Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK. One simple example. Three players in the pot. Player A checks, player B checks because he cant bluff against two players, C checks too and shows a winning hand. Now if player A folds, its more easier to player B to bet, because he knows for sure that player A isnt going to call/raise. Now player C is in a bad spot. Player C decides not to call. What happend? Player C lost a pot he would have won, if Player A had checked instead of folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an effect of a legitimate action not an explanation of why the action is unethical.

Remember -- Player A does not know what the effect of his checking out will be. When he checks out, it can also make it easier for Player B to bet into what he sees as a weak Player C even though Player B would not have bet into two players. If Player C folds the best hand, Player A's check out helped Player B. Every action by a player has the potential of affecting the actions of other players. It does not make those actions inappropriate or unethical.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"unethical"...bad choice of words by the OP.
"unsportsmanlike" or "not proper poker ettiquette", definitely.
I wonder how the amount of B&M experience influences the opinions on this. I would guess those with 5+ years have a different view than those with less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the problem here. Your a good student.(we are all students of the game) From what I have seen in this thread only those with alot of B&M time (my first game 1981 NL Lowball) seem to understand the "ettiquette" here. I do say it is unethical and is a proper definition for this move.

Funny thing, I used to tell regulars in the 20-40 game at Horseshoe Tunica not to do that when I was dealing and would get a ration of shiit for it. Until one day when a player used this information to raise when he saw the next player folding the 2nd he reached forward. The 4th player went nuts...rightfully so...about offering "protection" to the rest of the table by not folding until action before him was COMPLETED.

It was at this time I immediately made a statemnet about this type of fold when not facing a bet to these same regulars.

Now suddenly people began to see what I was talking about as it relates to this OPS issue here. Even a floorperson who was previously at odds with the "fold" option finally saw the light.

Yet when I spoke to Kenny Lambert the poker room manager when I was the floor person and made the ruling NOT allowing a player to fold unless facing a bet, offering the table protection, he fully supported my ruling.

This is often a highly overlooked "rule" in pokerroom rulebooks. It just never gets there or is thought of. Many with so few years in the business just dont get it.

My last attempt to make some understand. Player A Folds, (I dont care at flop, turn, river, as long as cards are on theboard), Playe A is HIGHLY HIGHLY KNOWN for checkraising 90% of the time when he checks. Now PLAYER C HAS NO PROTECTION. Player B may bet KNOWING he cant get checkraised and only has to get by Player C. And for shiits n giggles, presume player B has a pair smaller than the board...or maybe even a gutshot draw and player C has the underpair...which MIGHT be good.

To those of you that "just dont get it". Try just accepting it as unethical and dont do it.

I could care less what you see on the internet option screen. Those sites were not built by people with understanding of poker. Full tilt has it right tho. hmm..highly influenced by many years of B&M players experience. Interesting isnt it?

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quite simply, the people who acted behind you had more information than those in front of you. In a low-limit hold 'em game, this information is fairly insignificant, but in a bigger game, it really could make a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
A player in postion will always have more info than one out of position when it's their turn, regardless of what action hero takes.

That said, don't check out; just check and fold in turn. How hard is that? If you don't want to show your hand, then muck it after the action if it gets checked thru, but don't do it before. It's def looked down upon in pots that aren't HU, and justifiably so.

GoT

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Until one day when a player used this information to raise when he saw the next player folding the 2nd he reached forward. The 4th player went nuts...rightfully so...about offering "protection" to the rest of the table by not folding until action before him was COMPLETED.


[/ QUOTE ]

You were right for reasons irrelevant to this thread:

(1) The person making the mistake here is player 3 who indicates he is going to fold out of turn.

(2) How could player 1 have checked out if player 2 was betting and changed to a raise? That means that player 1 either bet or folded to a bet.

[ QUOTE ]
To those of you that "just dont get it". Try just accepting it as unethical and dont do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, someone who has "been around for a long time" is telling us just to accept it even though there is no clear reason. It is not in the rule book and is not unethical. I think that the vast majority of times, checking out is stupid and I don't think I have ever done it accept possibly in a home game.

