Ethical Q -- Soft-playing opponents

I was playing 10-20 hold'em this weekend and ran into a somewhat annoying situation. Three friends were sitting next to each other, and they would check down every hand after everyone other than the friends folded. In one hand, I was in the big blind. One friend raised, another reraised, and everyone, including me, folded. The two friends then checked the hand down.


I would have been more annoyed if I thought something intentionally untoward was going on, but it wasn't. Both of the friends had legitimate hands (I think it was AK vs. JJ), and I don't think the friends realized that what they were doing could be seen as unethical. I didn't say anything, but should the dealer have done something?

Interesting question. I am a newer player, so I don't know the unwritten rule here and am equally interested in the response from others.


This past weekend I went with my friend to CT and we got in this situation once in the 40+ hours we played together. We got heads up on the flop and I knew I was locked in for the win. I was first to act, and I offered to check it down, which we did. Nothing unethical was intended, and moreover he and I both take the approach that if the proper thing to do is play it out as you normally would, we would. I know I made the offer because I felt like we weren't close in the hand (I had flopped top set with a rainbow flop and no straight in sight).


Additionally, I have seen many players who refuse to bet when it's heads up (I guess they think it's rude or something). I've always thought this put me in an awkward position, because I would never think this way and if they offer to check with me when they are ahead in the hand but I don't with them, they might get upset and leave (usually these are weak players who suck and you want to stay in the game).


Is there some kind of unwritten rule you don't ever do this?


9s9c

I'm also somewhat new to casino poker, but I personally have no problem with this. If anything, it lets me know that the 2 players are likely not in real collusion as they would probably try to hide it better if they were.


maybe I am missing the point?

I think its unethical, b/c the players can play aggressively to push out the others without fearing further aggression when it gets heads up. In the example I posted, would friend #2 have been as likely to reraise if there was a risk of further aggression from friend #1 once the blinds dropped?

Softplaying is not inherently unethical, just as lying is not inherently unethical. Taken case by case, if a certain softplay is unethical, it's unethical, and if it's not, it's not. Judges and juries decide. That would be the house and players.


Tommy

Tommy,


I’ve learned to live with the increasingly rampant softplaying all around me but I don’t like it and essentially never do it. One problem today is that this and other violations of what has been called “the spirit of poker” are becoming so pernicious that it makes it that much easier for the playing public to perform and look the other way during more serious ethical breeches.


I sometimes have a friend in the game with me. If anything, we play extra hard against each other and our friendship is not diminished and the game is a lot more fun for us as well as our opponents. But in some games it seems half the hands are softplayed and I sense that those not in on the agreements feel like outsiders. They don’t always speak up or help police the problem. And in some cases they don’t come back, as they know they aren’t part of “the club”.


Regards,


Rick

I think it's wrong to ever softplay. I would checkraise my mother or wife if I thought it was the right play. And I would keep the money. But I also can de-personalize conflict. (I'm a lawyer, go figure.) I also think the casinos should put a stop to slowplaying. Then again, here's my weekend experience:


10-20 at a High Desert casino. A husband and wife (no, not me and my wife) are in the game. So is HDPM. Husband is a ridiculously bad player. Wife is a bad player. They push checks to each other. Usually the wife pushing a stack to hubby after he calls all raises w/ 88 on a As-Ks-10d-10s-2c board, with the wife holding 10-4d and snapping A-K. Both are drinking - Bacardi and diet and Black Velvet and Coke (groan even if they are comped) They are going to blow every cent of this month's disposable cash in the 10-20. They lose at least $800 between them. I think over $1000. They have their kids locked in a hotel room eating pizza. They discuss the fact they have grocery money for the month and can lose $200 more. Ethical question - Is HDPM going to get on his moral high horse when they push checks or slowplay when he is stuck 20 BB by getting sucked out upon by the worst player in history (not one of these two) 3 times? Hell no. Push the drunk dummy some more checks. Go on welfare. Let your kids starve. HDPM wants his 20 BB back before the game breaks. Alas, they go home broke but HDPM doesn't get his 20 BB back. So what's the moral? Do whatever as long as you lose to me!:-)

poker ethics in succinct form...well stated counslor..gl

I've struggled with this question a lot. I was introduced to playing at card rooms by a friend and classmate of mine in law school. When we first went to the card room, we talked about what would happen if we were heads up against each other in a pot. We agreed that we would just check it down if we were the only two left, but that we would play normally if there were any other person in the pot.


Almost immediately, I decided that this was a bad idea. First, people looked at us strange when we did it. I didn't think that there was anything ethically wrong with what we were doing, but I did not like the appearance of impropriety. I did not want to another player to believe that I was trying to clothesline other players when I three bet my friend.


The final straw was when I raised under the gun, I reraised with AQs, and he muttered under his breath that he had kings when the king high board hit. There were two other players in the pot. He bet , I folded and he won a large pot. I was furious, and after the end of the session, I told him that if he ever did that again that I would never sit at the same table with him again.


Now, I bet fewer rivers against my friend, but I otherwise play the hand exactly as I would against anyone else.


OK, I'm rambling now. I guess I don't really like soft playing, not because it generally is improper, but because it creates an appearance of team play.


RH

It is a real problem because it changes the odds for the other players in the hand. As in your A-Q v. K-K example that you drew the line it. It still is a problem if you don't bet the river when you otherwise would. It gives your friend an easier decision on the turn which could affect any other player in the hand.