I think there will be very few times you're 100% sure I didn't check.

Even then are you gonna insist I didn't check and say you'll take that as a check
now and push the raise back and tell the out of turn bettor he has all his options?

(if out of turn action isn't binding)

If the dealer didn't notice the check, it's effectively not a check. Back up action, just takes a second to repeat.

What is it about your poker room that consistently attracts such scummy angleshooters?

I suspect a lot of slow play from regular players is done with at least the the hope that someone in later position will do something that will reveal their intent ... Including acting out of turn.

Nice thread discussions that aren't really getting out of line on either side!

1) There is no 'guaranteed' c/r, but yes, there is the possibility of one coming if the 'wronged' Player has a hand strong enough to do so. Let's not forget that the 'innocent' Players can also now sit in waiting for the 'guaranteed' c/r and 3 or 4-bet their way into bigger action. This discussion has been focusing mainly on what the 'wronged' Player can do to twist the plot of this hand.

How is a guy trying to bluff us (a mistake) and forcing OOT action (a mistake) any different? We hold a Player saying 'I call' without knowing the bet size to his action, eh? We can force a tournament Player to keep any chips over the line in the pot if he want to fold to 'misunderstood' action.

2) I'm actually leaning towards OOT action not being binding and 'forcing' a Player to act as he would've, but I also feel that there will be more spots come up in hands if the change were to take place.

Don't confuse my personal opinion with my comments on how to enforce the existing rule. GL

When I say guaranteed check raise I don't mean it is yuaranteed to happen. What I mean is that the first player can guarantee that he can check/call raise.

Ordinarily if he wants to c/r he has to consider the possibility that he will not get the opportunity to do so. Here that possibility doesn't exist. So to him the opportunity is guaranteed.

There we go .. an un-ordinary opportunity knocks .. I can go with that for sure. GL

I don't understand how you compare betting OOT as a false tell with grabbing chips and acting like you are going to bet them.

In these rooms where betting OOT is not binding, if you do it repeatedly, you'll be kicked out (because its angle).

Will any of these rooms kick you out because you grabbed your chips too often and acted like you were going to bet?

The point isn't that they are the same. The point is that they both convey the information that you intend to bet to the players acting before you.

So if you think falsely conveying that information is an angle it would be an angle either way.

No one thinks falsely conveying that you INTEND to bet is an angle. Almost everyone thinks falsely conveying that you think it is your turn and thus HAVE BET is an angle.

Why do you think this. What advantage do you think you gain by one over the other. If the rule is known that OOT action is not binding then you have not conveyed that "you have bet" because the skipped player knows that your action is no more binding then if you had just picked up chips.

IF the rule is known and IF the player who was skipped over doesn't react then its no big deal. I'll give you that but I think you are asking too much from the average poker player tbh. The numbers of rules that poker players think they know and are incorrect is astounding.

I still don't see how worrying about people getting caught when there might be check raise is a bigger issue than letting someone get angled. Yes I still think its an angle whether or not OOT action is binding.

Because one action (grabbing my chips) is NEVER an actual action. By putting in a bet I either am cheating/angleshooting because I know it isn't my turn, or doing something that is going to be binding on me - betting in turn.

Like I said, it's the same difference between sighing and shaking my head when someone looks like they are going to call my river bet or saying "good call, I missed - oh wait, you didn't call???" One is attempting to communicate information, the other is trying to trick people as to what the action in the hand is.

Another comparison is when my bluff is called on the river, tabling my 7 high in a way that may communicate a good hand versus announcing "straight".

Do you think it should be acceptable for me to bet out of turn as a "tell" or do you think I should get warned/punished for doing so?

I have already stated that acting out of turn is not acceptable conduct. If you want to call intentionally acting out of turn cheating I will not disagree with you. Because the rules dictate that you act in turn .... And intentionally violating the rules would certainly seem to me to meet the definition of cheating.

But not all unacceptable conduct are angles. I would argue the other examples you present are not angles either.

Pretending I thought you called and saying good call isn't an angle. It's bush league sure .... But I wouldn't call it an angle. what is the advantage I seek to gain from this? That I trick you into thinking I'm weak when I'm strong during the betting phase of the game? That is actually an Inherent part of the game. It is entirely appropriate in a poker game to try to be deceptive about the strength of your hand during the betting phase of the game. Nor is this creating ambiguity as to what the action is ... Because I can't confuse you as to what action you yourself did or did not take.

Falsely declaring your hand at showdown is not an angle. It is a violation of the rules it has an angley feel to it but it doesn't really create that situation where you get to claim after the fact whichever of multiple interpretations benefits or create confusion as to what the action is ....

Back in them there olden days, OOT action was never binding. And the amount of intentional OOT action intended to induce the desired action from the opponent was a RAMPANT problem. It happened several times per hour, IME. The current rule that OOT action is binding has dramatically reduced the angley actions of these scummy players.

I am a strong yes vote for keeping the rules as they currently are, with OOT action being binding.

Cheers, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Plus, there is just no good reason why someone who thought it was their turn and wanted to bet, now does NOT want to bet just because another player has checked (which is what they theoretically thought already happened, since they thought it was their turn now).

After all, if they bet OOT, and the skipped player now bets when given their turn, the OOT player is off the hook since the action to them has changed.

Perhaps they didn't think player 1 checked. Perhaps they thought player 1 called or perhaps they thought player 1 folded or wasn't even dealt in, or was already all in. Perhaps knowing that they aren't heads up with player 3 they want to reevaluate.

I think OOT action should be binding. It's the simplest and fairest solution to the issue at hand. Any solution is imperfect.

The casinos in Winnipeg use to have a rule that any chips placed into the pot were binding. If you accidentally limped in or called a raise, those chips stayed in the pot whether you decided to call the action or not.

they should pay more attention to the action then. This is the penalty for not having done that

Poker shouldn't penalize not paying attention beyond the inherent penalty that not paying attention leads to poor play.

But my point was that the previous poster was wrong to say there was no legitimate reason a player who bet not would now want to check after the action is backed up.

Poker penalizes people all the time. You get a penalty for checking back the nuts, regardless of whether or not it was unintentional.

That is false as a general statement. There are some penalties in tournament poker because tournament poker is a different animal. But those penalties are generally based on the idea of protecting the other players in hand ... You know the very players who get hurt by making out action binding. And those penalties are not by changing the way the hand is played but by having a player sit put future hands (or disqualification which is generally only invoked for the most egregious conduct like cheating)

Usually, when there is a rule, even if it is a bad one, there was a reason for it and it wasn't an arbitrary decision that is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Just to be clear, TDA rules say that OOT action is binding if the action doesn't change and subject to additional penalty.

If tournament poker is a different animal, for those who believe that OOT action should not be binding, do you disagree with this rule or do you think it should be different for tournament vs cash games?

I disagree with the rule but would favor missed hand penalties.