The worst ruling I have ever seen and it's me who has to be the victim

[tikay]

This is not dealer's fault.

If you want to lead your set then either a) say something like 'I bet' or b) take notice of people checking around you and say 'hold on' or something.

AndrewT gets it right, as per usual. It's a pretty standard rule, IMO.

It goes against the grain that someone wholly innocent should be punished for the errors of others, & I got pretty cross when it happened to me in a biggish (£750) Comp, & my hand was voided.

The point was made that if I were paying attention, the moment the first geezer, to my immediate left, folded out of turn, I should have given it the "whoa, hold up".

The OP is not an angle-shooter, & nor am I, but you can see WHY the Rule is in place. Knowing what I know now, I would have "stopped" the Action the moment the first player acted out of turn.

The ruling, imo, is correct, though the Rule may be wrong.

As is so often the case with these threads, if the players were to pay proper attention, it would not happen. It's too easy to blame others - usually the Dealer - for everything.

Most Poker Rule Books say something along these lines......

To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act.

Which only seves to muddy the waters further, really.

Best to pay attention, then it can't happen, either the Ruling, or the argument which inevitably follows.

Tikay if you look at your stack to bet and two people tap the table how are you sposed to know they've checked??? Keep looking up from your stack and back at the players? Surely the player who is getting ready is being punished for others not paying attention?

Take yer hoodie off, earphones out, & shades off. Things become much clearer then.

[George2Loose]

This is not dealer's fault.

If you want to lead your set then either a) say something like 'I bet' or b) take notice of people checking around you and say 'hold on' or something.

AndrewT gets it right, as per usual. It's a pretty standard rule, IMO.

It goes against the grain that someone wholly innocent should be punished for the errors of others, & I got pretty cross when it happened to me in a biggish (£750) Comp, & my hand was voided.

The point was made that if I were paying attention, the moment the first geezer, to my immediate left, folded out of turn, I should have given it the "whoa, hold up".

The OP is not an angle-shooter, & nor am I, but you can see WHY the Rule is in place. Knowing what I know now, I would have "stopped" the Action the moment the first player acted out of turn.

The ruling, imo, is correct, though the Rule may be wrong.

As is so often the case with these threads, if the players were to pay proper attention, it would not happen. It's too easy to blame others - usually the Dealer - for everything.

Most Poker Rule Books say something along these lines......

To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act.

Which only seves to muddy the waters further, really.

Best to pay attention, then it can't happen, either the Ruling, or the argument which inevitably follows.

Tikay if you look at your stack to bet and two people tap the table how are you sposed to know they've checked??? Keep looking up from your stack and back at the players? Surely the player who is getting ready is being punished for others not paying attention?

Take yer hoodie off, earphones out, & shades off. Things become much clearer then.

I know that is tongue in cheek but you're not really answering the query. Were you wearing the above when it happened in the 750? As Guy as said- checking is a silent action and I thnk the ruling is exploitable- let's get people's hands killed by acting quickly out of turn

[tikay]

tikay/all

a check is usually a silent action, and if a guy checks with his left hand your prob not going to see it whilst looking at your chips. The further away it gets you are not going to see it.

You cannot punish a person for getting ready with his action

and im not sure the dealer is blamelss here - why did she think he had checked?

If this rule sticks - i wont have a problem with getting rulings (against pre flop aggressors particularly) when this occurs, because it is a huge advantage and isnt considered angle shooting (obv the guy who didnt check but is awaiting to act  is the angle shooter)













*i obv wont do this but you see my point - no way the person who hasnt made an error should be punished in this spot, and it is very very expoitable

When you say "if this Rule sticks", it's been in place, to the best of my knowledge, for as long as I've been playing poker. It's my bad - & I was big enough to accept it - that for most of that time I never knew of it's existence.

How many poker players have read & familiarised themselves with the TDA Rules, or RRoP? I bet it's less than 10%!

[outragous76]

big enough to accept that you get penailsed for not making mistakes

not sure thats a shrewd move tbf

this is the greatest rule ever

[Sheriff Fatman]

This is not dealer's fault.

