I'm going to vote this ^^^^^^^ as way more important than someone may be harmed to have to call/or fold to a check raise if theres a check raise that they didn't think would come. I don't even think close.

But your still missing the point. It's not about being harmed if their is a check raise that they didn't think would happen. The harm is they get put into that spot ... Essentially losing their position.

Are there legitimate reasons? Yes, I guess there are, but... When you bet oot and see the next player to act after you (who has already checked) start to push his entire stack towards the line when the dealer stops the action to point out that you acted oot... Well of course now you are going to want to change your action to a check unless you are very strong. I hate the thought of giving you that power.

While there may be a couple legitimate reasons to change your action to a check, the angly reasons not to allow you to change your action far outweigh the legitimate ones.

I agree about the player after you acting. I have two exceptions to it not being binding.

When there is action after you. Because if we allow it to not be binding there the oot player is actually gaining an advantage.

And heads up. Because their is no innocent third party to be harmed.

If its between this happening very rarely or OOT bets happening very often, you REALLY think the 2nd one is better for the game?

You're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist very often by creating a problem that could exist every hand.

This is a legitimate questions as this is the first time I've thought this through.

How are the 'innocent bystanders' in a multi-way pot hurt by OOT action?

In my mind, they have the same information as everyone else in the hand( so it's not like an exposed card for example). Unless you are last to act, there is ALWAYS a chance of a c/r or re-raise of your call/bet.

What is the new 'harm' introduced to the other players by binding OOT action in a multi-way pot?

Couple of ways:

Imagine that you are first to act. You have a strong hand. You want to build a pot. What are the things you need to consider.

You could bet. But betting from early position tends to indicate strength. You need to be concerned you don't get calls. Ideally you might want a raise along the way. But you can't count on that. What is the other option. Check, and hope you get a bet (and maybe some calls) let others build the pot for you. Then you could raise (or maybe even just call if there are more streets and you feel really strong and want to give others a chance to trapped). This could build you a bigger pot.

But if you do that you risk that there won't be a bet and you won't get a chance to get any money into the pot.

This is the disadvantage of early position. You are faced with a decision with imperfect information. And you might choose the worse of the two options

But now the next player bets out of turn. You know that it's binding if you check. Now you no longer have to make the decision if you want to bet or check. You check because there is no longer any chance that it checks around behind you. You are guaranteed the opportunity to raise. You are now making your decision with perfect information. Everyone else is hurt because you no longer have the opportunity to make the wrong decision.

In essence the skipped player is given the button. Now it is true that having the information that the oot player tried to bet can influence the action in the same way even if it is not binding. The oot player will likely bet even if not required to .... But at least it is possible that he doesn't. So even though there is damage .... The possibility that the player doesn't bet does still exist and a wrong decision can be made.

First oot turn bets happen frequently now.

Second I'm not saying oot bets shouldn't be addressed. I'm saying that making them binding is not a fair way to address them.

I disagree that they happen frequently now. If I play a 12 hour session and I see it 3 OOT bets I would be surprised. People normally act in turn because there is currently a penalty.

What is frequently to you and what do think a better way to address it OOT action is when not binding?

Either you play in exceptional games or you simply aren't paying attention.

I rarely go through 30 minute down without seeing some sort of OOT action.

Not all OOT action involves a big production. Often it is an OOT fold. Frequently it involves a player checking OOT. And most of the time when there is a bet or raise out of turn their is no controversy (in part because it happens so frequently the players know what the rules are and few bother to think about the negative way it impacts play).

It is most often addressed quickly by the skipped player acting and the oot player not questioning that his bet stands.

I see OOT action that doesn't even require dealer intervention...

Player 3 grabs chips to call player 4 has his bet out on the felt before player 3 gets his chips out ... But they are all just calling and if I even bother to say something player 4 claims he acted after 3 because it all happened pretty close together.

When after the flop player 1 grabs his cards player 2 bets and player 1 tosses his cards away.... I quietly admonish player 2 to slow down and wait his turn (inevitably he responds "he was folding") but play doesn't stop and most of the players who are too busy texting don't even notice their was an OOT bet.

The post by FossilMan was interesting to read, but it doesn't change my opinion. I would never be fooled by an angle shooter, so those actions could happen all day every day and it wouldn't hurt me a bit. The current rules do hurt me if someone takes advantage of them like OP did.

So you can always tell, 100%, no shadow of a doubt, if an out of turn bettor is making an honest mistake or shooting angles? Ok.

Also it can hurt you even if you are so wily and wise that you are never fooled. You are on button with the nuts. Fish in first position is going to bet, guy in second position bets OoT. Fish now elects to check, second position now checks, either because his bet was an angle or he legit was going to bet but now feels bad/guilty. Voila, less money going in when you have the nuts.

No, I don't need to be able to tell, because I would ignore the (possibly fake) information, and do whatever I already planned to do, just as I already do now when it happens.

Your other point is correct, in that I could still be hurt by someone else being fooled, but I could just as easily be helped that way, so that's a wash in my book.

So if you were going to bluff and the person in front of you bets, you go ahead and bet anyway? What if they bet and the next person calls? You still just fire your bluff?

I play limit poker, I don't try to bluff multiple people.

If someone bets and someone else calls, it would generally be considered binding, as stated above by psandman. It would also be binding when headsup, and I'd save my bluffing chips.

1. I should clarify I was talking about out of turn bets and calls. OOT checks and folds are bad and happen way more often but cause far less of a problem. Especially for this argument.

2. That bolded part is pretty important. That's because most places that's the rule or it was done accidentally and they're just staying with their intentions. I think the places where it's not binding are going to get worse and worse because of angle shooters until they change it.

Maybe for the rules to be fair, they should take into account the interests of all players and not just yours.

Yes, but if I can protect myself from being fooled, so can others. No one can protect themselves from the problem I have encountered with the current rule set.

Can you articulate exactly how people are harmed because I do not see the problem.

Nothing more I can say that I or someone else hasn't already said.

Read every post thoroughly. If you still don't see how others are harmed, either you have a comprehension problem or you fundamentally don't understand how poker works.

I think you playing limit poker might be a big factor here. Your scenario is its correct to call the 1st bet and ah **** now I'm stuck in for the check raise too. NL/PL take into account whether or not someone might check raise regularly because they have adjust based on stack size.

It may hurt NL players more, but it hurts limit players more often.

Most NL players would still prefer OOT action as binding.