If OOT isn't binding, a player holding a weakish hand that wants to see the next card or showdown can bet, and then "ooops, sorry, didn't know you hadn't acted" and take the bet back. If the first player believes that they truly want to bet, they will be more likely to check, since if they have a monster they can c/r, and if they have a weak hand, they don't want to bet into someone that likes their hand.

Now the OOT player can check as desired.

IMO an angle is Player initiated 'with intent' to possibly use (gray area of) a rule for their own benefit in a marginal spot. I don't see this as gray or marginal unless Hero some how baited the other Player into thinking action was on them. (That would be 'intent'.) You could argue 'intent' to check-raise but I'm not buying into that point.

I'm not so sure why we want our Hero to 'allow' another Player to decide the bet size and also possibly allow another Player to remain in the hand just because the hand is multi-way for 'ethical' purposes.

If you want full ethical coverage, then Hero should handle it this way ... "Dealer, if I check does that bet stand? And then I may also raise when action returns to me?" This should alert all the other Players left in the hand of what may happen. Of course, this actually could be an angle to scare other Players out of the hand as well, so pick your poison when it comes to this.

I'm surprised that the younger crowd had more issue with this spot.

Are we going to release OOT Folds from being binding as well? I think the binding part of the rule keeps a Player more alert than if it wasn't binding. GL

I disagree.

It is most certainly an angle to take an action and rely on a dealer or Floor to undo that action based on the technical reading of the rules.

It is also a false tell but those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

It is different than a player grabbing chips and acting like they are getting ready to call because there is no conceivable interpretation of their action that can conclude that they actually called or raised.

In this case when somebody acts as if it is their turn to bet and then takes a legal betting action, then it can be misconstrued as the person taking a legal action. That is essentially the entire point of an angle.

We just disagree about what an angle is. Nevertheless we can agree that the conduct is unacceptable regardless of how we label it.


Of course the real problem is that so many players don't pay attention and act out of turn accidentally that it becomes hard to distinguish the intentional from the unintentional and as a result the culprits rarely get dealt with appropriately.

The other day I had someone (who was in position) check out of turn, and then when I checked he fired a bet. I didn't call him on it and I guess the dealer didn't notice or didn't say anything if he did. Generally I don't like to be a rules nit at the table, but just curious how others handle this type of situation.

This is why I like the rule making OOT action binding. It does not require the dealer or floor to make a judgement call regarding penalizing a player for a common place occurrence. I will typically act of turn about once every other session, usually because I subconsciously read the body language of the guy next to me, am lost in my own thoughts about my hand, or cannot see the players cards (or all three). Forcing the dealer to decide if I am angluing or not puts a lot of pressure on him, and can open him up to criticism of favoring regs if a penalty is not assigned.

The binding rule may be imperfect, but it is non-arbitrary and proportionate.

It depends on the rules in your room. In some rooms that is fine, and is the rule dinesh and I would advocate. I believe in most rooms he is required to check though.

Making OOT action non-binding doesn't require the dealer to decide anything. I can't even figure out what you could possibly think it would require him to decide. It also doesn't require any penalties.

There is a prevailing thought in this thread that you should deal with OOT angle shooters by giving them a rack. The problem with that is that it requires a judgement call of when the OOT action was an honest, harmless, and common mistake, and when was it an intentional angle. this requires a judgement call.

if you go with the model, as you seem to be suggesting, of allowing OOt to be non-binding with no repercussions, I think this would open the door to a lot of bad angling by regs who know this is the case versus neish players who don't know this is the case.

It almost seems like your position is that if OOT action is binding it's ok to let a player intentionally act of turn because they are being punished by having their action bind them. But this is the opposite .... They aren't being punished they made the decision to put themselves in that spot (innocent 3rd parties on the other hand get punished). Even if OOT is binding a player who is intentionally acting out of turn is violating the rules and it should be addressed beyond making their action binding.

A dealer never has to make the call about making a player leave a game; that is always done by a floor person at every room where I have ever played.

If it seems possible that it was done intentionally, the dealer could say something like I suggested earlier, to help a player who is new to the room. That could require a slight judgement call, as it wouldn't need to be said every time. But I really believe if the rule were known that OOT action is not binding, these types of angle attempts would no longer happen. If that were the rule everywhere, not even new players would think action out of turn is binding. Sure, someone still could try to pretend like he was going to take one action while planning to do another, but the angle would be no more effective than false chip tells are currently.