If you want to lead your set then either a) say something like 'I bet' or b) take notice of people checking around you and say 'hold on' or something.

AndrewT gets it right, as per usual. It's a pretty standard rule, IMO.

It goes against the grain that someone wholly innocent should be punished for the errors of others, & I got pretty cross when it happened to me in a biggish (£750) Comp, & my hand was voided.

The point was made that if I were paying attention, the moment the first geezer, to my immediate left, folded out of turn, I should have given it the "whoa, hold up".

The OP is not an angle-shooter, & nor am I, but you can see WHY the Rule is in place. Knowing what I know now, I would have "stopped" the Action the moment the first player acted out of turn.

The ruling, imo, is correct, though the Rule may be wrong.

As is so often the case with these threads, if the players were to pay proper attention, it would not happen. It's too easy to blame others - usually the Dealer - for everything.

Most Poker Rule Books say something along these lines......

To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act.

Which only seves to muddy the waters further, really.

Best to pay attention, then it can't happen, either the Ruling, or the argument which inevitably follows.

Tikay if you look at your stack to bet and two people tap the table how are you sposed to know they've checked??? Keep looking up from your stack and back at the players? Surely the player who is getting ready is being punished for others not paying attention?

Take yer hoodie off, earphones out, & shades off. Things become much clearer then.

Regardless of attire, at some point a player has to take his eyes off the action to look at his cards.  How is he/she suppose to watch out for players tapping the table when doing this?

The only person at the table who should be following the action 100% of the time is the dealer and every player, to some extent, is reliant on this at some point during the hand.  If the dealer fails to control the action and prevent a domino effect of players acting out of turn then why should a player be punished for this, as is the case here?

Also, I struggle to see how this is a 'standard rule' when players such as The Camel, with significant live experience to count upon, have never seen it applied.  Judging by the replies on here, the exposure to this rule seems to be entirely dependent on which cardrooms people play most often.

[tikay]

This is not dealer's fault.

If you want to lead your set then either a) say something like 'I bet' or b) take notice of people checking around you and say 'hold on' or something.

AndrewT gets it right, as per usual. It's a pretty standard rule, IMO.

It goes against the grain that someone wholly innocent should be punished for the errors of others, & I got pretty cross when it happened to me in a biggish (£750) Comp, & my hand was voided.

The point was made that if I were paying attention, the moment the first geezer, to my immediate left, folded out of turn, I should have given it the "whoa, hold up".

The OP is not an angle-shooter, & nor am I, but you can see WHY the Rule is in place. Knowing what I know now, I would have "stopped" the Action the moment the first player acted out of turn.

The ruling, imo, is correct, though the Rule may be wrong.

As is so often the case with these threads, if the players were to pay proper attention, it would not happen. It's too easy to blame others - usually the Dealer - for everything.

Most Poker Rule Books say something along these lines......

To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act.

Which only seves to muddy the waters further, really.

Best to pay attention, then it can't happen, either the Ruling, or the argument which inevitably follows.

Tikay if you look at your stack to bet and two people tap the table how are you sposed to know they've checked??? Keep looking up from your stack and back at the players? Surely the player who is getting ready is being punished for others not paying attention?

Take yer hoodie off, earphones out, & shades off. Things become much clearer then.

I know that is tongue in cheek but you're not really answering the query. Were you wearing the above when it happened in the 750? As Guy as said- checking is a silent action and I thnk the ruling is exploitable- let's get people's hands killed by acting quickly out of turn

Yes, it was a bit t-i-c, but, I'd never be that fashionable, or that dumb, George, because all that paraphenalia & nonsense does tend to detract from a clear mind & view of what's happening.

I never queried the domino action behind me because I was in ignorance of the Rules, it never crossed my mind that I had a responsibility to stop the action here. So I went & learned the Rules.

It was a big Tourney for me, £750 Entry, & I had Aces, which I was forced to muck pre-flop. When that happens, you can either learn one's lessons, & bone up on the Rules, or run round blaming the world & his wife.

Karma's wonderful, though, as I ended up TID. Well, chopping it, which was as near as I usually ever got......