I will go a step further: If you are playing in my game and you are the first to act on the river, PLEASE check out. If I am still in the hand, it is far more preferrable to be facing one less adversary when it is my turn to act. Indeed, if you don't check out you are likely the guy that is going to make it clear he is going to fold anyway. So just do it.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's an effect of a legitimate action not an explanation of why the action is unethical.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reason the dealer announces "check-out" is so everyone sees equally that the player took an illegitmate action. Note the player didn't "fold" (that not a choice here; he "checked" and threw his cards away.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's an effect of a legitimate action not an explanation of why the action is unethical.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reason the dealer announces "check-out" is so everyone sees equally that the player took an illegitmate action. Note the player didn't "fold" (that not a choice here; he "checked" and threw his cards away.

[/ QUOTE ]


On a similiar note though I have never had it come up in a game, I was taught that in dealing stud if a player folded to no bet I was to continue dealing cards to that spot until there is a bet. If folding to no bet was perveived to be a legitimate option why would this rule exist. (I can't really justify the rule anyway, but it seems that they wouldn't have bothered with the rule if checking out was just another option)

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's an effect of a legitimate action not an explanation of why the action is unethical.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reason the dealer announces "check-out" is so everyone sees equally that the player took an illegitmate action. Note the player didn't "fold" (that not a choice here; he "checked" and threw his cards away.

[/ QUOTE ]


On a similiar note though I have never had it come up in a game, I was taught that in dealing stud if a player folded to no bet I was to continue dealing cards to that spot until there is a bet. If folding to no bet was perveived to be a legitimate option why would this rule exist. (I can't really justify the rule anyway, but it seems that they wouldn't have bothered with the rule if checking out was just another option)

[/ QUOTE ]

The traditional stud rule is you continue to deal up cards but no 7th street card. The reason for this in stud is the other players are entitled to information the up cards provide.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's an effect of a legitimate action not an explanation of why the action is unethical.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reason the dealer announces "check-out" is so everyone sees equally that the player took an illegitmate action. Note the player didn't "fold" (that not a choice here; he "checked" and threw his cards away.

[/ QUOTE ]


On a similiar note though I have never had it come up in a game, I was taught that in dealing stud if a player folded to no bet I was to continue dealing cards to that spot until there is a bet. If folding to no bet was perveived to be a legitimate option why would this rule exist. (I can't really justify the rule anyway, but it seems that they wouldn't have bothered with the rule if checking out was just another option)

[/ QUOTE ]

The traditional stud rule is you continue to deal up cards but no 7th street card. The reason for this in stud is the other players are entitled to information the up cards provide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which they wouldn't be entitled to if you folded to a bet, so I think this further supports the concept that checking out is not a legitimate option.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK. One simple example. Three players in the pot. Player A checks, player B checks because he cant bluff against two players, C checks too and shows a winning hand. Now if player A folds, its more easier to player B to bet, because he knows for sure that player A isnt going to call/raise. Now player C is in a bad spot. Player C decides not to call. What happend? Player C lost a pot he would have won, if Player A had checked instead of folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't Player A's action just as easily compel Player C to call because he knows Player A won't be check-raising?

this is a poor and inconclusive example.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]

My last attempt to make some understand. Player A Folds, (I dont care at flop, turn, river, as long as cards are on theboard), Playe A is HIGHLY HIGHLY KNOWN for checkraising 90% of the time when he checks. Now PLAYER C HAS NO PROTECTION. Player B may bet KNOWING he cant get checkraised and only has to get by Player C. And for shiits n giggles, presume player B has a pair smaller than the board...or maybe even a gutshot draw and player C has the underpair...which MIGHT be good.

To those of you that "just dont get it". Try just accepting it as unethical and dont do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

what a convoluted and unrealistic example. and since when is it Player A's responsibility for Player C recognizing when his own hand is good? Once Player A checks out, it should make it EASIER for Player C to call with his marginal hand since he no longer has to worry about being check-raised by Player A.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's an effect of a legitimate action not an explanation of why the action is unethical.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reason the dealer announces "check-out" is so everyone sees equally that the player took an illegitmate action. Note the player didn't "fold" (that not a choice here; he "checked" and threw his cards away.

[/ QUOTE ]

then why do dealers also announce bets, callss, raises as well as how many people see each street? is it a question of legitimacy or merely controlling the game?

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's an effect of a legitimate action not an explanation of why the action is unethical.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reason the dealer announces "check-out" is so everyone sees equally that the player took an illegitmate action. Note the player didn't "fold" (that not a choice here; he "checked" and threw his cards away.

