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

[Jon MW]

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.

I think you're right, every accepted rule book does have a rule like that.

In particular the part at the end, "... may cause you the lose the right to act."

"may cause" not "will cause" - in other words it's a rule which is deliberately and correctly left open for the interpretation of the TD. If it gets that far, the TD should be applying common sense as to whether it's an angle shoot or just a player being caught out by other people's mistakes.

[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.

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.

Yes, much nicer.

But that does not mean they are wholly to blame. Poker players, eventually, are going to have to accept the notion that there are some things in poker for which they must accept partial responsibility.

[Claw75]

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.

I think you're right, every accepted rule book does have a rule like that.

In particular the part at the end, "... may cause you the lose the right to act."

"may cause" not "will cause" - in other words it's a rule which is deliberately and correctly left open for the interpretation of the TD. If it gets that far, the TD should be applying common sense as to whether it's and angle shoot or just a player being caught out by other people's mistakes.

does 'losing your right to act' = 'your hand is dead' though?  I don't think anyone is suggesting that after the out of turn action has taken place and there's been a bet round the table that we should rewind back to let OP make his action.

[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.

I think you're right, every accepted rule book does have a rule like that.

In particular the part at the end, "... may cause you the lose the right to act."

"may cause" not "will cause" - in other words it's a rule which is deliberately and correctly left open for the interpretation of the TD. If it gets that far, the TD should be applying common sense as to whether it's an angle shoot or just a player being caught out by other people's mistakes.

Yup, I could not agree more.

[Jon MW]

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.

I think you're right, every accepted rule book does have a rule like that.

In particular the part at the end, "... may cause you the lose the right to act."

"may cause" not "will cause" - in other words it's a rule which is deliberately and correctly left open for the interpretation of the TD. If it gets that far, the TD should be applying common sense as to whether it's an angle shoot or just a player being caught out by other people's mistakes.

Yup, I could not agree more.

Do you think common sense was applied in the OP's case?

[Boba Fett]

Tikay, are you saying that poker players in a live setting in this situation should be closely watching that our opponents dont illegally act out of turn on top of everything else we would think about, so that we can retain our right to act?

The dealers are there to control the action, when situations like this occur its the dealer and the player who acted out of turns fault for not paying attention properly.  The original player cannot lose his right to act, its illogical, insane and against the spirit of the game.

[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.

I think you're right, every accepted rule book does have a rule like that.

In particular the part at the end, "... may cause you the lose the right to act."

"may cause" not "will cause" - in other words it's a rule which is deliberately and correctly left open for the interpretation of the TD. If it gets that far, the TD should be applying common sense as to whether it's an angle shoot or just a player being caught out by other people's mistakes.

Yup, I could not agree more.

Do you think common sense was applied in the OP's case?

It's impossible so to judge unless one witnessed the action.

Reading the OP, the OP seems to have seen all the action unfold, as he speaks very factually about exactly what happened behind him whilst he was still dwelling. What does that suggest to you?

[Jon MW]

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.

I think you're right, every accepted rule book does have a rule like that.

In particular the part at the end, "... may cause you the lose the right to act."

"may cause" not "will cause" - in other words it's a rule which is deliberately and correctly left open for the interpretation of the TD. If it gets that far, the TD should be applying common sense as to whether it's an angle shoot or just a player being caught out by other people's mistakes.

Yup, I could not agree more.

Do you think common sense was applied in the OP's case?

It's impossible so to judge unless one witnessed the action.

Reading the OP, the OP seems to have seen all the action unfold, as he speaks very factually about exactly what happened behind him whilst he was still dwelling. What does that suggest to you?

As far as I can see he says that they checked, apart from the original raiser - I don't think you need to have been following the action to work out what took place while you were looking at your chips and working out your betsizing.

[tikay]

Tikay, are you saying that poker players in a live setting in this situation should be closely watching that our opponents dont illegally act out of turn on top of everything else we would think about, so that we can retain our right to act?

The dealers are there to control the action, when situations like this occur its the dealer and the player who acted out of turns fault for not paying attention properly.  The original player cannot lose his right to act, its illogical, insane and against the spirit of the game.

I'm saying two things really, & I'm quite possibly wrong in both.

1) That is what the Rules say.

2) It just gets my goat when everytime a ruling goes against a player, they make a song & dance about it, & blame the dealer. Rather like footballers accepting a penalty against them with good grace. . And yet I've stated that I believe less than 10% of poker players have boned up on TDA Rules, RRoP, or their Local Cardroom's Rules, & so far, although everyone disagreess with me on my general thrust, (perhaps correctly) nobody has queried that. Because, I believe, it's true.

Like Sofa, I'm always right. Sometimes.

PS - Very well done on Thursday. You looked nailed on to scoop the first prize, but Mr J seemed to run "quite hot"!!

[Skgv]

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.

Might be the rule in dtd but not the rule in the Vic which for many regard as the main poker room for pro players.

[TightEnd]

Simon Trumper says


"The correct ruling was made. However, in the interests of standardising rules we are going to look at the TDA rules for this situation and are prepared to consider altering our rule if its in the best interests of the game. We'll consider this ruling, and the actual situation of this post, at our next TD meeting"

[gatso]

I doubt if more than 1% of footballers have read the laws of the game but I've never played with anyone who doesn't understand them

you don't need to have read a book to know that the situation in the op is ridid

[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.

Might be the rule in dtd but not the rule in the Vic which for many regard as the main poker room for pro players.

AFAIK, it's a standard Grosvenor Rule, or was the last I knew. That does not mean to say they all implement it, or implement it correctly.

[doubleup]

1) That is what the Rules say.

How do you twist "retain the right to act" into the hand being declared dead?

Read CF's post please before you reply.

[tikay]

Simon Trumper says


"The correct ruling was made. However, in the interests of standardising rules we are going to look at the TDA rules for this situation and are prepared to consider altering our rule if its in the best interests of the game. We'll consider this ruling, and the actual situation of this post, at our next TD meeting"

Perfect, next case.