I limp behind several limpers on the btn and somebody in the blinds make it 17...everyone calls. flop is dealt and original raiser checks...utg bets and gets one call and one fold and I perceive the action is now on me...I announce raise and put in a healthy raise (fwiw I have nfd and two overs and with my stack am committed to any reraise). Then a player in mp position announces he hasn't acted yet (he has a huge chips stack and his cards are totally concealed). He tells the dealer that he intended to raise and what would happen if he raised and what would happen if he just calls. Floor comes over he again says he intended to raise. Floor says if he raises, I can pull my bet back because the action changed, but if he just call my raise stands. He calls and my raise stands. This is incorrect right? I should have been able to pull my bet back and replay no matter what he does right? It was so obvious that he had a set and wanted to repop it so I wanted to fold.

Ruling sounds right.

The general rule is that your out of action is binding unless "the action changes in front of you".

Some think a call changes the action. Some don't.

When you act out of turn your action is always binding unless the action changes before it gets to you.

If he folds or calls your raise stands. If he raises you get the option to do whatever you want.

Hmmm...I think that is unfair then...his cards were completely concealed...oh well, I hit the flush anyway

Did he also conceal his pre-flop call?

Not a bad point, although your tone makes me want to punch u in the throat

The reason I don't think the most common rule is correct is the situation that the one caller is in. He has called the first bet and then has to act on his hand again while "concealer" hasn't really acted on his hand yet. I don't believe anyone should be able to make an action knowing what an action will be after them because it puts them in such a powerful position.

Maybe it's because it's a Friday afternoon and I'm stuck at work but this made me laugh.

Oh and I think the ruling made at the table is correct, based on my interpretation of the rule.

Right...he even announced that he intended to raise, but then just called...as the hand played out is was awesome...I had raised to $100 leaving me about $180 behind...my $100 raise actually got a call from the small and big blind which hadn't put a dollar in post flop (even though it was so obvious he was going to reraise) he reraises I call they both call and I hit my flush on the river.

I understand I should have kept up with who was in the hand, but it just seemed wrong that he could act knowing what the action behind him was....especially since his cards were totally concealed.

Poker is about exploiting the mistakes made by others. OP made a huge mistake by not paying attn. Villain has the right to exploit that.

Then let's make concealing ur hand postflop legal

I don't think he has the right to exploit that against the guy sitting there that called the first bet and is going to have to act again before the "concealer" has acted once.

As Angus implied, there are folks who feel that Villain's call does in fact constitute a change in action, which would restore Op's full rights to call/raise/fold.

Personally, I don't buy it. Someone in Op's exact position could use it as an angle where he has a draw and wants to draw cheaply, so he "accidentally" raises out of turn, Mr. "In-turn" checks to allow Op to make his bet, then Op checks behind for a free card, costing "In-turn" a street of value.

Op made the mistake of acting out of turn. The burden is on him to confirm it's his turn before acting.

What you just described is completely different as a check is not action changing.

What we have to consider is one of two things is true when a player acts out of turn, either they are shooting an angle, or they made a mistake.

And I don't see how you can angle by making a pot committing raise out of turn with two already in...are you not, in essense, allowing a guy to shoot an angle when he conceals his cards, gets a raise behind him then says "well I was intending to raise but I'll just call if that raise has to stand"?

This. OP learned a potentially expensive lesson the cheap way. Very cheap! That said, the OP's other point about villan concealing his cards is a legit point, even though perhaps not against the rules. At least I've never seen anyway penalized for doing so in 15 years of live poker.

Good point made earlier that villan's PF call wasn't hidden, but in the heat of the action with multiple callers it is possible to forget who is still in the hand. Some people with big hands always place their hands (or one hand) on the table in the same way. No way to tell whether they have cards or not. It slows down the game or tourney a bunch when on every freaking hand someone has to ask if "big-hands" has cards. And can lead to situations like OPs although the big stacks here appear to be the problem.

Correction...I got paid to learn this lesson

Just on the concealing point, if concealing a players' cards induces action, i suspect most cardroom managers would say that the floor can make a "best interest of the game ruling", which could include killing the hand or not allowing the concealer to reopen the betting.

This is not to say that OP is excused for not knowing who was up (I would also add that the dealer needs to enforce the action too), but simply to state that if a player is really concealing his or her cards, there's a case for disallowing him or her from inducing errors by other players.

Forgive me, I over-generalized. Regardless, I feel my position is the same whether there's action before the OOT action or not. Whether the "In-Turn" actor checks or calls a previous bet, it should still not be considered an "action changing" event in terms of binding the OOT actor to his action. I've seen possibly you and (I think) Pfap argue it the other way, but I don't buy the arguement.

The only way this can cost the "in turn" player anything is if he decides to take advantage of a player that has accidently bet out of turn. This is also why I favor the floor not spelling out for someone what will happen if they raise or call when there has been out if turn action.

I question the floors complete explanation of how he will rule "IF" as being leading and premature, especially with the admission that skipped player intended to raise.

I think you just allow/tell the player to act, ( OR even require at least minraise because of the admission) the ruling is made afterward.

otherwise, "Its your action sir", after he completes his action, then the ruling is made on the out of turn raise.

Did he actively conceal his cards or was he playing them normally (right in front of him) and his chip stack just happened to conceal them?

If it was a mistake (not intentionally concealing) then while I see the point of others, the standard ruling I've always seen is that a call doesn't change the action, ergo your raise stands. Him saying "I was going to raise" isn't the same thing as saying "raise" when the action is actually on him (while the floor is ruling the action is suspended, for lack of a better word, IME), and if anything gave you as much information as your raise out of turn gave him.

If he was actively concealing his hand then he can be assessed some sort of penalty for that, can't he? I've never really seen someone who appeared to be attempting to hide his cards.

+1 in every place I have ever played

Good Ruling IMO.

Acting out of turn should be punished far more though. Pain when people conceal there cards but when your playing like 20 hands an hour you should at least know whats going on.