I just reread what I wrote and realized that I was a bit harsh, but you just hit on my number one complaint about modern card rooms. A lot of places are applying limit rules and concepts to NL and they are completely different games. I always liked the old rule (well it was the rule most places when I broke in) "Action out of turn may be binding."

I think they do consider the implications. Perhaps they come to a different conclusion than you do.

Well, what is your preference for a rule?

Just noticed it:

Wonderful. First, no indication when it should or should not be binding. Second, give lots of power to Floor/TD.

I understand this implication but disagree on how much leverage this gaves B over A. The leverage is usually no greater then if B made the bet himself and by smooth calling he is implying that he will put that much money in the pot anyway. Obviously the knowledge that the betting is going to be reopened for him isn't ideal, but in most games deep enough for this to pose a problem you don't see players acting out of turn.

Holding the out of turn player to the all in will still reopen the betting for A as well, giving player A leverage over player B because player B must realize that if he flats and the all in stands player A can still raise the all in when it's back to him. Player B will never flat here without a strong hand. This is free information for player A to either extract value, or get out of the way.

Here's another hypothetical for you. Same players, again A leads with $100. C goes all in out of turn for $500. B flat calls the $100, and since the size of the pot has changed C gets to fold.

What happened? Well, player C knew he had A beat but had no idea what B had. B is a good thinking player and C knows he'll probably take it slow with a monster if there's a chance he's shoving behind. So C sticks it in, knowing that no matter what happens he'll have additional information on his turn with very little risk.

The rule isn't perfect but I've never heard anyone who disagrees with it offer a better solution to deter player C from acting out of turn again, which I think is the whole basis for how the rule is worded.

Yes, but the chance someone will raise and re-open betting for A is there no matter what. The certainty of it is not.

What happened is the same as if C gave off an extreme tell. That's really more what this is like.

Social pressure? Shame? A conditional rule where if it continues it will be binding no matter what? That's also why I like "may". In the WSOP this year they were having penalties accumulate over multiple tournaments. I'm okay with conditional penalties, and it's how I handle it in my home game. So far it's not been a problem.

The reality is that this is an accident far more than an intentional "move", and those who do it with shady intent are easily seen through by everybody at the table. It's a move they get to make once. But to hold an action binding no matter what changes drastically the normal flow of the game for everybody at the table every single time. I see that as a far worse offense than occasionally giving a dirty player some sort of mildly perceived edge once in a long while.

Edit: There's also the notion that it's mostly novice players doing this, and we don't want them to feel like the casino staff ganged up with the regulars to rob them. Let them know they really need to pay attention and might not get so lucky next time, but give 'em a break for an honest mistake.

When I say they don't consider them, I am basing that on attending the TDA summit that they literally don't consider it and silence discussion about the implications.

There are penalties available to someone acting out of turn. There is a long tradition in NL of permitting a player to correct their action when they act without understanding the action to them.

Typically when a player acts out of turn they are not a sharp player shooting an angle. On the rare occasion that this becomes a problem with someone doing it intentionally there are an array of penalties available to the casino.

Doesn't sound much like a summit. Esp. the silencing discussion part.