Interesting spot last night at $1/$3. Table backstory - Hero just won a $1.2k+ pot off of V1 and V2 and another V that left table. We are 4 handed.

V1 (SB) has about $200, just rebought
V2 (Straddle, UTG) has about $90 (Middle eastern guy, dude is insane, hasn't shut up since he joined the table, nobody can understand his accent, lots of limping, bluffing, everything really)
V3 (Button) has about $125

V2 has straddled both of previous orbits and jammed all in both times gettting folds. Said he is "ready to go home"

OTTH

V2 straddles to $6, V3 limps, V1 Calls, Hero calls in BB with AKo looking to call V2's incoming jam. V2 raises to $20. V3 is like falling asleep and kinda moves her cards a bit towards the muck but not by much. V1 announces call. I announce all-in. Dealer says, "hey action is still on V3" She eventually folds. V1 pulls his call back and dealer says action is on V1 now.

Thoughts on the ruling??

It depends on the house rules. In most of the rooms I play in, V1's bet stays unless the action changed.

Under standard rules, V1s call is binding since action didnt change. He's just trying to angle bc of the all in after him.

Thanks for the responses. I didn't care too much or want to question the dealer.

V1 pulled his bet back, looked at me, smiled and put it back in eventually. I went all-in, V2 called, and then V1 folded.

Seemed like V1 knew his call should have stood and did what he thought was right.

This is a spot where I could have gotten angled because I'm non confrontational for the most part and really don't feel like calling the floor for $20

'Angle' and 'cooler' sure have lost their meaning.

An angle is in the gray area of the rules. There's an unambiguous rule that deals with exactly what V1 did; he didn't angle, he broke the rules and got away with it.

An angle doesn't need to relate to an ambiguous or gray area of the rules. In fact, most don't. It's usually a case of where a house rule is clear, but an out to town player may not be aware of the rule. like having a live betting line. Or where the rule is clear, but the angler hopes he can take an action that the dealer doesn't enforce, knowing that a floor will enforce it. In this case, the player pulling his bet back is angling by trying to see if the dealer will enforce the OOT action rule or not. If he doesn't , the player gets his bet back; if he does, the player folds to the all in. So it's a freeroll for him.

OOT action is always binding if the standing/prevailing action doesn't change AND in this case here it 'caused' additional' action, which opens up the door for the 'skipped' Player to fold/call only since it's technically their responsibility to stop the train/pull the cord.

However, Rule #1 pretty much always applies in these cases via either the Dealer or Floor to back things up to the skipped Player and/or make a decision on the first OOT Player's options depending on the situation and timing of the actions .. hidden cards, tanking .. whatever.

It's difficult to pin down an angle in these spots and the rule is designed to limit the possible angles of the first Player to act OOT. Typically the 2nd Player to act OOT is given a full pardon, but it's interesting in this case since that Player did change action.

Although the rules are fairly clear in these spots I still like giving the Dealer/Floor some freedom and use this as a 'teaching' moment, especially at the lowest stakes. GL

Is this OOT action, or is this significant action? Wouldn't V3's hand be dead because two people acted behind?

In the OP, it isn't the 2nd OOT player who changed his action, it's the 1st OOT player.

V1 announces call. I announce all-in. Dealer says, "hey action is still on V3 ..

V1 call is OOT .. then 'I' is 2nd OOT and raises all-in .. GL

Yes, but it's V1 (1st OOT) who changed his action, not "I" (2nd OOT), as you alluded to.

This is why I always wait for action to complete in front of me before I act. This spot never would have happened if you had pointed at V3 and asked the dealer “did she fold?” and waited for what she wanted to do before you went all in.

This also works for when someone “calls” in front of you but doesn’t put all the chips in, or when you raise and someone calls but hasn’t put all the chips in at showdown. Just prompt/wait for the dealer to complete all action before you act.

I agree. After all, you've got V3 sitting there with cards still in front of her but no chips pushed forward and someone has acted after her, so something cant be right. The only thing I would change (and I know it sounds stupid and shouldnt be necessary) is I wouldnt use the word fold in my question when action appears to be on me. . As dumb as it sounds, I've seen too many posts on here about a player asking a question using an action term (check, bet, raise, fold) about a previous players action, and the dealer or a player claims they only heard the "fold" part and the floor rules its a binding verbal action on you.

