FLOP

Hero checks
Villain bets
Hero raises
Villain calls

TURN

Hero bets
Villain calls

River

Villain moves ALL IN out of Turn

Hero is told if he checks the "all in" stays but if he chooses to bet Villain may take his bet back.

Hero disgusted shows his Jack high bluff and mucks.

Hero declares " If I check I can't win because I have Jack high and can't call the all in, and If I change the action and bet Villain knows I'm bluffing because I would have just checked if I hhad a good hand".

Villain received no penalty.

I've looked through TDA and can't find a punishment for Villain in a cash game.

How does this angle get stopped?

If this is an angle, it is a bad one for the villain. If you had a strong hand, you'd just x/c. If you have a weak hand, you just fold and save your bluff bet. Most likely, he has a big hand and got excited. He was rarely going to fold to your 3 barrel bluff.

So what do you propose as a remedy? Pushing his bet back allows for real angling. Someone can push all in, see how you react and then pull all his money. Kill his hand so you can win the pot, including his all in? Have him banned from the poker room for a period of time?

Villain showed an Ace high bluff!

His angle worked perfectly & went un punished

3 barrel bluff was going to work, Villain whiffed and had air

That’s gross.. and while it worked this time given the action this is such a maniacal angle that’s going to work so infrequently that it doesn’t need a rule change IMO. Surely he will do this and get snapped off especially against a c/r flop action.

Villains straight up nuts for doing this.

1- Villain should receive a warning for acting out of turn. If V does so habitually, he should be banned from the room. That is the primary way habitual OOT actors get punished in cash games, almost regardless of the ruleset used. There is no penalty that allows you to somehow have a path to winning the hand, or to penalizing him immediately for a first offense.

2- As others have said, this "angle" is such a bad one, which benefits you so often, and puts you in this squeeze so infrequently, that while it sucks you got put in this situation, it's unlike to result in any rule change to fix.

3- There is a solution however, but no one else (besides me) likes it. Stop making the OOT bet binding at all, ever. V gets his bet back, and now it's your action. You can no longer rely on his bet being binding, so if you bet yourself, it's not a sure thing that your hand is weak because otherwise you would just check and then call his guaranteed all in. Now you can decide if you want to run a bluff into someone who's showing strength but may be giving off a false tell.

this angle only works if you both have air, which presumably isn't that frequently given the action, and in which case villain could still just bluff raise or hero call. i wouldn't lose sleep over it.

He does this often. Countless warnings. Any solution beyond banning?
Players will eventually be quitting if he keeps doing this.

Drunk disaster but needs to be fixed.

He dragged a $500 pot there. And players were obviously p%$$#d off.

A good floorperson in a good room will warn the villain about intentionally shooting angles. The rules about discrepancies assume that players aren't trying to be angle-shooting scumbags. A known angle-shooter will be sent home for the day, the week, or for good, depending on his insistence on pushing the boundaries.

Or check-snap him off with better air or even a hand. Maybe my imagination sucks, but I don't see how this can be a profitable angle especially after one becomes known for it??

I'm a long-time subscriber. Big neon signs in each room: "Out-of-turn bets are never binding." Once the practice and knowledge of it spread, all of the angles and confusion and floor rulings go away. It's the most obvious mass rule change ever, and we will never do it.

So when the action is on the SB, the villain in CO can loudly announce "All-in!" as he shoves his stack forward and know that this is not binding.

And this will eliminate angle shooting???

Yes.

If I'm on a draw on the turn and I'd really like to see the river for free, I'll be sure to push out a large bet oot, and then feign ignorance when it's pointed out that the action is on you. I'm happy to know I won't be accused of angling.

Our room a few years ago had OOT nonbinding in all cases and it was a **** show of oot action. It led to tons of angles by regs against out of town players who are used to the standard rules. Similar to the way regs angled tourists when we had a hard betting line. OOT action reduced considerably once they went to the standard rule.

