I think that once the $16 was put in blind, everyone at the table should have been aware of the situation and the possibility/probability of limp/reraises. Nothing unethical about limp/reraising here.
IRT the OOT $16 allin itself, yes, it's against the rules, but this happens occasionally and usually is allowed to stand.
If someone objects or the dealer tells him he can't do it, IME the player usually just announces that he's going to do it anyway when it is his turn (which actually is the same as betting and equally against the rules), and then does do it when it's his action. Should he be warned for this? "Technically", yes, but practically, done once for $16, that would hardly ever happen.
Next hand, please.

Typo. I meant 60% telling them to not act out of turn.

I roll my eyes a lot less at the move than I do the player for not being able to control his patience or hide his "woe is me" disregard for anyone else. But if I let myself get annoyed at every self-centered tragedy I played with, I'd never stop being annoyed.

And I also don't call the $16 in the OP unless I'm prepared to risk more than $16. Everyone knew what was happening.

The move out of turn is just rotten. psandman is defending what's right here.

I think next time you should tell the table to ignore the player's stack being out, deal his cards out of his reach, direct the action around to him, then say, "Ok, now shove and I'll give you your cards".

I totally agree with psandman when it comes to what the dealer should do.

I totally disagree when it comes to what the players should allow. What kind of player wants to prevent someone from going all-in blind? Isn't it every poker player's wet dream to have the drunk tilted idiot at your table shoving ATC?

The most absurd thing is that in any given hand at a small stakes NL table, there's a 30% chance that someone is tilted with a short stack and shoving super light. So it's not even like it's unusual that someone limps EP with the intention of reraising big when the tilted shortstacker pushes.

Yes, of course the dealer should inform what the rules are. And the dealer should pass the buck, like, "Acting out of turn is against house rules and I'll get in trouble if someone sees me allowing it, come on guys, I'm just trying to do my job."

But the players should just adapt and understand the Villain here is exactly the kind of villains you want to play with.

I definitely love playing with someone who is willing to go all in for whatever amount without looking at his hand. However, I do not appreciate playing with people who deliberately do any action out of turn because they are too selfish to care about how it could negatively affect other players (like the OP).

And yes, OP probably should have realized there was a very good chance someone would limp and then reraise in this hand. Maybe you think the fact that he didn't realize this means he is a bad player. But we don't want to be alienating bad players, right? Why should we humor a douchebag bad player who only has $16 left to gamble, while upsetting a nice guy bad player with a full stack? I'd rather play with a bad player who is a nice guy and follows the rules.

I 100% agree with the first bolded part. But the second bolded is just wrong. The OP was faced with two limps and a raise. He chose to call the raise. Did he think that the two limpers would either just fold or call? That a re-raise wasn't possible? It doesn't not matter that the raise was an OOT action at first. By the time it got to the OP everything was in order.

Of course it still matters that someone acted out of turn. That made the EP much more likely to go for a limp-reraise than they would be in a typical hand.

Yes. So what the OP is complaining about is that if there wasn't OOT action he wouldn't have been in a situation (maybe) to make a dumb mistake.

I learned a long time ago to analyze the situation as it stands now. When the action got to the OP there were two limps and an all-in raise from a very short stack. He should have proceeded accordingly.

He did proceed accordingly, lost his $16, and it bothered him enough to start this thread. I don't like that a douchebag who was too self-pitying to think he needed to follow the rules was able to do that, and I don't think it should be tolerated just to get the guys $16 in preflop without looking.

This isn't a strategy forum, it's a forum about the rules.

What rule/enforcement would have prevented the OP from losing his $16?

Well if the villian had been beaten to death last week when he pulled the same crap .... this would not have happened again.

You'd rather play in a room where OOT action wasn't binding?

Opens up SO many angle shooting opportunities.
Kind of sickens me to think about it tbh.

Also, (basically) everyone in this hand had the exact same information before they took any action in this hand.
Really the only people that should be annoyed are the blinds (for the blinds they put out).
Any action after that is with full knowledge of the fact that the button will be shoving any two cards.
So, when calling the $16 you need to consider that the limpers might raise, just as if the button hadn't acted out of turn, they both limed, the button raised, you called and they raised.

Absolutely I would prefer that. But intentionally acting out if turn would not be tolerated either.

I'm really curious.

Why?

Three players in a hand A B and C (in those relative positions).

In the natural course of the hand A is supposed to act without knowledge of what B and C will do. B is supposed to act without knowledge of Cs action.

If C bets out of turn and you make it binding both A and C get to act with knowledge of the bet coming from C.

But if we say it is not binding .... then neither gets to act with knowledge that their will be a bet. Each now knows that C might bet but that was the case in the natural order of play.

So making it not binding preserves the natural order of play better.


I would have oot action binding in 2 circumstances.

1) heads up because it punishes the oot actor with prejudicing third parties.

2) if the oot action causes action after it. So player C bets oot skipping aND b but D calls the bet before we stop action player C should be bound so he doesn't benefit from seeing Ds reaction.

In a thread whose major themes include situational awareness, it is hilarious that you think both EP players were "much more likely" to attempt a limp-reraise against a button who lost all but 3.2bb the previous hand.

We should probably iron out our definitions of "much more likely" if we are going to keep entertaining hypotheticals.

You don't think other players are more likely to limp and then reraise after another player has attempted to raise out of turn than if he hadn't done that??

In a vacuum you are correct. But in this situation we have someone losing most of their stack and is left with 3 big blinds. Without being there I put the chance of him going all in at 85/15. So limp/re-raise would have been my plan regardless of the OOT action.

And again, the two limps and the raise happened before the action got to the OP. What rule enforcement would you suggest that would have OP not lose his $16?

That is absolutely not what you said. Of course it's more likely, as the raise itself is certain. It is not "much more likely" by any reasonable definition. The button is steaming with 3bb and two players have hands worthy of a backraise.

Just drop this ridiculous line.

I have seen lots of people get down to only a few big blinds, and they go all in on the very next hand much less often than 85%. I would put it at 50% tops. If I am an early position player who has a hand he wants to raise, personally I'm not going to take a coin flip there, I'm going to go ahead and raise myself.

But all this isn't really the point. The point is that someone has deliberately tried to raise out of turn, which is a rules violation. If a rule is worth having, it is worth enforcing. I already gave my enforcement recommendation.

Later I was just explaining why the rule is a good rule, by explaining what problems violations cause. You guys seem to think the rule isn't important, while I think it is very important. But if you think it is not, go ahead and lobby your local room to change the rules to allow players to bet in any order they feel like.

When you raise, the OOT action is no longer binding. The reason the limp-reraise works here is because the limp doesn't allow the OOT player to reverse his action. It's guaranteed. The only thing that isn't guaranteed in this scenario is that I've seen some really dumb **** where the original limper will fold (maybe I'm just thinking about someone saying that they're going to raise blind). But the OOT action is a different scenario than a guy just saying he's going to shove. The OOT action has already happened before the limp occurs.

And as for this, in most cases I would agree that rules are in place for good reasons, but this specific sort of out of turn action doesn't really hurt the game in any sense that someone is being taken advantage of. In fact, a player acting out of turn by blind shoving preflop is only DISadvantaging HIMSELF. It's different than someone bluffing all-in out of turn on the river in a heads up pot where both players have a good read that each other player has nothing. The difference in the two scenarios is why it's silly to argue that the people saying it's okay for an occasional short stack to shove out of turn should also be okay with allowing "players to bet in any order they feel like".