How shady is this? Some, a little, or not at all?

[eviljeff]

how bad is the title of this thread?

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
how bad is the title of this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I knew it wasn't really shady, and was hoping to forestall some nastiness from the "not at all" crowd by explicitly framing the question as a matter of small importance, and allowing for the possibility that I had nothing to complain about. If you can think of a better way to do that, I'm all ears.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
If he was just taking advantage of the information I dropped by acting out of turn, I wouldn't have cared.

[/ QUOTE ]

This looks like it's exactly what he did. Which just happens to take advantage of the rule. How else is he supposed to take advantage of the info you dropped?

You screwed up(even if it was an honest mistake). Quit acting like this was an angle being shot.

b

[albedoa]

Do most card rooms bind you to your action in this scenario, or are you usually given the option with the new information?

[killsadie]

so you pushed and beat AQo, right?

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he was just taking advantage of the information I dropped by acting out of turn, I wouldn't have cared.

[/ QUOTE ]
This looks like it's exactly what he did. Which just happens to take advantage of the rule. How else is he supposed to take advantage of the info you dropped?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fair point. There probably wouldn't be any effective difference, though it did seem like he made his decision based on the fact that I was compelled to raise, rather than inclined to raise. It's possible I'm mistaken.

[ QUOTE ]
Quit acting like this was an angle being shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really not. I said it was my fault, I said it wasn't that big of a deal, and I asked what other people thought.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
so you pushed and beat AQo, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I called, LP caller went all-in for about $160 total, call, call. Me and villain checked down a rag board, and he showed QQ. All-in LP also had AK.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a fair point. There probably wouldn't be any effective difference, though it did seem like he made his decision based on the fact that I was compelled to raise, rather than inclined to raise. It's possible I'm mistaken.


[/ QUOTE ]

You do see where if you were able to do this and get away with just limping afterward how an angle could be shot much easier?

Another thing, if you were about to raise, actually threw it out there like you did, but then the guy still calls ahead of you, shouldn't that raise some alarm bells about his possible holding? Especially if he's counting out a raise ahead of time, but now just limps into you?

I also think the binding part is rule more used in NL than limit. Limit it seems more situational how they rule it.

Btw...another situation that sucks and can be done innocently is checking out of turn, then raising when someone bets into you. Say you're going for a c/r from EP but forget the guy in front of you, say in a blind, is in the hand. That one kind of raises eyebrows. It can also be seen as an angle even though it can easily be an honest mistake like what you did.

b

[Matt G]

Why did QQ check down a rag board?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

If it was an honest mistake then it's'your tough luck. I recall a hand i played where 3 took the flop in a raised pot, sb bet $5, i was about to raise but the PF raiser acted out of turn making it $30. Dealer made him take it back till i acted, i called the $5 then he raised right on cue. Keep in mind i wasn't hiding my cards at all. Funny but they might as well have been face up because i reraised all-in (flopped a set).

Now if the guy in your situation keeps hiding his cards then he could lose his right to pull off maneuvers like this. If you fail to protect your own action then you could lose your right to act. This could include hiding your cards and letting people act behind you so you can limp-reraise.

Al