Out of Turn Betting confusion

[Spence]

Under the circumstance where player 2 bets $200 and it is backed up to player 1 who bets $200, I'm just not comfortable with re-opening the betting for player 2. The rules state that it does, but I just don't like it.

[W0lfster]

I am in agreement with Spence, I believe player 2 should keep his $200 OOT bet in there as an added penalty for acting OOT. I am aware that the WSOp use this very rule and I think its the best way, my question is though if that player cannot take his bet back and player 1 bets $200 also when player 2 has bet $200 OOT, is he/she allowed to check or is the player skipped to player 3?

[Brian Vickers]

If Player 1 (the person who is actually effected by the OOT bet) is concerned with Player 2 leaving his money in the pot, then all he has to do is say check and it's not an issue.  If he wants to lead out instead and Player 2 takes his bet back and folds as a response to that, then Player 1 has no one to blame but himself for not just checking now that action is back on him. 
Like I've said before, it only takes a quick explanation by the dealer to Player 1 explaining his options once Player 2's infraction occurs.  After this, the decision is in Player 1's hands.  If he checks, the bet stands and he is free to check-call, check-raise, check-fold.  If he bets then he bets knowing what will happen if he does; he could now be facing a raise, fold, or call, but Player 2's chips have the possibility of not being bound to the pot if Player 1's action unbinds it.

[Nick C]

Brian,
Do you think that is the way it should be? Why should the out of turn bettor be allowed to dictate what size bet will open that round of betting? You are saying that if the PROPER bettor does anything other than check, the offending player (player 2) can withdraw his (OOT) bet, or even raise. I think I'm following what you're saying and that's exactly why I don't like the rule.

[Spence]

Like I've said before, it only takes a quick explanation by the dealer to Player 1 explaining his options once Player 2's infraction occurs.  After this, the decision is in Player 1's hands. 

Maybe I'm just being picky but I would worry that the dealers explaination could be construed as influencing the decision. I had this happen in my room not long ago. Player 1 was very new and Player 2 was a shark. The dealer wanted to stop the action and ensure that Player 1 knew what her options were but Player 2 intervened saying that the dealer was coaching her into a decision. Luckily, I was there at the time. After the explaination she still wanted to bet the $200 so I held that Player 2's action was complete and he was passed. I thought it to be the most fair decision at the time. Was it? Maybe not the book rule but integrity and fairness of the game was preserved. Someone argue with me 

[Nick C]

Spence,
What do you mean when you say that Player 2's action was complete and he was passed? Did he bet 200 OOT and therefore had no option but leave his bet in the pot? If so, that is what I agree with but, it does not comply with the current rule, does it?

[Spence]

Sorry Nick. That's right. I was loosely using the same example as stated in the initial argument. Player 2 was passed because he had already put his $200 in OOT.

[NiclasG]

one reason to have the rule is to prevent player 2 "stealing" the first bet bluff IMO.

i consider that player 1 should be free to choose whatever option he likes, casue he has not done anything wrong, question is what to do with the bet that is in the pot from player 2.
Following the rules from tDA this is my idea.

I would give turn to act back to player 1, and the options is, check(bet from p2 stands, and resume normal rules when it comes back to players 1),he bet same amount as OOT bet(I.E 200 forcing player 2 to make the call of 200),Bet more then player2, and this gives the option back to player 2, he can Call. He can Fold and withdraw the bet he made in OOT(this is used to take away the first bluff bet i mentioned earlyer, or he can Reraise.

The only issues i see here is what if the player 2 bets 600, and player 1 bets 300, that make the 600 bet a reraise by force? or if its the in 50% raise rule. would we force the player 2 to make the raise or can he withdraw anything down to the call, this makes it kind of the "old" forced check/follow rule.
Or do we tell the player 1 the options he have is Check or bet same amount as player 2(thus making it a Call for player2) or if he wants to bet it have to be more then player2s bet This gets in conflict with "player that did nothing wrong should not be constrained in any way"
and it gets abit close to using another players error/misstake to gain a big advantage/unfair.

it could be handled like this also.
The out of turn bet is NEVER accepted, player will retract the bet, get a 1 hand sitout the hand afterwards, next time he does the same he gets a orbit.the third time he get 3-5 orbits.
(exceptions are All-ins that never can be retracted.

Im sorry if This is confusing

[Nick C]

NiclasG,
No need to apologize, it is confusing the way it is written. I do like that you are pointing out the fact that; the OOT bettor is the offending player. That is where the problem began. Like I said before, why allow him any chance to dictate how much, the player that was skipped should bet? If he bets out of turn, and he was not misled by the dealer or another player, he should be held to his intentional Out Of Turn action. That's what I don't like about the rule as written. The more I think about it, the more I feel that the OOT should have no raise option, either.
I like the idea of punishment to the offending player.