Enforcing penalties is difficult on repeat offenders bc dealers rotate, shift managers rotate, etc so unless players make a point to repeatedly complain nothing gets done bc each offense is treated as a new situation.

1. Frequent violators should get 86ed.
2. I know it only works once everyone in the room knows it's the rule, including visitors. They can be instructed every time there is an OOT action that it is not binding.
3. Again, frequent violators get 86ed. So there is no "tons of regs angling visitors". Give them a week, and they either stop doing it or get 86ed. Yes, you need strong floors and room managers to do it. Yes, it works best if everyone does it so it's not a strange rule only in use by one room.

You could try for a free card by saying "I have aces full" on an ace-less board. If feigning ignorance is at all effective, then you are not arguing against anything I'm suggesting.

I have played in rooms where OOT action is not binding and people angle the hell out of it. Sometimes they do it for fun - one hand I saw P1 bet, P2 was tanking. P3 pushed out a huge raise. P2 folded. P3 folded then started laughing! He was just bored and thought it would be funny.

If I can remember it properly, here's how they handle OOT action in Australia:
If P1 checks, P2 is now forced to check. If P1 bets the same or less than the OOT bet, P2 can only fold or call. If P1 bets more, P2 has all options available.

This has the benefit of screwing the OOT player in most situations and the players there are much more careful not to do it than elsewhere.

This is totally an angle although a stupid one. Villain is creating this situation because he believes you aren't nutted so you can't check/call his AI, but if you change the action by betting he can muck.

Betting out of turn is inherently punishing. There doesn't need to be any additional penalties.

The problems with having OOT action be binding are smaller than the problems with having OOT action not be binding. This just happens to be one of those situations where it works better to have the latter rule. In most cases though, I prefer the former rule.

How much was the 'all-in' compared to the pot?

Obv, like most poker spots, this is double edged depending on the frequency of the offense. This 'allows' you to play OOP against this guy more often and trap going to Rivers and by just taking your time to bet OTR. You also have to consider how often he bets as a bluff when IP.

I guess I'm more tolerant of this since 'these guys' are usually losing Players who own themselves in these spots. While it's not to be ignored by any means, the Regs should be aware that it may happen and be ready to play around it.

It's certainly an angle and takes away some of the 'poker' options by the OOP Player due to the dynamic of the all-in.

I have won hands in these spots by stating "I've only got a X.xx hand" and bet anyway (and the opponent folds). GL

Strongly disagree.

I've been playing poker almost 30 years now, so I played back when your proposed method was standard. Players angled it constantly. And now you get to play the guessing game as to whether they were intentionally acting out of turn to change your play, or if it was an accident.

Then, the rule changed to it's current form, where out of turn action is binding. Now, there is no benefit to acting out of turn, and players behave much better. It is WAY better now than it was then. It will be a huge mistake to change it back.

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

For a while, there was a rule that action out of turn was void and the player lost the right to initiate any action. He could only check, or call, thus punishing that person. Many of us thought it was a great rule and that, long term it would fix, or reduce the problem.

It didn't, if anything it made it worse. The out-of-turn action continued and the fights and hard feelings got worse.

Sadly, the current rule that it isn't binding seems the best bad idea we have.

lol how is this an angle? he is actively attempting to gift you money.

Never heard of that one .. This is Robert's version 11, couldn't find version 12 to see if it was tweaked or not (probably not)

11. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may
not bet or raise on the next turn to act. A player who has called out of turn may not change
his wager to a raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn is
binding unless the action to that player is subsequently changed by a bet or raise. If there is
an intervening call, an action may be ruled binding.

What this rule doesn't address is what the Player is forced to raise by if they are 'interrupted' mid OOT. In yester-year when the main game was limit it didn't really matter too much, but in today's NL/PLO world a Player being forced to 'only' min-raise would be a Pot Odds nightmare (and perhaps a suitable punishment)

TDA doesn't open the door for an intervening call to be reviewed by a Floor. GL

I've only read of this rule on 2+2. It seems it was a house rule of some rooms.