[tikay]

big enough to accept that you get penailsed for not making mistakes

not sure thats a shrewd move tbf

this is the greatest rule ever

Well like it or not, as I later learned, them's the Rules!

As I said earlier, it goes against the grain of nastural justice to be penalised for what most see as someone else's error, & it took some time before the penny dropped as to why the Rule exists. But the Rule has been in place for donkey's years.

[gatso]

tony, we're not talking about preflop or postflop facing a bet. you were at fault in your example, you should notice people throwing their cards away

we're talking about postflop with everyone having checked. the ruling in that situation is quite clearly complete and utter nonsense

[George2Loose]

Even tho I wear the gear- it's not often I miss the action- it's actually more of your old school players who probably don't know how to play properly who tend to act out of turn.

[tikay]

This is not dealer's fault.

If you want to lead your set then either a) say something like 'I bet' or b) take notice of people checking around you and say 'hold on' or something.

AndrewT gets it right, as per usual. It's a pretty standard rule, IMO.

It goes against the grain that someone wholly innocent should be punished for the errors of others, & I got pretty cross when it happened to me in a biggish (£750) Comp, & my hand was voided.

The point was made that if I were paying attention, the moment the first geezer, to my immediate left, folded out of turn, I should have given it the "whoa, hold up".

The OP is not an angle-shooter, & nor am I, but you can see WHY the Rule is in place. Knowing what I know now, I would have "stopped" the Action the moment the first player acted out of turn.

The ruling, imo, is correct, though the Rule may be wrong.

As is so often the case with these threads, if the players were to pay proper attention, it would not happen. It's too easy to blame others - usually the Dealer - for everything.

Most Poker Rule Books say something along these lines......

To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act.

Which only seves to muddy the waters further, really.

Best to pay attention, then it can't happen, either the Ruling, or the argument which inevitably follows.

Tikay if you look at your stack to bet and two people tap the table how are you sposed to know they've checked??? Keep looking up from your stack and back at the players? Surely the player who is getting ready is being punished for others not paying attention?

Take yer hoodie off, earphones out, & shades off. Things become much clearer then.

Regardless of attire, at some point a player has to take his eyes off the action to look at his cards.  How is he/she suppose to watch out for players tapping the table when doing this?

The only person at the table who should be following the action 100% of the time is the dealer and every player, to some extent, is reliant on this at some point during the hand.  If the dealer fails to control the action and prevent a domino effect of players acting out of turn then why should a player be punished for this, as is the case here?

Also, I struggle to see how this is a 'standard rule' when players such as The Camel, with significant live experience to count upon, have never seen it applied.  Judging by the replies on here, the exposure to this rule seems to be entirely dependent on which cardrooms people play most often.

Well that's sort of irrelevant, Curtis.

The Rule DOES exist, & has always existed. The fact that it is not consistently applied is the real problem here. We can't argue about it - it is the Rule.

If we want it changed, we should lobby whoever to change it.

But we SHOULD familiarise ourselves with the Rules as written, & I bet 90% of poker players have never done so.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Most Poker Rule Books say something along these lines......

To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act.

OK then, say I follow your advice and learn the rules.

I find a poker rule book that's one of the ones that doesn't say something along these lines (not that the above states anything about my hand being mucked, it just says I lose the right to act, which could mean no aggressive action).  I guess it's my fault now for reading the wrong book?  Perhaps there should be a rule book on which rule book we should all read first!

The fallacy of trying to learn rules in poker is that no two places uses the same version, and no-one knows which rules are in use anywhere until a particular issue crops up.  Another good example of this is the 'what's the minimum raise?' debates we've had on here previously.

At least it all generates good material for debate!   

[Claw75]

This is not dealer's fault.

If you want to lead your set then either a) say something like 'I bet' or b) take notice of people checking around you and say 'hold on' or something.

AndrewT gets it right, as per usual. It's a pretty standard rule, IMO.

It goes against the grain that someone wholly innocent should be punished for the errors of others, & I got pretty cross when it happened to me in a biggish (£750) Comp, & my hand was voided.