[/ QUOTE ]

then why do dealers also announce bets, callss, raises as well as how many people see each street? is it a question of legitimacy or merely controlling the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

In samller games they do, but generally the delaer should not be announcing all this stuff. They should announce number of players and if there is a raise. Everyoen can see the bet and a call. When something happens that cold be easily overlooked the dealer shoudl announce it. The reason it is called "checking-out" is that folding is not an option in that spot. It is not a big deal becasue ever time everyone will benefit equally from this, but it is somethign the floor should put a stop to IF there are complaints.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

what if there was jerkoff at your table who kept asking to see mucked hands at showdown? would it then be ethical to fold if you thought there was a good chance he would ask to see your hand and you think such information would hurt you?

as for online, it sounds like most of you have no idea what you are talking about. if you don't fold on the river your hand will be recorded, and i look out for my own interest first rather than thinking about protecting some guys action.

It eliminates fear of the check raise from the later people
 

no one has to be scared that their call is going to be raised behind...gives too big an advantage to the last to act

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
what if there was jerkoff at your table who kept asking to see mucked hands at showdown? would it then be ethical to fold if you thought there was a good chance he would ask to see your hand and you think such information would hurt you?

[/ QUOTE ]

They should not be able to abuse the rules like that; if a player makes a habit of asking to see the floor shoudl put a stop to it. Also most players turbo muck when someone has been asking to see their cards.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The traditional stud rule is you continue to deal up cards but no 7th street card. The reason for this in stud is the other players are entitled to information the up cards provide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which they wouldn't be entitled to if you folded to a bet, so I think this further supports the concept that checking out is not a legitimate option.

[/ QUOTE ]

You continue dealing cards to the folded spot until there is a legitimate bet. That is so the "check out" does not influence the cards that will play. If there is a bet in the same round following the check out, you do not deal to that spot. It is the same reason why the typical rule when the turn is exposed too early is to shuffle it in after the river that would have been dealt is dealt -- preserve the integrity of the order of the cards to the extent possible.

This does not show that "checking out" is not a legitimate action.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The traditional stud rule is you continue to deal up cards but no 7th street card. The reason for this in stud is the other players are entitled to information the up cards provide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which they wouldn't be entitled to if you folded to a bet, so I think this further supports the concept that checking out is not a legitimate option.

[/ QUOTE ]

You continue dealing cards to the folded spot until there is a legitimate bet. That is so the "check out" does not influence the cards that will play. If there is a bet in the same round following the check out, you do not deal to that spot. It is the same reason why the typical rule when the turn is exposed too early is to shuffle it in after the river that would have been dealt is dealt -- preserve the integrity of the order of the cards to the extent possible.

This does not show that "checking out" is not a legitimate action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it shows checking out isn't legitmate -- Assuming your "integrity of the order of the Deck" theory is correct (though I lean to Randy's explanation) you make the point for me. If a player folds to a bet then he doesn't have anymore cards dealt to him. Doesn't that change the order of the deck for future cards. If you had to maintain the integrity of the deck after a check-out then it is obvious that a checkout is not a legitmate action like folding to a bet.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I will go a step further: If you are playing in my game and you are the first to act on the river, PLEASE check out. If I am still in the hand, it is far more preferrable to be facing one less adversary when it is my turn to act. Indeed, if you don't check out you are likely the guy that is going to make it clear he is going to fold anyway. So just do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong on so many levels... let's look at an example.

4 players see the river.. the first 2 check-out to you and it's your turn to act. What has just happened?

1. Yes you now only have to worry about 1 other player, BUT
2. You ability to bluff now has greatly been reduced.
3. The player to your left now "regains" position on the entire table as opposed to someone just checking. With the first 2 checking-out, he knows that he will be closing the action.
4. Points 2 and 3 now give the guy to your left even more info than he should have and it helps him MUCH more than you compared to the first 2 just checking.

I agree that checking-out is stupid and I have never done it and will probably never do it unless I'm pulling some meta games in a HU only situation (VERY DOUBTFUL [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My last attempt to make some understand. Player A Folds, (I dont care at flop, turn, river, as long as cards are on theboard), Playe A is HIGHLY HIGHLY KNOWN for checkraising 90% of the time when he checks. Now PLAYER C HAS NO PROTECTION. Player B may bet KNOWING he cant get checkraised and only has to get by Player C. And for shiits n giggles, presume player B has a pair smaller than the board...or maybe even a gutshot draw and player C has the underpair...which MIGHT be good.

To those of you that "just dont get it". Try just accepting it as unethical and dont do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

what a convoluted and unrealistic example. and since when is it Player A's responsibility for Player C recognizing when his own hand is good? Once Player A checks out, it should make it EASIER for Player C to call with his marginal hand since he no longer has to worry about being check-raised by Player A.

