Is pointing to the next player a check?

I don't think you did anything wrong. Everyone thought the crazy guy had checked to you. But moving forward in a situation where a person doesn't tap the table or say "check" just ask the dealer if it is on you. If the dealer says yes, as he would have here, then it is clearly your turn. The other thing that can happen is that the other player may respond by saying they haven't checked, and so it will be on them without getting to see what you were going to do.

There will be many situations where it is unclear whether somebody is checking or not. I have seen a player with both arms on the table one on top of the other, tap one arm with fingers from the other hand. This has always been considered a check but in theory the player who tapped could argue that they never tapped on the table if the next player then checks.

What I like about your story is that the guy who pretended that he hadn't checked ended up losing. Also that his c/r was a min bet. Incredibly stupid unless he bet the turn.

When you said "I look at the dealer and ask him if I acted out of turn and if I can change my bet or check. He says that since he checked, my bet had to stay." the dealer was correct. If you act out of turn you can never change your bet unless the player whose turn it was bets (or raises), then you can fold, call or raise to any size you want.

The funny thing is that when a player acts out of turn with a bet I will always check because of the strength they have shown in that a bluff or blocking bet won't work. And for all the times that this has happened it has never worked out in my favor. When I c/r they fold. When I call I lose, and I often just fold.

This is one of those situations where the letter of the law says one thing but practical experience says another.

Pointing to the player to your left is obviously a check... except when it's not, or when it's ambiguous, or when someone wants to angle. All you can do is either roll with it when it happens, or decide you are always going to seek clarification for it every time it happens.

You were in a weird tough situation and made it out alive. Villain is a douche. Dealer did you no favors, and maybe deserves most of the blame. If he had just told the floor "player pointed to his left like he has done a million times when he was checking" this would have been resolved right away. But he didn't, maybe because he is a reg and you are not. Such is life as a player in an unfamiliar room. Just need to protect yourself more.

What's interesting here is that you would have been in the same position if Villain had not protested. The floor would have had a more difficult decision — and you more reason to be upset — had you tried to check through.

While I understand that you are upset because Villain might have otherwise bet, I have never seen someone ask to take back an out-of-turn bet based on what the in-turn player might have done had the out-of-turn bet not been made. That would be pretty unprecedented.

Either our Villain checked, in which case your bet stands, or our Villain did not check, in which case your bet stands. I'm not sure what nuance the floor could be missing. A ruling that you did not bet out of turn would be interesting to only the scouts and stat recorders in the crowd, or maybe as some weak precedental value.

I'm really confused why you were so upset about the ruling? I've seen you post in the breakroom thread so I know you know that's 100% correct. I don't think I've ever seen a dealer or floor not make an OOT bet stand because of something like this.

You thought it was a check and floor ruled it a check. Nothing has changed. If anything, V is giving information away by mentioned he didn't check as his incoming c/r looks a lot stronger. If he was angling, why wouldn't he just keep his mouth shut and raise when it got back to him. I could see the argument if you checked the flop and THEN V spoke up and now gets to bet knowing you checked back, but as played his antics isn't really an angle.

It's not just you Rawlz, it's a really confusing post.

Yes, the same bet that he would have faced had he checked. We know this because it is the bet that you made when you thought that he had checked.

Bah.

For one, let me admit upfront I made an extremely confusing post. I know it. It was dumb. There were emotions, a time crunch, and alcohol involved as well as multiple versions of the post done on a phone where clear typing is difficult at best. No excuses, just an admittance that is was a bad post.

Basically, the situation was one where the action was treated as though I screwed up and acted out of turn versus where it wasn't acknowledged by the floor that the other player screwed up by pointing at me (the next player to act) and then wanted to still act before realizing that he benefited by just checking.

The floor didn't understand that in a three way pot that the 3rd player might want to bet if it is genuinely checked to him by the other two players, but not be interested in betting if one of the other players showed an interst in the pot.

What this floor ruling means that in the future, if I am the second person to act, I can point to the 3rd person and see what he is going to do and then adjust what I am going to do based off his reaction. It allows me to angle and get a good read on the 3rd person.

