Hi guys I was playing at a casino 2/5 last week when this happened. There were 3 players to the flop player A checked dealer turns to player C says action is on him. He then bets 130. Player B says I never checked and then bets 70. Player C calls the floor saying he wants to be able to act because of dealer error. Floor rules that he cannot act and its a short raise just a call and player A calls behind. It seemed strange to me that the player was not allowed to do anything but call.

What are house rules? In most rooms this would be considered out of turn action. Since action changed (he is facing a bet of 70 instead of a check), he should be able to take his bet back and raise.

Sounds like this is one of those rooms where OOT action is forced to no aggressive action. Non-standard rule, but I have heard of it.

“Dealer said action is on me” is not really an excuse. Players are responsible for knowing where the action is.

Basically from what I've seen there oot action is binding the only way player C gets to raise Is if player B made it 260

No, in most rooms what CRD said is correct.

OOT action is binding if action doesn't change (i.e. if any skipped players only check, call, or fold), but if action does change (bet or raise), then the OOT actor has all options. In this case, the player who was skipped changes the action from 0 to 70, so the player who bet 130 gets his bet back and has all options (call, raise, fold).

As he mentioned, some rooms do limit OOT players to non-agressive actions (on this street), e.g. only calling or folding, but they are a minority of rooms afaict.

What you're describing is the rule for having the action re-opened to you. If you make a bet of 130, and someone else behind you raises all in, the only way you can raise again is if the action back to you is at least 260 total. Otherwise you can just call or fold (aka "action only").

--

Now, the case can be made that this isn't the usual OOT action sitation and that special consideration is deserved, because the player only acted OOT because the dealer prompted him to. I am open to that, and to getting a rule 1 ruling in such cases, if the impact is minimal. But otherwise, as CRD says, players have to protect their own action - the dealer is there to help control the game and to collect info for the floor to make rulings. Dealers sometimes make mistakes, and players are the ones that suffer the consequences of that (or reap the benefits of it, as the case may be) - as a player, all you can do is pay attention, and protect your action when needed.

Either way, special consideration isn't needed in this case, because action did change, so the OOT player has all actions open to him anyway (in most rooms).

Welcome to the forums! However, this post will draw a lot of attention as inaccurate. Where do you play most often and how many other rooms have you played in?

It's not that this can't happen 'somewhere', but it's definitely not a standard resolution to this spot. I will dare say that I've never heard of this method and I've been around these parts for some time now.

It is possible that a OOT Player is forced to make only passive (fold, call) actions, but those rooms are VERY few .. and I've never been in one.

While it's possible that an OOT Player is trying to pull an angle, they are generally 'forgiven' or let off the hook if the action changes, which is what happened here. They have all options open to them.

Your comment about a 'short raise' does indicate that this room may be non-standard. If we give the Player who bet $70 credit for knowing the room rules, then they may have known that a bet of $70 would force the OOT Player into a call/fold only spot since the $130 was, in fact, 'short' of a full raise.

Do we have a non-standard room? Did the Floor get 'bad' intel or not understand the spot as explained .. or did they properly enforce the Room Rules? Tell us where this took place and we can dig some more! GL

While I generally agree with that, I would make an exception here if the room has a house rule that holds the player to passive action.

I prefer for player C to have all his options. But if there's a house rule that holds players who act OOT to passive action, I'd like to limit that to situations where the player wasn't baited into making that mistake by the dealer.