Action Out of Turn

When I was playing poker in Vegas during the early '80s, an action out of turn was nullified, with no penalty involved. In most enlightened cardrooms these days, there are prescribed penalties for acting out of turn, often requiring the person to take the same action when the betting reaches him. This is certainly a change for the better. A lot of the reason for that transition is that European players started coming here quite a bit. They have a more gentlemanly poker tradition, and were offended that a player should not have to "stand by his words and actions." I agreed with these players and made a bit of noise myself. I have seen too many incidents in which an action out of turn was not just an honest mistake, but something more sinister.

The crafty angle-shooters used to take an action that was opposite to what they really intended. This occurred most often when heads up. The crafty one would check out of turn, hoping to induce a bet. If the opponent got the impression that the "checker" was weak, he might decide to bet, whereupon the crafty one now pounced with a raise.

A bet out of turn was also used by the angle-shooter, hoping to induce the player who was acting first to check, either because he thought the "bettor" had something reasonable or because he intended to check-raise. Either way, the "bettor" would now get the desired free card. The actual technique used was to bet out of turn, hoping the player would say, "I haven't acted yet," whereupon the bettor would take back his chips. If the player said nothing, the bettor would quickly retrieve the "bet" anyway, and say, "Sorry, it's on you." This happened more often in a private game with no house dealer, but it also occurred in some regular cardrooms.

I developed a defense against this kind of unethical conduct after a while, fighting fire with fire, so to speak. If I had a good hand and knew that my opponent who bet out of turn was not just making an honest error, I would quickly say, "Raise," putting my chips into the pot before my opponent could withdraw his bet. If he then tried to worm out of leaving his chips in the pot, I would say that I had checked and was now raising. He was not positioned very well to get his chips back once they were in the pot, since his bet "confirmed" that I had checked. If he called for a ruling, all the dealer could say was, "I didn't see him check," talking about me. In fact, the dealer usually knew what was going on, and did not mind the offender getting his comeuppance. I never had a floorman do anything in a ruling other than tell the player he could not get his chips back from the pot.

In heads-up situations, I cannot think of any circumstance in which the rule should be anything other than simply making the player who acted out of turn take the same action in turn. If a player checks out of turn, he should not be allowed to raise if the first player bets, and should not be allowed to bet if the first player checks. If the player bet out of turn, he should be required to bet if the first player checks. However, if the first player bets, he should be allowed to fold, call, or raise.

Multihanded pots require somewhat different handling. Let's look at three-way pots in which the first player has acted and the last player acts before the middle player has acted. Here, it could be that a lot of the blame for the infraction falls on the middle player, because he may have his hand concealed. The usual method of hiding a hand, which can be either benign or sinister, is to have chips stacked in a manner that obscures the cards. I get annoyed when I see a player who has what I call a "reef" of chips extending quite far toward the pot. Dealers, when you see a reef, ask the player to stack his chips differently. A player is not allowed to conceal his hand from the people who act after him.

Let's look at each precise action in a three-handed pot and see what the ruling should be. First, let's suppose the first player checks. If the last player checks out of turn, he should have to check if the middle player checks, and either fold or call if the middle player bets. He should not be permitted to raise the middle player.

Now let's suppose the first player bets and the last player calls out of turn. He should have to call if the middle player folds. He never should be allowed to raise, no matter what the middle player does. If the middle player calls, I think it is OK to let the last player fold. He might have called to "keep the bettor honest" (perhaps not seeing that the middle player had a hand).

Our remaining case is when the first player bets and the last player raises out of turn. This is hardly ever some kind of deceptive move (the player still has to raise if the middle player now folds). Therefore, if the middle player either calls or raises, I think the last player should be given full freedom of action.

The general pattern of how the decision-maker should rule is clear. The two types of actions are the strong ones of betting or raising and the weak ones of checking and calling. A player who selects a weak action out of turn never should be allowed to change it to a strong action. A player who selects a strong action out of turn should be required to take that action in turn when heads up or when the middle player (when three-handed) decides to select a weak action (fold or check). To me, the only situation that is at all arguable is when the first player bets, the last player either raises or calls out of turn, and then the middle player decides to call. I would be flexible here and allow the last player to change his action, because the supposed circumstances are sufficiently altered, although sometimes a strict decision-maker will require the last player to leave the chips he has put into the pot out of turn.

I am happy to see that modern poker is usually played in an ethical manner, rather than allowing a player to act out of turn to fake one way and go the other. I do suggest that you find out what the rule is on action out of turn if you decide to play in an unfamiliar cardroom, as there are still come cardrooms out in the hinterlands that do not penalize an action out of turn.

Bob Ciaffone has authored four poker books, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Poker. All can be ordered from Card Player. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons: e-mail
[email protected]. His website is www.pokercoach.us, where you can get his rulebook, Robert's Rules of Poker, for free. Bob also has a website called www.fairlawsonpoker.org.