Playing 2/5 NL, I flop open-ended straight flush draw with two overs in a multi-way, raised pot. (I held KQ:, flop TJ, blank). Pot ~$100. Checked to me, and I start counting out chips to bet.

Player to my left, throws out ~$65, not realizing that I hadn't acted. I announce that I haven't acted, and Dealer confirms this to villain. Would it be an angle to check-raise here, knowing that if I check, he is required to put in the $65? If it is an angle, what are my options to ethically maximize the money in the pot at this time?

This isn't unethical. Villain needs to pay attention and act when the action's on him.

Not bad etiquette, but this is exactly why OOT action should not be binding. Not only are you now able to punish the person who accidentally bet OOT, but you also trap all the other players with your guaranteed check raise.

Not an angle. Some may think it's angley feeling.

I would just keep my mouth shut and raise when it gets back to me.



Accident or no he deserves to be punished. Others in a multi way pot...maybe not.

I almost feel like you're disrespecting the game if you don't check-raise.

I did c/r. Consensus at the table was mixed. Interestingly, it broke down amongst generational lines. Older players thought that a c/r was completely appropriate, while the younger folks thought it was not. I will say that if I could do it over again, I would not have announced that I hadn’t acted yet.

Did the players give their reasoning for why they thought that it was or wasn't acceptable?

This is why I think it's bad etiquette in a multiway pot, and I would just go ahead and take the action I had planned. In a HU pot I think it's fine to take advantage of it.

If a player bets out of turn, the players behind him have access to the information that he bet out of turn and should be aware that someone to his right could be trapping. If they want to risk calling, they deserve their punishment.

No way. They "deserve punishment" for doing nothing wrong?

If it's a limit game, they may very well be 100% certain they will be facing a check raise, but still have odds to call. But now they have to pay twice as much, because someone else screwed up.

That's how multi-way pots work.

Hmm, in my mind, multiway pots do not always work to punish players with what is effectively collution.

I agree with dinesh that OOT action should not be binding, at least in multiway pots. It doesn't completely fix the problem, but at least does something to help it.

One key to playing games where multi-way pots are common is understanding and knowing how to exploit implicit collusion.

Another way is to ensure the rules don't create new opportunities for collusion, especially when it is veiled as some sort of punishment (for what I have no idea).

What's the best way to punish players who intentionally act out of turn as an angle?

Unfortunately, there is very little room for punishment in poker rules.
Making out of turn action non-binding and having the dealer announce that fact before returning action to the proper player should vastly decrease the effectiveness of the angle.

How does that discourage a player who bets out of turn to encourage a check so that he can check behind?

One rule that is used out there is to make it so the OOT bettor has to check behind if checked to and can't raise if there is a bet. I have not played at a table where I have seen it used, but it seems reasonable.

Tell them to leave?

Player B: "bet"

Dealer: "Action is on Player A, and just for your information, out of turn action is non-binding here. And by the way, Player B is a regular at this casino and knows that fact very well, so he may be trying to trick you".

Let me translate that 2nd part of what you're expecting dealers to do

"By the way, player B is an angle shooting scumbag so he may be trying to trick you" (Also yes I think that's an angle which is why action OOT is binding in most places)

86 them, the same way you punish players who intentionally violate any other rule in the room.

A useful guiding principle is that rules are not designed to punish players. They are especially not designed to punish players who make accidental mistakes, which is the large majority of time mistakes are made. They are not designed to take one player's money and give it to another player as punishment or otherwise. They are designed to create a fair game, and to arbitrate irregularities as fairly as possible.

Furthermore, as discussed above, there are ways to defang this angle anyway, by simply making sure other players (and in particular, the player whose turn it actually is) knows that the bet isn't binding. Now you have the option to do what you were originally going to do anyway. Or, if you'd like, you can try to use the new information you have to your advantage, just like you might do with any other (false) tell. But sometimes you'll be wrong. What you don't get to do is get a guaranteed check raise in on the field, most of whom did nothing wrong.

This is an old argument anyway. We've debated this 10s or 100s of times already.

Well I've never joined this debate!

I think most rules in poker are established because they smooth out rough edges.

In this case, houses that use OOT is binding rules have likely experienced complaints and lost business to the point where they do not want to have to deal with OOT betting anymore.

It is ridiculous to have Dealers point out that a player regularly does this kind of thing. That would be like Dealers optionally putting out "all-in" buttons. Players would then have to assume from experience that it doesn't mean anything when a Dealer doesn't say anything because the Dealer just might not know.

Anyway, it is an awkward rule when a player accidentally bets OOT which is what happens in houses that have this rule because the anglers have stopped doing it on purpose. But when it happens its like any other betting mistake. Its on players to protect their action and pay attention. For other players in multi-way pots they are aware of the betting implications and it mostly takes the element of surprise out of the mix. Any call/raise at that point looks super strong.

As for OP's question, there is no stigma attached to doing whats in your best interest after another player screws up. However, it is important that all players have the same info at the table. So if a player exposes their hand and I am the only other player to see it, I will announce that I have seen their hand (I wait to say what I saw until asked however - because I leave that up to the room as to whether that is appropriate or not).

That's way too much, dealer getting involved in the play of the hand, for my taste.

I do not believe that it is unethical to take advantage of other players mistakes. This seems a fundemental of poker.

If you somehow cause, encourage , or assist another player to make a mistake that then benefits you, then you enter the area of angling mostly or even rarely cheating at the extreme.

Hand them a rack and show them to the exit.


But as an angle its not much of an angle if the rule is that OOT isn't binding (w 2 exceptions). What you ar calling an angle is that they give off a false tell that they intend to bet(raise) but how is that different from the player who grabs betting or raising chips and acts like they are getting ready to call or raise? Its theatrics and it may be bush league but its not an angle.