You are UTG and are have mentally committed to raising but are debating the amount. You have a premium hand. UTG+1 raises out of turn. Your cards were normally visible. Is it unethical to now call (forcing him to raise) and 3 bet when it's back on you?

Grunch: Yes.

Now I will read your post.


Okay, now that I've read your post, no. It's fine.

Not unethical IMHO.

I've done it more than once, but feel slightly uneasy each time.

Until they change the rules to OOT action is not binding when action doesn't change, I'm still going to do it when the situation occurs and benefits me.

There have been multiple threads on this. Posters on both sides, but mostly on the check-raise is fine side. FYI calling and calling is also an option, sometimes it's the one I go with (some hands I want to raise, but not 3-bet).

Standard stuff, see it happen all the time at the table. Every now and then it's a situatuon where a player's cards are not visible that lead to the OOT raise, but IME the vast majority of the time it's due to a player not paying proper attention to what's going on at the table. I will absolutely exploit this in spots where it benefits me to do so.

I think it's a bad rule, and wish OOT action weren't binding, to prevent/mitigate situations like this from occurring.

But since it is the rule in most rooms, and since you're as likely to be victim of it as take advantage of it (since there is no way to protect yourself from being caught in the middle), then I agree using it to your advantage is not unethical.

thanks for responses guys. I agree it's not unethical but I still don't feel great about doing it.

Then don't do it (unless not doing it makes you feel worse).

I think it depends on the setting (home/casino/other) and how serious the Players are about the game. In most cases I wouldn't have any issues with limp/3-betting, even with trash, as part of the normal game play and let the other decide if I'm stealing or not.

Unethical? I was on the right of a Player who would never straddle (Button) so I 'paid' for the straddle out of my stack. The whole table knew/saw what was going on. I get AA and blast into 5 limpers. The Straddler now thinks I paid for the straddle just to steal the hand and piles in ... he and another get felted. Unethical? GL

I think the main point here is that your cards were visible, if they weren't visible then I may consider it unethical. Since they were visible, he holds all the responsibility of acting in turn and puts you in this spot to begin with.

How can anyone think this is a bad rule though? I feel like the pros of this rule far outweigh the cons. If it's not in place, you'll have turds betting out of turn with weak-mid strength showdown hands that really don't want to face a bet. Then if checked to they'll just check behind, or if bet into they'll fold. Worst case scenario the other guy just folds and they win.

we have gone over this so many times before i don't really want to start it all again, but the short answer is:

1- you warn the rest of the table that it is not binding, so if you were originally going to bet, you can still do it if you don't want to take the chance. Treat it just like a guy who starts grabbing chips making it seem like he's going to bet when it gets to be hit turn, but maybe he's just acting.

2- if someone bets OOT repeatedly, kick them out

I don't see a problem with it. If you're playing a game for REAL MONEY that you are RISKING then you should PAY MORE ATTENTION to what is going on.

Also, the guy you are going to 3-bet has position on you, something he was unaware of when he opened the pot. When he opened, he thought he was first to act. He has now just gained a positional advantage.

Maybe, or maybe he thought you checked. But even if so, everyone in between him and you, who did nothing wrong, are now trapped between you. And you now have a guaranteed check raise on the field. They did nothing to deserve being put in that position, and cannot protect themselves from it.

If it just affected the OOT player and the player who now gets to checkraise, I would have no problem making it binding.

This is the biggest reason that it's an unfair rule.

They can protect themselves by paying attention.

It's even possible other players may take advantage of you. If, for example, BB has a monster then he/she will likely call the raise knowing that you are going to re-raise, when they would have otherwise re-raised.

If someone raises out of turn and you later call his raise then the original raiser is not obligated to make another raise.

Or say dealer catches and says action is on you and you make it more then the OOP person who acted out of turn did. The OOP player can fold, raise or call (since the action changed).

TDA would give a three hand penalty for acting out of turn, but that is all.


If you mean limp and then when it gets back to you making a three bet then I would say do it every time especially with Monster Cards.
Or limp to see what the other action on table is and then just call.
This is pretty standard strategery.

A player paying attention is unlikely to prevent another player from acting OOT. Ex. Action UTG, but UTG+1 raises OOT. Now the rest of the table is at a disadvantage.


Yes, other monster hands might also benefit, extending the disadvantage to others.

How?

They could be paying perfect attention but that doesn’t stop the fool to their left.

I am pretty sure he means they can protect themselves by paying attention and knowing what the situation is, that the original player may well be now calling to limp-raise and play accordingly.

Not that they can pay attention to stop the dolt from acting out of turn.

Yeah this is clearly what he meant.

It happens all the times in many ways where people are not paying attention and the dealer is not paying attention and no matter what you say or do can do anything.

Just last night I opened UTG to 10, UTG+1 is still stacking chips and hasn't looked at his cards. UTG+2 folds out of turn, I say out loud, hold on, next person folds, I once again say, hold on, this time louder, the next guy puts in 15, once again I am now practically yelling at the players to stop, button folds, and I tell every one stop. Dealer looks at me and is like what? I say the action is still way over here, he has not acted. Oh, I was doing blah blah blah, whatever excuse he came up with. So then UTG+1 folds, dealer then rules that 15 is more than half the raise needed and makes said player put in a min raise, and then both blinds fold and it is back on me.

Just a complete cluster due to everyone being asleep at the wheel, including the dealer, and no matter how much I tried to stop people from acting out of turn it was a futile effort.

I don't care that other people at the table are disadvantaged. They are being disadvantaged by the dummy to my left, not me, so I'm not going to give up EV just to make things right. Keep in mind that you're actually at a disadvantage also if you limp/call a premium, because you could have raised and possibly gotten 3-bet, and if you raise you are at a disadvantage because everybody knows you are raising despite the knowledge that another player wants to.

In short, I am always taking full advantage of the situation and not feeling bad about it at all. The other players would be right to be upset with the OOT player, but not me taking advantage of the situation.

They can understand the situation and protect themselves, but it definitely puts them at a disadvantage through no fault of their own. They have lost position and are forced to play a bloated pot. It basically renders a ton of a hands that would otherwise be playable unplayable.

That being said, I think you have to weight the disadvantage to those players against the advantage gained by the OOT actor and the advantage lost by the player whose action was usurped.

The OOT actor gets no advantage from this. In fact he's at a disadvantage. The only one who gets an advantage is the player who was skipped.

You are completely correct that everyone else is at a disadvantage through no fault of their own, and it sucks but it's also not our fault and we should not be expected to disadvantage ourselves to make up for the OOT action.

I at least am not saying you should disadvantage yourself, I said as much in my first post.

What I would prefer instead is a rule change that makes it so the issue is (IMO) mitigated, and no one / fewer people get disadvantaged.

On the contrary;

I’m UTG with AA
UTG +1 raises OOT

Even if it isn’t binding, I’m still in the unfortunate position where if I raise it will look incredibly strong. Unless the guy raises OOT every hand, people will still take that into consideration when I raise and it will effect the hand.

There really no perfect solution but I think keeping it binding is better.