Calling out of turn..

woodykiller

Down to 3 players, Player 1 calls all in, Player 3 calls all in out of turn not knowing player 2 is still in the game, Player 2 calls all in, player 3 folds.

My question can player 3 fold or is he committed to the pot....

Thanks
Katzone

BigChrisEl

I would say player3 is still all-in. It's his own fault for not waiting and technically if he said all-in before his turn then his chips are in the pot. It is not right that his is taking his chips out of the pot based off some one else’s bet, because could player2 could then say "if 3 is not all in then neither am I."

pokerpimp

i think he still has to wait for his turn.

ScottyZ

Down to 3 players, Player 1 calls all in

Just to clear up the action, you mean "bets all-in", right? That is, is Player 1 first to act?

This one is a grey area, especially in no-limit.

The trouble with having a universal rule here is that always forcing the out of turn action to be binding will end up penalizing honest mistakes (what if Player 2's cards were obstructed from view?) too often and too severely; whereas allowing out-of-turn actions to always be non-binding will allow all sorts of angle shooting and turn your game into chaos.

What would I do personally here if I was somehow in charge of this game? If this seemed like an isolated incident, and I felt like this was an honest mistake, I would rewind the *entire* flop action and start again. Yes, I am now even considering Player 1's opening bet to be non-binding.

The reasoning behind this ruling is that it's actually Player 1 who is put at the largest disadvantage by the mistake of Player 3. It is easy to see that both Players 2 and 3 gain advantages over Player 1, since both of players gain extra information about the hand *after* Player 1 has already made his/her bet.

Rewinding the action completely is the only way to treat Player 1 fairly in my opinion. The only equitable way to handle a round where you are going to consider one bet to be non-binging, is to consider *all* bets during that round non-binding.

ScottyZ

woodykiller

Thats correct Scotty, "bets all-in", I was player 3, I did not see player's 2 cards and assumed he folded.

Dave Scharf

If this is in a casino I think that player three is bound by his action. It is the responsibility of the player to ensure that he is aware of the action.

Talking with Bob Jarrett for the upcoming issue of CPP about the WSOP and he describes, tragically, that Doyle Brunson is eliminated on a dealer error. Doyle in the eight or nine seat announces "all-in" but does not move his chips. The one and two seat who are coffeehousing both fold. The three seat who does not know that Doyle has annoucned "all-in" says "raise." After discovering that Doyle is all-in he attempts to reneg his raise. He is, however, held to his action. Doyle's T-T is cracked by seat three's A-8o.

I have mixed feelings. It is not 100% the dealer's fault, but he has to shoulder some of the blame for not controlling the game.

This may also be the case here for woodykiller. But, the dealer is not the exclusive reason for your action out of turn. If the dealer asked "That action is on you sir" and player two had not acted then I think you have an argument. But, if he didn't then I think you are sunk.

esool

I agree with Dave but for the purpose of a friendly home game I prefer Scotty's solution providing player 2 was obstructing his cards. If his cards were in plain view then I think #3 should be all in. We call this the "stupid tax".(no offence to the intelligent impaired)
I was at the game in question but not involved or paying attention to this particular hand, unfortunately.
The main problem in this case was that player #1 never made an issue of the situation until the hand was finished at which point is too late.
Player #3 went on to win the tourney...

So my take on this type of situationis that if a player calls all in, he is in but there is room for the odd exception at a home game.

Hey woodykiller/katzone, now that we have cleared this up perhaps you can work on your string betting?


Woody

Dave Scharf

I agree that in a homegame, everything should have room to maneuver based upon a consensus model.

Tilter

Maybe Seat 3 is angleshooting. You never know.

Hork42

Tilter wrote:

Maybe Seat 3 is angleshooting. You never know.

I was there, I honestly think that Player 3 did not know Player 2 was still in the hand and that it was not an attempt at an angle shoot.

I do however feel that each player should be responsible for their actions, and if he announces all in, then he is commited to that regardless of whose turn it is... In the casino if you throw chips into the pot when it's not your turn, they're in. A verbal call is binding, so in this case it should be.

There was no dealer here, it was just a friendly home tournament with a rotating deal, so really no one to enforce the hand..

hork.

esool

Tilter wrote:

Maybe Seat 3 is angleshooting. You never know.

Dude, this guy can't even put his chips into play properly.. Trust me he is not capable of angle shooting.. :redface:

Adam**

No matter what seat 3 should be bound by his actions. This is the one thing that irks me the most. You're playing for money. If you do not keep track of what is going on, too bad. Pay more attention next time. Costly mistake but you will never make it again.

PS. If anyone plays and see's a player ask "Who raised?" this is a person you can take advantage of.

esool

Adam** wrote:

No matter what seat 3 should be bound by his actions. This is the one thing that irks me the most. You're playing for money. If you do not keep track of what is going on, too bad. Pay more attention next time. Costly mistake but you will never make it again.

I agree but I think there should be room to make an exception to this rule..
*Only at a "friendly home game". My regular bi-weekly home-tourney while we are friends, is not a "friendly game". If you make a mistake, too bad baby, the stakes are too high! (The bragging rights etc ) Kill or be killed is the moto of the night.

Phred

esool states what is (to me anyway) a basic truth of poker. When money is involved, there is no such thing as a friendly game. It may be a game among friends, as my regular table certainly is, but, when all is said and done, I want their money in my wallet at the end of the night. Have a great weekend all.