The point was made that if I were paying attention, the moment the first geezer, to my immediate left, folded out of turn, I should have given it the "whoa, hold up".

The OP is not an angle-shooter, & nor am I, but you can see WHY the Rule is in place. Knowing what I know now, I would have "stopped" the Action the moment the first player acted out of turn.

The ruling, imo, is correct, though the Rule may be wrong.

As is so often the case with these threads, if the players were to pay proper attention, it would not happen. It's too easy to blame others - usually the Dealer - for everything.

Most Poker Rule Books say something along these lines......

To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act.

Which only seves to muddy the waters further, really.

Best to pay attention, then it can't happen, either the Ruling, or the argument which inevitably follows.

Tikay if you look at your stack to bet and two people tap the table how are you sposed to know they've checked??? Keep looking up from your stack and back at the players? Surely the player who is getting ready is being punished for others not paying attention?

Take yer hoodie off, earphones out, & shades off. Things become much clearer then.

Regardless of attire, at some point a player has to take his eyes off the action to look at his cards.  How is he/she suppose to watch out for players tapping the table when doing this?

The only person at the table who should be following the action 100% of the time is the dealer and every player, to some extent, is reliant on this at some point during the hand.  If the dealer fails to control the action and prevent a domino effect of players acting out of turn then why should a player be punished for this, as is the case here?

Also, I struggle to see how this is a 'standard rule' when players such as The Camel, with significant live experience to count upon, have never seen it applied.  Judging by the replies on here, the exposure to this rule seems to be entirely dependent on which cardrooms people play most often.

Well that's sort of irrelevant, Curtis.

The Rule DOES exist, & has always existed. The fact that it is not consistently applied is the real problem here. We can't argue about it - it is the Rule.

If we want it changed, we should lobby whoever to change it.

But we SHOULD familiarise ourselves with the Rules as written, & I bet 90% of poker players have never done so.

I'm kind of with you if we're talking about people folding out of turn pre flop - even out of the corner of your eye you should notice that happening.  but lets say in this situation, you have invested chips into the pot, you've just flopped a set, are first to act, and are having a think about how much to bet.  Let's say also that you're sat in seat 9.  Are you really saying that whilst you're considering your action (it's you to act after all, you shouldn't really have to concern yourself at all with anyone else at the table) you should also be totally alert to what is going on at the other end of the table?  that just doesn't seem realistic to me. 

As others have said, I've never seen a ruling like this personally.

[tikay]

Most Poker Rule Books say something along these lines......

To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act.

OK then, say I follow your advice and learn the rules.

I find a poker rule book that's one of the ones that doesn't say something along these lines (not that the above states anything about my hand being mucked, it just says I lose the right to act, which could mean no aggressive action).  I guess it's my fault now for reading the wrong book?  Perhaps there should be a rule book on which rule book we should all read first!

The fallacy of trying to learn rules in poker is that no two places uses the same version, and no-one knows which rules are in use anywhere until a particular issue crops up.  Another good example of this is the 'what's the minimum raise?' debates we've had on here previously.

At least it all generates good material for debate!   

Every "accepted" Poker Rule Book takes the same line on this issue, Curtis. And always has done, or at least in my time in the game.

[TightPaulFolds]

This is not dealer's fault.

If you want to lead your set then either a) say something like 'I bet' or b) take notice of people checking around you and say 'hold on' or something.

AndrewT gets it right, as per usual. It's a pretty standard rule, IMO.

It goes against the grain that someone wholly innocent should be punished for the errors of others, & I got pretty cross when it happened to me in a biggish (£750) Comp, & my hand was voided.

The point was made that if I were paying attention, the moment the first geezer, to my immediate left, folded out of turn, I should have given it the "whoa, hold up".

The OP is not an angle-shooter, & nor am I, but you can see WHY the Rule is in place. Knowing what I know now, I would have "stopped" the Action the moment the first player acted out of turn.

The ruling, imo, is correct, though the Rule may be wrong.

As is so often the case with these threads, if the players were to pay proper attention, it would not happen. It's too easy to blame others - usually the Dealer - for everything.

Most Poker Rule Books say something along these lines......

To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act.