[/ QUOTE ]

PRECISELY!!! Player A gave no protection to players B & C . Dont look at the hand....look at how the "easier to call" idea for player C stands out because no protection was offered by Player A to player B. No protection for player B in this example.

Now look at how it makes it easier to BET as player B knowing player A is gone and will not check raise.
Therefore player A offered no protection to player C.

The two definitions of protection are in fact perfect to the analogy that you state as convoluted and unrealistic. What we have here is a reading comprhension problem. Dont "be a player thinking how I can take advantage of this when it happens". Think in terms of not lending an advantage to one player over another, but allowing the players own prowess or skill to win the contest. Think in terms of fair play in a game. (game..any game or contest...not poker).

This is in fact a hard fast rule in some rooms. But I cant personally think of any room that is being run by people with less than 10 years experience that understand this concept fully and implement it.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK. One simple example. Three players in the pot. Player A checks, player B checks because he cant bluff against two players, C checks too and shows a winning hand. Now if player A folds, its more easier to player B to bet, because he knows for sure that player A isnt going to call/raise. Now player C is in a bad spot. Player C decides not to call. What happend? Player C lost a pot he would have won, if Player A had checked instead of folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't Player A's action just as easily compel Player C to call because he knows Player A won't be check-raising?

this is a poor and inconclusive example.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is very good and very simple example. I really hope you could understand it.

Lets change the action. Player A checks against two players, player B folds, now player C is facing only one player. You think B´s fold was fine?

Bigfishead said it well.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

Am I the only one that thinks it is a disgrace that a poker room would expect the people at the table who came to have a good time to enforce unwritten rules... write the rule down and have the dealer enforce it if a room thinks this is a problem. I see this is a rule at some rooms but if it not a rule people should feel free to do it.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I will go a step further: If you are playing in my game and you are the first to act on the river, PLEASE check out. If I am still in the hand, it is far more preferrable to be facing one less adversary when it is my turn to act. Indeed, if you don't check out you are likely the guy that is going to make it clear he is going to fold anyway. So just do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong on so many levels... let's look at an example.

[EXAMPLE DELETED]


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes -- people have provided examples of when a check out can hurt you -- and there are times I would be upset by a check out. But those situations are in the minority. The majority of the time, I would rather know that I don't have to worry about a third player (and more importantly, a fouth or fifth) in the hand. Call me simple, but in most situations, it is easier for me deal with a single opponent.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one that thinks it is a disgrace that a poker room would expect the people at the table who came to have a good time to enforce unwritten rules... write the rule down and have the dealer enforce it if a room thinks this is a problem. I see this is a rule at some rooms but if it not a rule people should feel free to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will be my last comment on the subject, because I agree with scrapperdog 100%. If a room wants to make checking out illegal/inappropiate/improper/unethical -- whatever you want to call it -- it should be clearly stated in their rules. I am fine with that. The fact that I have never seen a written rule making checking out "wrong", I stand by my opinion that it is an appropriate action (in turn).

Also, since hands can be killed in so many ways -- purposely and accidently -- it must also be made clear that repeated improper kills (of any kind) will be penalized...

By the way, short of kicking him out, how do you penalize a player in a cash game where they have already relinquished their right to the pot in question?

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, short of kicking him out, how do you penalize a player in a cash game where they have already relinquished their right to the pot in question?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why this behaivior is tolerated; nobody wants to see the sort of player that does this go.

AS far as a written rule saying it isn't ok:

[ QUOTE ]
The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
or taking action that could unfairly influence the course of play,

[/ QUOTE ]

In general written rules are incomplete as the nature of poker is such that people write done rules taht tell how the game is played rather than writing rules and teaching players to play in the manner required.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

For what it's worth, i've never ever seen someone check out in a NL or middle limit game. I doubt it would happen, as these players will take any shot to get a pot. Anyone who's played for any amount of time has seen very silly ten high or bottom pair hands win on the river in a showdown.

The common situation is in a low limit game, 8 people see the flop, and one of the blinds throws his hand in so he can get a drink/go to the bathroom/etc, or when everyone's checking to the preflop raiser who will bet 100% of the time. I don't think anyone can find anything wrong with this practice.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
For what it's worth, i've never ever seen someone check out in a NL or middle limit game. I doubt it would happen, as these players will take any shot to get a pot. Anyone who's played for any amount of time has seen very silly ten high or bottom pair hands win on the river in a showdown.

