Yes, everyone understands how the OOT action works. The fact that the limp re-raise is guaranteed if someone bets OOT is precisely the problem.
If it were not guaranteed (either because of a rule change, or because the short stacker has been penalized enough before to know that he should not act OOT even if he is steaming and short stacked), then Rob is saying that his experience is that the short stacker only goes AI 50% of the time, not 85% of the time, and therefore the early position player would not limp and risk it limping through.
There is a difference between "acting out of turn" and "acting blind". The fact that the guy in OP did both seems to be confusing people. "Acting blind" arguably hurts no one but the guy who does it, but "acting out of turn" in a multiway pot definitely helps some players and harms others, which is why it should not be allowed.
I think it is especially funny that you use a headsup hand as an example where acting out of turn should not be allowed; I think HU is the only time that out of turn action should stand and should not be punished, because it truly hurts no one except the guy acting out of turn. I wish the other guy would act out of turn everytime I was HU.
Thank you Dinesh for pointing out my error in my response about the OOT action. I made my statement with the assumption that it was blind and I missed the short post by Didace.
As for the heads up example, there was a reason I used a very specific example involving those reads.
The guy who put his chips in out of turn caused 100% of the problem here. He should have been told he could not do that, and all the table told OOT action is not binding.
Unfortunately, even that does not completely solve the problem, as everyone knows he will probably be shoving in turn, so the same shenanagans could have happened. Since he has violated the integrity of the game, I think he should at least be given a warning from the floor that OOT action is not tolerated, and that if it continues he risks ejection.
How does this help the OP? Again, in general you are right. But this enforcement doesn't change what happens in a particular hand. And in the OP's specific hand everything will still play out the same way. OP loses $16 because he didn't see what was happening.
I would actually be ok with the OOT guy being immediately ejected from the game, or at least being made to sit out a round. You need to send the message that deliberately acting OOT will not be tolerated. I certainly think, at the least, he should be given a warning, and if he repeats the behavior he should be ejected.
If he had just been warned, while OP certainly stil may have lost his $16 on this hand, I think he would be less likely to think something fishy was going on, less likely to create a thread like that, and more likely to return to the cardroom. I really don't care if the OOT douchebag with $16 left to gamble ever returns to te room or not.
But this enforcement doesn't change what happens in a particular hand. And in the OP's specific hand everything will still play out the same way. OP loses $16 because he didn't see what was happening.
Most of the time, maybe, but not every time. That's the difference. If we let BTN bet the $16 oot we guarantee it will happen. If do not let him bet it oot, then there is no guarantee and anything could happen.
Every room can have a different rule on this. In our room, action out of turn is not action at all. If a player repeatedly does it and is taking shots he/she will get warned that the next time that $$ stays in the pot (or further discipline). Without that, however, my dealer would announce that the all-in bet is not action and instruct the player to pull it back. The limpers may know what the button is planning to do and may act however they wish. There's no way around that once the guy shoves OOT considering the stack. The OP should be able to see all of that unfolding.