My problem was that I don't think it was an out of turn bet. I was betting in turn when he pointed at me like he was moving the action along.

My issue was that after I bet, the 2nd player complained that he hadn't acted yet and wanted to bet but the realized he could just check raise as though my action was out of turn. That opens me up to all sorts angles by the 2nd player. He can point (an ambiguous, but sort of generally accepted checking action) and then react accordingly to what I do.

By allowing a point to be taken back and ruling that I had out of turn, the floor allowed all sorts of angles. That isn't fair to me.

In the future I am going to have to annoy lots of players/dealers and clarify each and every time the previous player points at me and just slow the game down and make it more antagonistic (which is a negative for everyone).

I hate floor rulings that incentivize angling through ambiguous actions.

Obviously I know that an out of turn bet stays.

The problem was that I don't think it wasn't an out of turn bet. My hand was very borderline. I am only betting because the other two players don't seem interested in the pot (the second player quickly pointed at me like he was passing action). When the 2nd player initially reacted to my bet, he was acting as though he wanted to potentially bet, then he realized he could just check and then act with full knowledge of me betting. My problem is that if I had known he was at all interested in the hand, I would have checked afterwards.

The 2nd player induced me into acting and then initially tried to get back control of the action before realizing he could just check and then act with full knowledge of what I did.

If he points and then check raises (or folds) with no discussion of whose turn it is, fine. I have no problem with it. But he initially wanted to still retain control of the action before realizing that checking would still give him control of the action AFTER I acted.

Basically it opened me up to be hugely angled and I had a very weak hand.

The floor's ruling that I couldn't change my action after his interpretation of the 2nd players actions opens up a huge hole for players to angle.

When in doubt as an early player, just point and pretend to check and then respond accordingly. That is an angle. But apparently this floorperson was willing to accept that.

Part of the problem was that this was a very expressive player. He often talked a lot, and much of it likely crossed a line since it was often multi-way pots. However since it was early in the morning and money was flying, none of the players cared (especially since it wasn't the collusive type of talk like "you call, I will call", it was more of the "Wow, that is an interesting flop, let me see if I have a spade" while everyone else at the table see that there are three spades on the flop). He would also often physically react to flops by pounding the table out of frustration. He would wave his arms around when he needed to recheck his cards. Stuff like that, he was expressive. So him physically pointing at the next player was easily understood as expressively checking.

Right. If he had checked my bet would have been the same. But immediately after I acted, he wanted to make it like I acted out if turn and he might have done something else besides check. Only after a few seconds did he realize he could check and still have the same result.

So now I have the knowledge that he might have done something else. Given that knowledge, I probably do not bet. Was I given extra knowledge with his ambiguous (but generally accepted) action that he then wanted to take back? Absolutely. However why should I be punished by him making a generally accepted action and then trying to get it back?

Making my action stay after his ambiguous, but generally accepted action opens me up to huge possibilities of angles.

If he wants to check raise but is unsure if I will bet, he can just point and see what happens. If he is thinking of bluffing but is unsure of what I will do he can just point and then respond accordingly.

He is essentially angling to make me act before him. That is not cool. The floor did not see this.

Now my only defense is to irritate players and dealers to clarify a generally accepted action. That is not good for the game.

Also, I realize my recent posts said I was third to act, I was the 4th player in the hand. I forgot about another player who was completely and utterly not interested in the hand that I mentioned in my inital post. Sorry, he was forgettable.

While I benefitted and won the hand, I feel as though I was angled by being made to act before the 3rd player and the floor's ruling made future angling likely.

I agree that the floor and dealer need to be more direct and sure. The correct ruling is: "You checked. It doesn't matter if you think that you didn't check. The pointing motion that you made will aways be a check, this time and in the future. If you don't intend to check, then don't point."

This removes the angle. Villain and everyone is on notice that pointing, rapping knocking the table, saying "check" are exactly equivalent. Anyone saying "I didn't check" after pointing might as well be speaking gibberish.

As it went down, the floor could be removed from the equation to no detriment of anyone in the room. He could go home unnoticed. So why is he being paid? Sorry that happened to you.