Opinions Please....
House rules:
1. Action out of turn is binding.
2. String raises are not allowed.
Situation:
1-2 No Limit Cash Game
Heads up. The river card is dealt.
Player 1 (the first to act) has not acted yet.
Player 2 (second to act) puts $35 in chips forward.
Questions:
1. What options does Player 1 have?
Can he make a bet that is less than the $35 Player 2 put in?
Can he just call?
Can he "raise"...putting in more than the $35 Player 2 put in?
Can he check?
Can he fold?
2. What options does Player 2 have if:
Player 1 bets $20?
Player 1 "calls" the $35?
Player 1 bets $10?
Player 1 bets $100?
Player 1 checks?
Player 1 folds?
3. Are there any repercussions/penalties/warnings for either player after the hand?
1. Action out of turn is binding.
2. String raises are not allowed.
Situation:
1-2 No Limit Cash Game
Heads up. The river card is dealt.
Player 1 (the first to act) has not acted yet.
Player 2 (second to act) puts $35 in chips forward.
Questions:
1. What options does Player 1 have?
Can he make a bet that is less than the $35 Player 2 put in?
Can he just call?
Can he "raise"...putting in more than the $35 Player 2 put in?
Can he check?
Can he fold?
2. What options does Player 2 have if:
Player 1 bets $20?
Player 1 "calls" the $35?
Player 1 bets $10?
Player 1 bets $100?
Player 1 checks?
Player 1 folds?
3. Are there any repercussions/penalties/warnings for either player after the hand?
Comments
* if player 1 checks, the bet is 35 from player 2
* if player 1 bets < 35, player 2 can only call
* if player 1 bets > 35, the 35 stays in the pot and player 2 can only call or fold
Repercussions on player 1 after the hand? Why? On player 2? Nah, the above measures take care of his angle shooting. If he does it repeatedly, someone will likely beat him to death anyway.
Player 2 should not gain any advantage from a violation of a rule. Player 1 should not be penalized for another player's mistake.
I know that any kind of a weak hand that I wanted to showdown or if I just wanted to see what he'd bet 35 on, as player 1 I would bet 2
Yes (but no point). Yes (but no point). Yes. Yes. Yes. Most interesting scenario. $35 has to stay in pot, but with a $20 bet in front, this makes it an illegal $15 raise. Because it is more than 1/2 the bet it should be ruled a raise, so he would be required to put in another $5 to make it a legal raise (or hae there hand folded), which then reopens the betting. Interested in comments on my comments here
beanie42...
This is a $1-$2 No Limit Cash game. There is no 50% rule. Any raise less than a full raise is NOT a raise.
What kind of penalty wold be enforceable on a cash game?
Why can Player 2 only call?? Why can't he raise? What is the reasoning behind this rule?
Why does the $35 have to stay in the pot?
I think the 'adjustments' I suggested at least remove any incentive for player 2 to angle shoot. Warnings are for losers. There has to be some teeth.
1) If Player A liked Player B's $35 out-of-turn bet, he can check and B's punishment is that he would be forced to keep his $35 in, and A can call or raise.
If Player A did not want B's $35 bet, he may choose to make the minimum bet, and B's out-of-turn bet is no longer binding; B can now fold, call or raise.
Player A can fold immediately, but if I was him, I would just check and see if B's out-of-turn bet is ruled binding.
2) Player B's $35 bet is binding unless A makes any kind of bet. If A bets $10, $20, $35 or $100 for example, B is given back his $35 and can now fold, call or raise.
If A folds, then B's bet stands and he wins the pot.
3) Player B can be given a warning for acting out of turn. If he keeps deliberately acting out of turn, it will not be tolerated and he can be suspended or barred.
After a bunch of warnings were issued, how about this penalty: "Get the hell out of my house/club/casino you cheater and don't come back till you learn the rules (or for x days, etc.)!!!".
Again, unless a total angle shoot, this would be a horrendously bad idea.
Me no likey. I say if A bets, B can only call. If it is < 35, he gets back change. If it is > 35, he can fold but the 35 stays in.
any action other than check by Player A allows B to take back his bet and reconsider options. In Robert's, Player A checking, *may* make B's action binding (which is what Blondefish was alluding to in checking with the house to see if B's bet is binding if A checks)
BUT, Blondefish's post is entirely moot because this case isn't about Robert's Rules, it's about a House Rule that says "Action out of turn is Binding" (no ifs, ands or buts there).
So, according to the House Rule, regardless of what Player A does, you have to treat Player B's action as "Betting $35". Now, the ironic part here is that you have to consult Robert's Rules a number of times to get rulings on what happens in this case and make more interpretations. (Ironic, because the house wasn't using Robert's Rules in the first place)
(Side note re: betting more than half the pot.. I always assumed an all-in bet of more than half the previous bet reopened betting, but according to No-Limit Rule 3, it doesn't. Learn something new everyday.)
For a bet of less than $35 from Player A, you can use No-Limit Rule 10,
which now opens up a whole new set of problems because of the side note... How do you interpret the intention of Player B's out of turn $35 bet? Do you interpret Player B's bet as trying to raise, or trying to call?
If you interpret it as a call, then Player B calls the bet and gets back everything except what Player A bet.
If you interpret it as a raise, then if A bet half or less of B, the $35 bet stands and action is re-opened to A. If A bets more than half of the $35, Player B is forced to bring the bet up to double A's bet and action is back on A.
If Player A bets out more than $35, then you need to once again, interpret the rules. You could use No-Limit Rule 10 to force B to match A's bet, or use No-Limit Rule 8, to show leniency, and retract B's "call".
Robert's rules doesn't cover these scenarios, because Betting Rule 10, makes the scenario not happen.
The real issue here is that issuing "Action out of turn is binding" as a house rule isn't enough because it opens up a whole new set of rules that need to be interpreted and more house rules need to be created to cover the various scenarios.
There are no right answers to some of your questions, because you don't have house rules covering the new scenarios that your existing house rule opens up.
You are confusing two issues. The rule as you state applies to limit. For no-limit a raise must be for the full amount to constitute a legal raise and reopen the betting.
That said, Rob answered it perfectly, the specific rules being presented aren't sufficient to make a ruling. I was falling back to what I know (Robert's) to figure out how to make a ruling using the 2 rules given and then augmenting with other rules were necessary. But rather then guessing, maybe the better question is whether these were the ONLY rules specified, or is there a list/link of the full rules followed by this cash game (to make a more accurate ruling)?