The common situation is in a low limit game, 8 people see the flop, and one of the blinds throws his hand in so he can get a drink/go to the bathroom/etc, or when everyone's checking to the preflop raiser who will bet 100% of the time. I don't think anyone can find anything wrong with this practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all correct, that is why it just happens. I have seen players check out in bigger games, but it is very rare. I have only been called on to rule on it once; I explained to the player that throwing away your hand when not facing a bet was not an option; he apologized to teh table adn that was the end of that.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

I have read this thread and it astounds me that so many new players act like grade school children "It isn't against the rules".

Cutting in line, farting in the car on a first date, trying to seduce another man's wife or girlfriend etc. All these things there is no "law" or rule against. These are all examples of behavior that not many people will tolerate and reaction you may recieve will vary greatly depending on the offended person.

The point, keep hiding behind technicalities about proper manners and sooner or later someone will give you a crash course in manners that you won't forget.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
For what it's worth, i've never ever seen someone check out in a NL or middle limit game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see it ahppen all the time in NL.

[ QUOTE ]
The common situation is in a low limit game, 8 people see the flop, and one of the blinds throws his hand in so he can get a drink/go to the bathroom/etc,

[/ QUOTE ]

I see it frequently from players who are not getting up. They usually do it with a sneer of disgust when they dobn't like the flop.

when everyone's checking to the preflop raiser who will bet 100% of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
when everyone's checking to the preflop raiser who will bet 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that in Low Limit holdem the preflop raiser does not bet 100% of the time

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone can find anything wrong with this practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look through this thrad and you will see that many of us do find something wrong with this practice.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have read this thread and it astounds me that so many new players act like grade school children "It isn't against the rules".

Cutting in line, farting in the car on a first date, trying to seduce another man's wife or girlfriend etc. All these things there is no "law" or rule against. These are all examples of behavior that not many people will tolerate and reaction you may recieve will vary greatly depending on the offended person.

The point, keep hiding behind technicalities about proper manners and sooner or later someone will give you a crash course in manners that you won't forget.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... calling other people grade school children and then talk about farting... You decide to come in here as a newbie and call people names while adding nothing to the conversation. Checking out has nothing in common with cutting the line, farting on a date or seducing another man's woman -- but don't let simple logic stop you from being an arse.

Maybe you should return to lurking -- you do that much better.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

IMHO head's up it's fine, but in a multiway pot you should wait until it is checked around then muck. If I was worried about a "want to see that hand" request I'd try to muck with some force to make my hand irretrievable.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

Actually the dealer should be announcing all the action. That's part of keeping the flow of the game and ensuring all the players have the same info. I don't think there is / should be a diffrence based on the blinds at that table be they 5 - 10 to 100 - 200. The announcing of a check out, isnt' to call it wrong. But just to let everyone know that the person had the option to check, but decided to fold. Now, everyone has that info. It's very simple.

Look, The only 'un-ethincal' things at a poker table are the ones that are against the rules. Sure, there's a lot of legal actions that most of us wouldn't do, or don't like. But that's not ethics. Flipping over someone elses cards to see what they had is unethical. Asking to see a called hand, pisses people off, but isn't unethical. Nor is checking out. It's part of the game. Sometimes you ask to see cards, not only to get the info on what they had, but maybe to put them on tilt a little. Not one of my choices, but a legitimate one. I think what most of you are saying is you don't like checking out. Well a lot of people don't like check raising. Should that be unethical too? come on. It's a game. It has rules. Learn to play within them. That's all. You don't have to like them just be able to work with them.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually the dealer should be announcing all the action. That's part of keeping the flow of the game and ensuring all the players have the same info

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely false, when the dealer "over calls" the game he has become a play by play announcer that interfers with the smooth flow of the game.

[ QUOTE ]
Look, The only 'un-ethincal' things at a poker table are the ones that are against the rules. Sure, there's a lot of legal actions that most of us wouldn't do, or don't like. But that's not ethics. Flipping over someone elses cards to see what they had is unethical. Asking to see a called hand, pisses people off, but isn't unethical. Nor is checking out. It's part of the game. Sometimes you ask to see cards, not only to get the info on what they had, but maybe to put them on tilt a little. Not one of my choices, but a legitimate one. I think what most of you are saying is you don't like checking out. Well a lot of people don't like check raising. Should that be unethical too? come on. It's a game. It has rules. Learn to play within them. That's all. You don't have to like them just be able to work with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This shows a basic lack of understanding of poker.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

Perhaps this thread would have been more focused if the word "improper" or the phrases "bad/poor etiquette" used rather than unethical as unethical is too strong a word (I made the mistake of using the word elsewhere in the thread).


