Let's say someone bets out of turn. The player who hasn't acted yet then checks. The out of turn betters bet is binding. Then the player who had not acted check/raises.
Is that ok ethically?

Now, let's say someone has a history of check/raising people who bet out of turn.
Is it ok ethically to purposefully bet out of turn to induce a check/raise so you can shove with a monster?

Are either of these consider angle-shots?

The first one feels cheap, but I don't think the check/raiser did anything wrong. It's kind of like if the other person wasn't paying attention and accidentally let their hand flash. That is their fault.

The second one feels like justice at first, but in that scenario the out of turn better is purposefully going out of their way for it. It's not like they are just taking advantage of a mistake someone else made.

There's nothing wrong with check-raising someone who bet out of turn. What if your plan was to check-raise anyway? Why should you be forced to alter your plan based on an opponent's mistake?

I think betting out of turn is worse than people typically see it... ESPECIALLY IN MW POTS. I think they deserve to be c/r and whenever I see some1 change the action (bet instead of c/r I feel like its just encouraging them to not pay attention be an idiot and get rewarded). Betting out of turn does look like your anxious I think you'll only get r/r by hands that would have r/r anyways maybe some that would have bet/called so I don't think you can really angle that way.

I am specifically referring to the times one would have bet - not times one was going for a c/r already.

Nope. If you have relative position, go ahead and c/r.

First one is ok... second is an angle.

I don't see either as being un-ethical

then you must think a string bet is ok also?

I find the first question tough (i.e. check/raising an out of turn bettor) because it can also affect other players in the hand. Let's say we flop a set in EP in a multiway pot and are concerned the flop will check thru, so we decide to bet, but before we can slide our chips into the pot the guy to our left bets outta turn. From an +EV point of view, obviously we should be going for a check/raise here and hope to trap a bunch of dead money in the pot. But ethically, it seems we are capitalizing on a mistake made by one person which is unfortunately affecting all of the other innocent players behind him. In a HU case, I could see "punishing" the villain since it was his mistake to make, but with others in the pot, I'm not so sure. If I had made up my mind to bet, I probably would correct the dealer, say "I haven't checked" and then bet the amount I was going to. The tricky thing is what to do when I had not made up my mind yet; I think I would go for the check/raise cuz this is similar to getting a read that someone to our left is going to bet.

Purposely betting out of turn to induce a check/raise looks like an obvious unethical angle to me.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Perhaps the penalty for betting out of turn should be changed. The chips bet stand, are added to the pot but the foul (either negligent or purposed) play causes an instant fold to that player's hand. This eliminates any ethical problems for all parties plus brings a penalty to the player who should know better than to bet out of turn. IMO it would clean up this whole problem that causes all sorts of angst in poker. It would be a bit like an offside play caused by encroachment in NFL and should be penalised. Why should a player who causes a foul still be entitled to win a hand?

Nope. It would just open up whole new avenues of angle-shooting. Now if you're first to act you can make a vague checking motion and when the guy behind you bets you claim you hadn't checked and you want his hand killed. Add to this the fact that everyone will be double- and triple-checking with the dealer to be sure the action is on them, and you have a recipe for a very slow, very hostile game.

All good points you raise but I think there needs to be some better solution to allowing negligent/cheating players to get full value for their hands if they act in this way.

One of the problems i see with betting out of turn is it can remove legitimate playing options such as re-raise, shove, and almost eliminates fold equity of the hand by the player who hasn't acted. Tor this reason this foul play is very problematic.

For example taken from an actual live game situation, 2nd position has sustained a heavy loss in a previous hand and shoves in final 6k of chips on the next hand. Hero is to follow 2 players later and looks at AJ and has 12k chips more. Before Hero can act, player to immediate left calls and this player also has 12k in chips. Play is halted due to bet out of turn. Now Hero has to decide AJ vs 2 other players and the option to re-raise all in to drive out other players is not really an option as the player to immediate left will likely call this given the end game situation and committment to the pot already shown. With AA or similar, the action is a simply shove and players with these hands love this situation. But a marginal hand like AJ is now more problematic as the odds of winning against any 1 random hand h/up are approximatley 66% (more than acceptable given the read on shoving player being on tilt) with a likely re-raise all in to isolate whereas the odds against 2 random hands is 44% and loosing in this spot probably destroys any tourney future. Furthermore, better out of turn no longer has to face the prospect of calling his whole stack or saving his whole stack. Now he is getting super value to call. So options have been removed from Hero that should not have been removed by allowing the out of turn bet to stand with a legitimate prospect of winning the hand.
Your thoughts?