[BassVillan]

last Sunday during our homegame I was involved in a rather interesting hand in which I lost out on a big pot due to a player acting out of turn. It went something like this...

Cards are dealt and players fold around to me in the sb. I look at JJ and make it $1.75 to go. The bb rr's making it $ 7 to go and I make the call. Flop is: A 3 3 I check and the bb leads out with $10. I make the call and the turn brings the J giving me the nutz obv aside from 33 or AA. Now heres the tricky part; before I could act the bb sais "ok now I'm all-in"....
I told him wait a sec I haven't even acted. He was of course surprised/felt stupid. I then asked if his verbal all-in was binding and the "know it all" at the table said it was not binding because he was acting out of turn and that action would return to me. I go all in, he folds. What's the ruling?

[jojobinks]

not binding.

also, if someone acts out of turn in a way that's good for you, don't make an issue of it.

[BassVillan]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

not binding.

also, if someone acts out of turn in a way that's good for you, don't make an issue of it.

Uh, yeah, that's easy to say but being that he has acted out of turn, and apparently is NOT binding, I therefore cannot call his "not binding" verbal committment of all in. Just what exactly would you do in the situation, say: "Giggle, I check, (hope he says all-in again), and then call? Was a pretty big cluster F*** if you ask me, and I lose out.

[Sneds]

Why did you shove?

If he's doing it as a bluff they're is a chance he is doing it again, if he has the goods, he'll go all in anyway. By shoving before him you're eliminating the bluff hands...

[ttflyr]

Originally Posted by BassVillan

Uh, yeah, that's easy to say but being that he has acted out of turn, and apparently is NOT binding, I therefore cannot call his "not binding" verbal committment of all in. Just what exactly would you do in the situation, say: "Giggle, I check, (hope he says all-in again), and then call? Was a pretty big cluster F*** if you ask me, and I lose out.

I think jojo is saying "you did the right thing" don't make the issue. I agree and think that person may have purposely acted out of turn....as part of getting you to fold to his bluff!

tt
Correct me if I'm wrong jojo.

[luckychick]

This is one of those things where you'll get different rules depending on the casino, the floor, tourney/cash, which way the wind blows....

From Roberts Rules:

11. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. A player who has called out of turn may not change his wager to a raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn is binding unless the action to that player is subsequently changed by a bet or raise. If there is an intervening call, an action may be ruled binding.

From TDA rules:

30. Verbal Declarations.Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Action out of turn may be binding and will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call, or fold is not considered action changing.

Based on these rules, if you check, his all-in should stand, imo. The "may" in the TDA rules allows for leeway with respect to the floor though, and often you'll hear the "out of turn is not binding" ruling.

[cdnmoose]

yeah Robert's pretty much covers it. Acting out of turn is binding if the action hasn't changed.

[BassVillan]

It is quite obvious that once I asked if his all-in was binding not only him but the entire table became very much aware that I had a big hand. It was then explained to me that action just goes back to me for the turn card being that he acted out of turn. As stated in the above post, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do here, the player already knows I like my hand after asking about the binding thing. I just think that if it is true, not binding w/action going back to me, that it is total b.s. and there should be some penalty. Had he not acted out of turn and I had the opportunity to check the turn, which I would have, I'd be sitting with his stack. But....

[4ceps]

Originally Posted by luckychick

From TDA rules:

30. Verbal Declarations.Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Action out of turn may be binding and will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call, or fold is not considered action changing.

Based on these rules, if you check, his all-in should stand, imo. The "may" in the TDA rules allows for leeway with respect to the floor though, and often you'll hear the "out of turn is not binding" ruling.

why didn't you just check it when it was back to you and let him go all in? even if you thought you gave your hand away, why not bet a callable amount?

the "may" is there in case case there is an "action-changing" action by a player before the out-of-turn player, which would make the out-of-turn action non-binding. i don't think it's there to give the floor discretion. the rule goes to say that out of turn action IS binding if there is no action by any intervening players that is not considered action-changing (ie. there are only checks, calls or folds)

[BassVillan]

Originally Posted by Sneds

Why did you shove?

If he's doing it as a bluff they're is a chance he is doing it again, if he has the goods, he'll go all in anyway. By shoving before him you're eliminating the bluff hands...

Because asking the table if his action was binding is the same as saying "I have a monster hand and would love for you to go all-in" No difference, I got screwed here. I guess I could've reacted differently but based on my assumption that his action would be binding, I asked the other players.