OOT action is always discussed at the Summit so undoubtedly it will be again. again, even in this variation the rightful player can bet with some impunity, knowing he can't be re-raised, it's just giving a very unusual amount of control to the rightful actor who already has plenty of control just being able to lock the OOT guy into his action by not changing the action. in your example the OOT guy attempts to re-raise and he's held to a call. Do we then want to extend to the rightful actor the incredible privledge of getting a guaranteed call to whatever he bets? Update: In re-reading your post I see this isn't exactly the example. As it stands the rightful actor can lock in the OOT actor by not changing the action. It certainly is worthy of re-consideration at the next Summit.Īs for the idea that the OOT actor can neither raise nor fold, and must call whatever the rightful player bets, I have a problem with this giving just too much control to the rightful actor. it was left that all options would be open for the OOT actor if action changed), but I'm not quite 100% on this memory, will dig through the records. I vaguely recall that the topic of whether there should be limitations imposed on what the OOT actor can do when action is backed up and the rightful player acts was brought up at the 2011 Summit and it didn't get any traction (i.e.
