[ QUOTE ]

The idea is that you can't use betting out of turn as a way of scaring someone in front of you into checking (either b/c he's afraid of you or b/c he wants to check-raise) and then change your action into a check to get a free card.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an idea that makes no sense to me. Every player is aware that they can not be certain of what the players who act after them may do.

If you make the action out of turn binding, you unfairly give the player who was skipped a free shot because he know knows what one player after him is going to do. and he gets to act accordingly. While I don't mind giving this disadvantage to the player who acted out of turn, there is no reason to disadvantage everyu other player in the hand.

Example -- Player 1 has a good hand and wants to get as much money into the pot as possible. He considers the possibility of a check raise but is concerned that the three players behind him will check around so he decides to bet. (player 3 and Player 4 are both on a draw and would like free cards) before he actually acts, Player two bets out of turn. The action is now stopped and Player 1 asks the dealer whether that action is binding. If the dealer tells the player that the action is binding, Player 1 now gets to check knowing that he will get the chance to raise when the action comes around to him. But if the dealer pushes back Player 2s bet and tells them that the bet is not binding, Player 1 has to at the very least consider the possibility that the action will check around if he checks. Thus he is put back in the position he should have been when he first was supposed to act.