A Ruling I Disliked

[that_pope]

So I am playing 20/40 when this hand came up.  Someone limped, so I limped as well, another player limped, then an older gentleman on the button raised, the big blind called, and all 3 of us limpers called.

The flop came and two checks to me, I bet, limper called, preflop raiser called, and the other two limpers called.

Turn came, and two checks to me, I bet, and preflop raiser instantly says "Raise" and places his chips out.

We inform him there is a player who hasn't acted.  The player in the middle wants to play, but knows a raise is coming, so he folds.  Now the preflop raiser decides he wants to call instead. 

At this point the floor comes over and says action out of turn is meaningless.  Seems like quite an easy angle to pull if you don't have to have action on your raises, and can get people in the middle to fold without risking anything yourself.  Someone chose to fold when he would have called because of the out of turn action from the other player, which alone should make his action binding.

After the ruling was made, I got a little mad, and the older gentleman (still calling him gentleman even though he was far from it) said "This game is easy, you made it clear you wanted me to raise, so I just called"  Notice I didn't say anything until well after his decision to call had been made.  He just wanted to look like he was smart instead of an angle-shooting piece of [censored]. 

I went and talked to another floor person, and he agreed with the ruling, so nothing I can do about it, it just feels so dirty that nothing changed, and all of a sudden he decides to call because hey, he can do whatever the [censored] he wants with no repercussions. 

[CrazyLond]

I'm on your side here.  Action out of turn should be binding unless the in-between action significantly changes the situation, like if the player after you had raised instead of folding.  Angle-shooting seems to be a significant problem at CAZ and making out-of-turn action binding in most situations would help to cut down on it.

[Desertcat]

This ruling isn't comprehensible.

[Xisiqomelir]

Verbal is binding.

Who was this floor?

[RyanAz]

Verbal should be binding....


I was playing the other night (friday, was super packed) and was on one of the tables in the far left corner (like 38 or something like that) had a player to my right say something along the lines of, "im going to bet 100" (out of turn of course) and the player that was going to act just mucked his cards, then when it was his turn he checked to me (which I promptly bitched about) and the dealer said that verbals are not binding at CA, even though it affected the action; which I thought was pretty lame.

I think they should institute a verbal is binding rule. There are too many people that abuse it.

[Aack Thbbbt]

Verbal is binding as long as it is in turn, the issue is how out of turn action should be handled, verbal or otherwise.

[gregski]

is it really that big of a problem?  I haven't run into it at all while playing.  It is clearly on the rule board that out of turn action is not binding. 

[that_pope]

is it really that big of a problem?  I haven't run into it at all while playing.  It is clearly on the rule board that out of turn action is not binding. 

No, it really isnt.  But it happens a lot more than you think, just not in this case where it actually changed the action.  It happens every day at almost every table, people calling and folding out of turn preflop.