I wasn't in the hand but I was watching the action. This may seem like a common situation with a simple ruling, but I'd like to hear from a more veteran group here. Here is what happened...

Live 1/2 NLHE game, a decent pot was brewing between 4 players. On the flop, the player first to act leads out for $100. The third player acts out of turn and puts out a call before the second player could act. Floor is called.

What should be the ruling in each of these scenarios:
A) player 2 calls the $100
B) player 2 raises

A) call stands.
B) player 3 takes back and gets to redecide.

Room dependent, but the above post is the most typical rule.

This is pretty standard and in my opinion, should be the ruling. I've heard of things where sometimes in scenario B, player 3 has to leave in the 100 and has the option to call the new bet or even raise, but the 100 has to stay in, even if he folds. I hate that ruling personally, but I've seen rooms like this. In that scenario, there is no room for player error.

I don't think I've ever played in a room where player 3 can take back the 100 call if player 2 calls or folds. There's been no change to the action (still 100 to call) and therefore his options are closed.

In my opinion, when action changes (i.e. Player 2 raises), player 3 should get to pull back the 100 and has all 3 options available to him (call, raise or fold).

This is most standard, but I've been in one or two rooms in the past where if player 2 calls, player 3 has the option to raise or fold.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I've also played in a room where player 3 can only fold or call in either situation, but that is a rarity. Most are as in the first reply.

Most rooms are this.
But always know the rules of your room.

So... shocker.... the floor rules that player 2 needs to act, and she calls $100. The floor then goes on to say that player 3 has the option to call or fold, so he folds and is not required to put out a $100 bet. WTF?

I know in my mind this ruling is incorrect. I have seen the floor staff in this room make the correct ruling in similar situations for bets as small as $4, $5, or $6, etc. But this ruling just blew my mind.

The reasoning behind the floor's decision was that there was "significant action" so player 3 is not bound to any particular action.

I love playing at this room... it's close to home, the games are deep and soft, the staff is friendly... but damn sometimes I want to punch these floor people in the face. >

It's not the standard, but I don't see it as a terrible ruling. Can't you imagine being in a position where you wanted to call a bet, but not be an overcaller?

In some places no out of turn bets are binding under any circumstances.

Totally agree with that. Most places will hold the player to a call but it's not the end of the world if they don't.

There are definitely good reasons for player C wanting to call if B folds but wanting to fold if player B calls. Especially if we don't suspect an angle shot and it's a first "offense", I am OK with player C having the option to call or fold. I would not let the player raise though.

Sure, I there are some decent reasons why I as a player wouldn't want to overcall.

But that doesn't mean that the casino should reward me for not paying attention by giving me the option to change my (still legal) action.

The use of 'significant action' should be reserved for Player 2 rulings, not Player 3. And by the definition that I know, significant action has not taken place.

Significant action is 3 checks (if Player 1 checks), a check/bet (if Player 1 checks), a call/call (if Player 1 bets), or bet/fold 'past' Player 2. In these cases Player 2 is limited to only 'matching' Player 1's action since 'too much' action has taken place after Player 2 'missed' their turn. Significant action requires that at least 2 players act out of turn and OP doesn't indicate that Player 4 has done anything as of yet.

The rule above is how it goes in most rooms and not how it went down via OP.

Player 2 is 'limited' if they don't speak up quick enough when they miss their turn.
Player 3 is 'limited' if action doesn't change before it's 'properly' their turn to act. GL

Its not a reward. I don't understand why you think its a reward. You are not gaining an advantage (as long as this is the rule and they aren't just giving you the option when the intermediate player would expect that your $100 would have to stay in).