So as ridiculous as it sounds, I switched to asking it like "what was her action? " or "has she acted yet" to protect myself from terrible rulings or angle shooting.

Oh yeah, probably better to use your phrasing. “What did she do?”/“what was her action?” is a good one.

How does .. V1 called .. change action? Not trying to be a pain here but V1 initially called OOT and then pulled his bet back and called again.

Not sure if I'm checking my sanity or trying to help you thru this spot .. GL

V1 changed his action by pulling back his bet (so from "call" to "fold").

Then he changed it back to "call", probably realizing that what he did wasn't acceptable.

The OP ("I") still went all-in after they rewinded the action, so he never changed his action.

I think your mixing up 'his' action and 'the' action ..

V3 is a skipped Player, of which the Dealer has stepped in for them after 'significant' OOT action by V1 and OP. By TDA Rule 53-B all of the OOT Turn action should've stood and the Floor should've been called to determine what V3 could do .. more than likely just fold or call, no raises.

In this case here the Dealer took the initiative on their own and completely backed up the action while 'forgiving' both V2 and OP. Once V3 folds and the Dealer says "Action on you" without enforcing the original call then V2, as well as OP, have all options available. V2 could've folded at that point but instead decided to stick with the original action of calling. IMO he didn't change 'his' action or 'the' action in the process. OP then changed 'the' action by going all-in once again.

This does create another semi-spot/angle for OP. Had V2 decided to fold then OP could've asked for a Floor ruling to try and force V2 to call since the Dealer may have over-stepped things by backing up significant OOT action. This would probably be viewed as petty, but well within OP's 'rights'.

My talking point would be in what timeframe do we give OP the opportunity to speak up. More than likely we want OP to wait until action is on them to speak up, but I think it's much more appropriate for OP to speak up once the Dealer gives V2 an opportunity to reconsider their action after V3 folded. It's double-sided for sure. OP should speak up, but he also doesn't necessarily want to act overly interested either. 'Fighting' for V2's original call to stand as OOT would suggest that OP has a strong holding and they want those chips to remain in the pot. While remaining silent allows them to observe V2 and possibly reconsider the all-in and only call or fold.

I still stand that this is a pretty easy spot via the rules .. however I also think that it's also one of the most common spots for the rules to be ignored. GL

You're right.

Do current TDA rules allow V3 some kind of adequate time to protect his action? IIRC, that was the old rule...you had to act promptly to protect your action. Without knowing or seeing how fast things evolved, it would seem unfair to V3 (skipped player) to limit his options, if he did not have time to protect his action.

IIRC, a 2nd skipped player could not lose his options since action was never legitimately on him so he had no way to protect his action. Also, if the OOT actions happened before the deal was complete (most frequently see his in cash when button straddle is on and UTG acts), then skipped player doesn't lose options. Since again, action was never on him to protect action before the OOT happened.

Just seems unfair (and potentially opens up angles) for a player to lose his options if he never had adequate time to protect his action.

53: Action Out of Turn (OOT)

A: Any action out of turn (check, call, or raise) will be backed up to the correct player in order. The OOT action is subject to penalty and is binding if action to the OOT player does not change. A check, call or fold by the correct player does not change action. If action changes, the OOT action is not binding; any bet or raise is returned to the OOT player who has all options: call, raise, or fold. An OOT fold is binding. See Illustration Addendum.

B: Players skipped by OOT action must defend their right to act. If a skipped player had reasonable time and does not speak up before substantial action (Rule 36) OOT occurs after the player, the OOT action is binding. Action backs up and the floor will rule on how to treat the skipped hand given the circumstances, including ruling the hand dead or limiting the player to non-aggressive action. See Addendum.

This is TDA 2022 .. Not really going to see 'penalties' in a cash game, but it's possible that a Player would get something if the TD/Floor felt that the mistake had a major impact on the spot. GL