Not an angle, and really not controversial either.

First, you might have decided to check. Second, villain isn't really being penalized if he intended to bet.
Third, if hero leads the action has changed and villain is not obligated to put in original bet. Third scenario is the most damaging to hero because the meta is so different.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

No one has said the "villain" is penalized by the action. In fact, I even think in a headsup pot I don't mind it being binding. The problem is that the other player(s) in a multiway pot are hurt by the guaranteed checkraise.

I obviously went overboard there for emphasis. That clearly wouldn't need to be said very often, but something like that could be said if it were a regular who has been known to do this in the past, and the first guy wasn't a regular who would know that. As stated previously, after the non-binding rule was known by everyone, the angle would not be effective, as almost no one would ever fall for it.

Exactly. In fact there are 2 circumstances where it should be binding. 1). Heads up pot. 2). Where it causes action after.

Notice when a player accidentally acts out of turn ..... Who does he always apologize to? The guy who benefited from his action.....

Yeah that is hilarious as well.

A lot more posts ITT than I would've expected. Is this whole acting oot (as an angle) thing really a problem in a lot of places? I find that the current way of doing it works just fine and 99% of oot action is accidental anyway. The ones that aren't are easy enough to deal with.

Sure it's accidental (though unacceptably common because players don't care to make the slightest effort).

But even though not intended as an angle it still harms innocent players to use the current common rule.

Not unethical in the least, only thing you did wrong was bringing attention to the fact that you hadn't acted. Just quietly check and let him bet. By bringing attention to it, you may cause someone to act differently now that it's apparent you have an interest in the hand.

I think making it not binding harms innocent players also. If I want to bet, I am now telegraphing much more strength by betting into someone that seemingly was wanting to bet themselves.

This happened to me in a SNG at the Rio where I was going to jam AQ preflop and a guy out of position jammed first. If we say "OK you can take that back", now my jam is going to have a much harder time getting called by worse since I clearly have a very strong hand since I'm jamming into someone who I know wants to go all in.

How is that any different than if the player was obviously telegraphing a bet by grabbing chips?

It may indicate you are willing to bet into strength. But it also may indicate that you think he is acting strong to get you to check.

Because unless you are cheating, putting chips into the pot means you DEFINITELY want to bet. Grabbing chips may mean either I want to bet or I don't want you to bet.

It's the same difference as this: say I bet the river and you start stacking up calling chips. The analogue to grabbing chips would be saying something like "go ahead and send me home". The analogue to intentionally betting out of turn would be saying something like "Flush" or "good call, I missed" and motioning to expose my hand then saying "oh you didn't call?"

And putting chips into the pot isn't "acting strong", it is either a deliberate attempt to bet or cheating/angleshooting, depending on whether you actually think it is your turn.

To further expound, misdirection about your hand strength is OK. Misdirection about what the action is is not OK.

Maybe I want to bet when I think the player before isn't in the pot. Maybe I want to bet only when I'm opening the betting....

And since I don't know if you are doing it deliberately or not I can't assume you aren't doing it deliberately.

Maybe you should pay attention to the action.

Only "Its an angle." I didn't take the bait, just saying that I disagreed. One of the older players who defended the check raise said that taking advantage of others mistakes is the essence of the game.

Realistically, after announcing that I hadn't yet acted, which was a mistake, I think a check call would be a bit scummy after everyone else had folded anticipating the c/r. I think that would be really taking advantage of the villains mistake to harm the other players. As played, three other players made correct folds.

I've noticed that when a player bets OOT and the player who was skipped chooses to jam when they could have played passively then called, they usually don't want a call.

That doesn't hurt the innocent bystanders. If it hurts the first guy a little... Well, maybe he should have acted more quickly or had his cards where they were easier to see. He likely was part of the problem.

Pretty ridiculous take there.

Another drawback to not making it binding is that you now in most situations give the skipped player a freeroll on whether they want the OOT to be binding or not.

Action on me, you act out of turn, someone says I haven't acted yet. If I don't want your action binding, I can now act as desired. If I do want your action to stand, I can say "I checked already" and now it is binding. Now I get my free check-raise anyway.

Either way, other people are harmed by players acting out of turn. The only way to stop OOT action as an angle is to make it binding.

You are just making up bizarre reasons now. So someone may lie and say he had already acted. So what, the OOT action is still not binding if no one heard or saw the first player act.

Huh? So, player C bets $50 and the dealer says "hold on, action is on player B". Player B says "I already had checked". You really think the dealer is going to argue and say no, C's bet is not binding because I didn't see you check? No way. Do you think player C is going to argue and say "no you did not check, I was purposely betting oot."? No way.

Exactly.

Dealer could just say - "action still on Player A, do whatever you want". Then after he has "repeated" his check, or decided to bet, "action on player B, do whatever you want". It's not perfect, but nothing is.

I have no idea why you guys think this change would cause so many angles. The angle I do see, often, now, is someone deliberately acting slow and/or deliberately hiding their cards, hoping someone else will act out of turn behind them, to get more information and gain position.

Yes in that limited circumstance if A is fast he can lie. But that assumes he will lie often times it will be so obvious he didn't act that the lie can't be told.

Plus that can only happen with a check. But if player a is facing a bet he could claim he said call but that is an even more difficult lie...

"I thought I checked. The guy to my left thought I checked. Maybe you just didn't hear me."

I didn't say there will never be times it can be done.