling in this spot is to take seat 2's inaction as a check, and to give seat 4 a gentle telling off, when the hand is finished.
If seat 2 was facing a bet, the situation is very different, and they gain a big advantage by seeing action behind.

I have seen this 'hand dead' rule enforced in these circumstances but it should be changed.

If the dealer couldn't stop the action unfolding how is seat 2 supposed to. If he is first to act he couldn't expect players behind him to act out of turn.

This clearly means this rule is open to cheating. From the description of this hand it appears to all be genuine mistakes but the following situation could easily be adopted by two colludimg players.

Seat 2 raises pre flop and two friends call behind. While seat 2 is contemplating the size of his cbet one friend bets and another calls or raises. Under this rule they are guaranteed the pot. Crazy.

By comparison it's very hard to angle shoot from seat 2's position.

This rule is Not in the interests of a fair game.