"Check out"

[HentaiGaijin]

"Check out" - Is this the term for folding without a bet in front of you? I.e.: Action is on you, you can check but fold instead?

[stabn]

Yes.

[tek]

Is this action to advertise that you are a rock, but then start stealing with LAG hands?

[other1]

I almost never think it makes any sense. I will only every very rarely do it if for instance I was the bb with 27o and the flop comes something like say AKT. There is NO way I am winning that hand and its just a waste of time to stay in.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

"check-out" is the layman's term for ...

"*BLEEP*, this BLEEPITY friggin' dealer screwed me the BLEEP over once again with some piece of BLEEP bullcrap hand, and now this BLEEP BLEEP BLEE-BLEE-BLEEP has the BLEEPing indecency to add insult to injury by putting that unbelievably BLEEPITY BLEEP flop out there, I might as well just BLEEP myself in the BLEEPING BLEEP rather than continue to play at this BLEEPITY BLEEP friggin' BLEEP of a table, cuz I ain't winnin' a BLEEP BLEEP thing here, it's pre-ordained, etched in stone from cradle to BLEEPING grave."

Just thought I'd clear you up on that.

al

[CrashPat]

[ QUOTE ]
"check-out" is the layman's term for ...

"*BLEEP*, this BLEEPITY friggin' dealer screwed me the BLEEP over once again with some piece of BLEEP bullcrap hand, and now this BLEEP BLEEP BLEE-BLEE-BLEEP has the BLEEPing indecency to add insult to injury by putting that unbelievably BLEEPITY BLEEP flop out there, I might as well just BLEEP myself in the BLEEPING BLEEP rather than continue to play at this BLEEPITY BLEEP friggin' BLEEP of a table, cuz I ain't winnin' a BLEEP BLEEP thing here, it's pre-ordained, etched in stone from cradle to BLEEPING grave."

Just thought I'd clear you up on that.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

One correction though, it isn't the dealer that got you, it is the deck. Stupid deck. I've checked out in the past and will in the future too.. in BB with 72o in an unraised pot with AKJ on the flop the only hope is to try to steal on the turn or fold.. or catch runner runner dueces, checking out allows me to ogle the cocktail waitress for an extra 20 seconds.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"check-out" is the layman's term for ...

"*BLEEP*, this BLEEPITY friggin' dealer screwed me the BLEEP over once again with some piece of BLEEP bullcrap hand, and now this BLEEP BLEEP BLEE-BLEE-BLEEP has the BLEEPing indecency to add insult to injury by putting that unbelievably BLEEPITY BLEEP flop out there, I might as well just BLEEP myself in the BLEEPING BLEEP rather than continue to play at this BLEEPITY BLEEP friggin' BLEEP of a table, cuz I ain't winnin' a BLEEP BLEEP thing here, it's pre-ordained, etched in stone from cradle to BLEEPING grave."

Just thought I'd clear you up on that.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

One correction though, it isn't the dealer that got you, it is the deck. Stupid deck. I've checked out in the past and will in the future too.. in BB with 72o in an unraised pot with AKJ on the flop the only hope is to try to steal on the turn or fold.. or catch runner runner dueces, checking out allows me to ogle the cocktail waitress for an extra 20 seconds.

[/ QUOTE ]

No al's right on about how the typical player that checks out on the flop thinks.

[The Goober]

Do you know of any card rooms where this is considered illegal, even if rarely enfored? It seems to me that its somewhat akin to folding out of turn, but not as bad since it doesn't tend to cause so mass confusion.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

checking out is illegal in all cardrooms (that I have ever heard of), but is virtually never enforced, except perhaps at the very highest level games.

al

[neotope]

[ QUOTE ]
checking out is illegal in all cardrooms (that I have ever heard of), but is virtually never enforced, except perhaps at the very highest level games.


[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see why it would be illegal. If you check out on the flop you are at best speeding up the game.

Please explain?

[The Armchair]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
checking out is illegal in all cardrooms (that I have ever heard of), but is virtually never enforced, except perhaps at the very highest level games.


[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see why it would be illegal. If you check out on the flop you are at best speeding up the game.

Please explain?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are acting out of turn, which gives an unfair advantage to some others.

Imagine that you are in Seat 1, Opponent in in Seat 2, and Checkout Guy is in Seat 3. You bet. Opponent now can call without fear of a raise. Usually, Opponent would not be closing the betting -- advantage, opponent.

That said, I think the call of nature is a reasonable justification for checking out.

[neotope]

[ QUOTE ]
You are acting out of turn, which gives an unfair advantage to some others.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can see why acting out of turn would be bad. But it seems like it would be possible to check out in turn and that should certainly be legal.

[Glurfle]

No. Suppose you're first to act with two players behind you. You check out, player 2 checks. Now player 3 can bet knowing that you will neither call nor check-raise him, giving him an advantage that he wouldn't have if you had just checked.

[SNOWBALL138]

I've never heard this term, but folding when there is no action to you is pretty dumb. Maybe the board causes a split. Maybe u can bluff. Maybe u catch runner runner. Maybe u make a pair, and no one else has a pair and you get a free showdown. I don't really care how long a shot I'm facing. If I can get any kind of free draw, I'm taking it.

OTOH, this is probably less of a mistake in omaha.

[Chimp]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never heard this term, but folding when there is no action to you is pretty dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some guy at the Wynn a few weeks ago would occasionally fold preflop in the big blind....in an unraised pot. Some nit asked him why he would do that and the guy said "even if I hit the flop, I'm probably outkicked." I nodded my head and told him I sometimes did that too..."keeps me out of trouble." /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[wslee00]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Suppose you're first to act with two players behind you. You check out, player 2 checks. Now player 3 can bet knowing that you will neither call nor check-raise him, giving him an advantage that he wouldn't have if you had just checked.

[/ QUOTE ]
but everyone has the advantage to use this new information - player 2 could have easily bet using this information to know that he was only up against one opponent instead of two

[MrDannimal]

I'll sometimes do it if the next dealer is standing behind, and I'm in position to take bathroom break (middle position, usually). Never hurts to have the extra minute or so. It happens so rarely for me anyway.

It does get a little irritating when someone will "fold" out of turn and then say "Deal me in next hand" as they bolt off to suck down a smoke quickly, mostly because it seems to happen frequently.

[Aces McGee]

here's a clearer example:

3 way pot on the flop. You're the big blind, and the small blind and the button are in.

SB checks, and you check out. Now the button can choose his action knowing that the pot is heads up.

This isn't fair to the SB, who might've chosen to bet out if you he knew you were going to fold.

-McGee

[neotope]

That's a good example and makes sense, thanks.

[Aces McGee]

I probably shouldn't say that it's "unfair" because it can be chalked up to positional disadvantage, but the expectation is quite clearly that no one is going to fold when there's no bet to them, so it does give extra information to the button.

-McGee

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
so it does give extra information to the button.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't like this argument at all. Any action which gives the button more information is illegal? That's how position works!

I say any action you take when it's your turn to act is fine. "Action" means "Fold, Call, or Raise". If the current bet is 0, make it "Fold, Check, or Bet", but that first option should still be legal.
-Sam

[wslee00]

[ QUOTE ]
so it does give extra information to the button.

[/ QUOTE ]
ok, i just re-read your post and you did mention that it gives the button *extra* information. Thing is, this "extra" information readily becomes available to the SB as well. Both parties gain the exact same information: that the BB is no longer in the hand. So now the button gets to act w/ the information that SB checks, and BB is out, while SB can now react to the fact that the button will take his action knowing that BB is out... The new information that the button gets is negated, since it can be used by the SB as well.