Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
It also doesn't require any penalties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpewingIsMyMove
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 new-ish players who don't know this is the case.
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.