It is important to clarify that whether or not OOT action is ruled binding, it is never "fine", is not "allowed", is not encouraged, and may well be penalized. If you act OOT, you may well be given a warning. If you continue to act OOT, you are 86ed.

I have no problem giving floors discretion. That is why you have floors. That is why rule 1 exists. Floors are the ones who take care of irregularities and make common sense rulings when needed.

Even if you rule OOT action binding, the floor should still be called over, should still note the player involved, and should still provide warnings or worse penalties when warranted.

In my ideal world, if a player checks OOT, the table is informed the action isn't binding, one or more players then check in turn, then the original OOT player changes his action to a bet, that will be allowed, and then the floor will assess whether such action requires further discussion with the player, and may assess penalties to that player (i.e. 86 him). There certainly may be times when he can adequately explain the change, e.g. "I had a monster, I thought I was heads up so wanted to check to let him catch up, but against 3 opponents I'd rather bet for value" and no penalty would be warranted or assessed if the floor, in his judgment, believed the player.

I don't often quote two long posts without trimming them but these should be required reading.

Fundamentally, trying to devise rules that will anticipate every corner case so that the unjust and only the unjust are punished is a futile move.

If it is unethical, what is acting in turn and changing the action and allowing the oot actor to fold?

Which is why I think the interests of the players who might get caught in the middle of a check raise aren't as important as some posters think they are.

Maybe punish was the wrong word, but I certainly have a strong desire to see angle-shooting disincentivized. At the same time, kicking them out seems an excessive response.

I would rather have OOT action be binding and allow players to appeal to the floor that there are extenuating circumstances such as a player not making his cards easily visible so that the floor can go against the rule in the interest of fairness.

That's the perfect response. Can't see why you would be afraid to excessively punish someone who is actually shooting angles, but aren't afraid to financially penalize the "innocent bystanders" in the hand.

I can't believe what I'm reading. You've positively identified an angle shooter but you think kicking them out is an excessive response??

1. I am a fan of kicking angle shooters out

2. I think acting OOT is very easy to be done accidental. I would still prefer it to be binding so I dont have to try and decide whether or not I'm being angled in rooms where it isn't binding.

3. I don't understand the innocent bystanders caught in a check raise arguement when action OOT happens. The innocent bystanders see this happening. No one puts a blindfold on them mid hand.

It's a possibility whether or not action OOT happens that a check raise might happen. If I check raise someone in a normal pot should I feel bad for them?

Yes, if you knew with 100% certainty that there was going to be a bet by the guy to your left.

I wish rooms would declare OOT not binding, explain that it's not binding for as long as it takes for players to assume it's no longer binding, and action to proceed naturally. If we treat it as a 'tell', same as gathering chips to bet, it's fair to all players.

That said, the way the rules are laid out, I'm inclined to think that the ethically right thing to do is to act as you would have without the OOT action. I don't begrudge players the automatic x/r, and expect that the players stuck in middle were considering hat you might x/r anyway before calling.

I'm not calling it an angle for you to x/r. You likely did nothing wrong to induce the OOT action.

If I wanted to maximize the money in the pot, I'm taking the x/r.

As played, I'll take the x/r.

I think that kicking them out on the first offense is excessive, but asking them to leave after repeated offenses is OK. There should still be some penalty before kicking them out.

Yes they see it happening but they are disadvantaged by being in the spot.

In the ordinary course of play

The first player has to decide if he wants to bet his hand or check hoping to check raise and trap some extra money in the pot. When the second player acts out of turn and this is binding .... The first player no longer has to worry that if he checks it will check around .... He knows he can get his check rAise in. Yes players 3 and 4 know this too .... But the fact that player 1 knows this effectively steals their positional advantage.

It is amazing how so many poker players, especially some in this thread, can't even seem to figure out how the other players are harmed by this.

Nobody is "positively identifying" an angleshooter on their first offense though. The identification comes after several floor calls which would hopefully be accompanied by sterner and sterner warnings.

I'm not saying there is no harm, just that it is less harm than the alternative of creating an opening for an angle.

If it is at all close, the rule should probably be biased towards the simpler option that makes the game go faster. Do we really want the game to be run so that the floor has to be called over every time someone acts out of turn? How many poker rooms have you played in where you feel confident that over half the dealers would be capable of saying, "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"?