Which only seves to muddy the waters further, really.

Best to pay attention, then it can't happen, either the Ruling, or the argument which inevitably follows.

Tikay if you look at your stack to bet and two people tap the table how are you sposed to know they've checked??? Keep looking up from your stack and back at the players? Surely the player who is getting ready is being punished for others not paying attention?

Take yer hoodie off, earphones out, & shades off. Things become much clearer then.

Fair point.

A lot nicer though when you have active dealers who control the action, with one finger pointing at the player to act in turn, this kind of thing then a lot less likely to happen. The dealer also verbally echoes the players action, the player can get on with his thinking/counting without having to monitor the guy 3 to his left, in case he's missed a bunch of accidental action.

[tikay]

This is not dealer's fault.

If you want to lead your set then either a) say something like 'I bet' or b) take notice of people checking around you and say 'hold on' or something.

AndrewT gets it right, as per usual. It's a pretty standard rule, IMO.

It goes against the grain that someone wholly innocent should be punished for the errors of others, & I got pretty cross when it happened to me in a biggish (£750) Comp, & my hand was voided.

The point was made that if I were paying attention, the moment the first geezer, to my immediate left, folded out of turn, I should have given it the "whoa, hold up".

The OP is not an angle-shooter, & nor am I, but you can see WHY the Rule is in place. Knowing what I know now, I would have "stopped" the Action the moment the first player acted out of turn.

The ruling, imo, is correct, though the Rule may be wrong.

As is so often the case with these threads, if the players were to pay proper attention, it would not happen. It's too easy to blame others - usually the Dealer - for everything.

Most Poker Rule Books say something along these lines......

To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act.

Which only seves to muddy the waters further, really.

Best to pay attention, then it can't happen, either the Ruling, or the argument which inevitably follows.

Tikay if you look at your stack to bet and two people tap the table how are you sposed to know they've checked??? Keep looking up from your stack and back at the players? Surely the player who is getting ready is being punished for others not paying attention?

Take yer hoodie off, earphones out, & shades off. Things become much clearer then.

Regardless of attire, at some point a player has to take his eyes off the action to look at his cards.  How is he/she suppose to watch out for players tapping the table when doing this?

The only person at the table who should be following the action 100% of the time is the dealer and every player, to some extent, is reliant on this at some point during the hand.  If the dealer fails to control the action and prevent a domino effect of players acting out of turn then why should a player be punished for this, as is the case here?

Also, I struggle to see how this is a 'standard rule' when players such as The Camel, with significant live experience to count upon, have never seen it applied.  Judging by the replies on here, the exposure to this rule seems to be entirely dependent on which cardrooms people play most often.

Well that's sort of irrelevant, Curtis.

The Rule DOES exist, & has always existed. The fact that it is not consistently applied is the real problem here. We can't argue about it - it is the Rule.

If we want it changed, we should lobby whoever to change it.

But we SHOULD familiarise ourselves with the Rules as written, & I bet 90% of poker players have never done so.

I'm kind of with you if we're talking about people folding out of turn pre flop - even out of the corner of your eye you should notice that happening.  but lets say in this situation, you have invested chips into the pot, you've just flopped a set, are first to act, and are having a think about how much to bet.  Let's say also that you're sat in seat 9.  Are you really saying that whilst you're considering your action (it's you to act after all, you shouldn't really have to concern yourself at all with anyone else at the table) you should also be totally alert to what is going on at the other end of the table?  that just doesn't seem realistic to me. 

As others have said, I've never seen a ruling like this personally.

But there's the thing Claire - the fact that "others" have never seen such a Ruling does not necessarily make it incorrect.

Ignorance of Rules is no excuse.

And not liking a Rule is deffo no excuse! Kinboshi thinks most of the the Speed Limits are stupid, but that does not give him the right to break it.

PS - Just remembered, I owe you a PM reply, from Thursday or Friday, sorry.

If the Rule is wrong, players need to mobilise themselves properly to get it changed.

You note the vested interest in the OP - "if it had not had happened, I'd have got my much-needed double-up" is hardly a solid basis for moving forward, imo!