[ QUOTE ]
Look, The only 'un-ethincal' things at a poker table are the ones that are against the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the real world I would think there are many things that are unethical yet not against the law. Surely there are parallels in poker.


[ QUOTE ]
Sure, there's a lot of legal actions that most of us wouldn't do, or don't like. But that's not ethics. Flipping over someone elses cards to see what they had is unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.


[ QUOTE ]
Asking to see a called hand, pisses people off, but isn't unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree it's not unethical. But it pisses people off because it is bad manners and bad for the game. Many of us support getting rid of or modifying the IWTSTH rule, and someday the rule may be changed.


[ QUOTE ]
Nor is checking out. It's part of the game. Sometimes you ask to see cards, not only to get the info on what they had, but maybe to put them on tilt a little. Not one of my choices, but a legitimate one. I think what most of you are saying is you don't like checking out. Well a lot of people don't like check raising. Should that be unethical too? come on. It's a game. It has rules. Learn to play within them. That's all. You don't have to like them just be able to work with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing checking out to checkraising is flawed. The vast majority of cardroom players understanding that checkraising is necessary to counterbalance the positional advantage of the player(s) acting last. Even if they don't understand the reason for it almost all but the novice players accept it. Most players I know find checking out wrong and somehow unfair (to those yet to act). Maybe I don't know enough players but I've been playing in cardrooms since the mid eighties.


I'm surprised that there is so much support for checking out, but my guess it is somewhat concentrated within this thread. Let's say players (at this time it would be easy on 2+2) were widely polled with the following questions:

(First we need to define it) "Checking out" is folding out of turn when there are multiple players yet to act.

Is "checking out" of turn improper?

Yes - very improper
Yes - somewhat improper
No

Checking out is not currently against the rules. Should this be against the rules?
Yes
No

Anyway, I tried to avoid bias in the above questions but I'm human. Correct the bias and we/I can post a poll.

~ Rick

PS Note that making checking out against the rules would add perhaps one line to a rulebook.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Asking to see a called hand, pisses people off, but isn't unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree it's not unethical. But it pisses people off because it is bad manners and bad for the game. Many of us support getting rid of or modifying the IWTSTH rule, and someday the rule may be changed.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would not be so quick to say that it is not unethical to ask to see cards of a called hand (unless collsusion is suspected). It would seem to me that using a rule that is designed to detect/deter collusion for the purpose of gaining information or putting a player on tilt is an unethical use of that rule.

I think the idea that something is not unethical unless it is against the rules demonstrates a very perverted sense of moral values.

On perfect example of a case where something is not against the rules but clearly unethical is the case of a player who chops the blinds (in a room that doesn't prohibit this) but then later refuses to chop because he has a good hand. He has not violated a rule of poker, but he has acted unethically.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

All I was trying to say, is that you're trying to classify something that may be 'bad form' as unethical. Ethics in gambling is a strange dichotomy. We all want to believe we are good players and also want to believe we are good people. But the whole reason we are at the table is to beat the other person. You can be an ethical person and ask to see cards. You're no worse a person because of it. I don't personally do this but I also don't get all heated when someone does. That actually gives me more info on that person. Don't think becasue I don't get all mad at someone who checks out, that I don't understand what you are saying. I do. I just don't agree.

Poker is a game of incomplete info, right. So no matter what you're always guessing to some extent. The better you are the less of a 'guess' it may be, but it's still a guess. I'm just saying, don't get all worked up over such a small part of the game but rather find ways to counteract that move that will benefit you in the long run.

Maybe this is all too semantic a discussion because of the word Ethical. I see that and think 'moral value'. I don't think someone who checks out is lacking that. Maybe they were on a crazy hand and don't want to show that they were chasing. Either way you learn that player is weaker than most. How many times have you seen someone call down the bets it a multi-way pot and then not show their hand after they learn that they lost? Wouldn’t it be the proper thing to do to see all the hands that called you down? But you can’t. It’s the advantage of that position in that hand that allows them to go away unseen. Maybe it’s more accepted than checking out, but it’s still an advantage.

I've even seen players who were called after betting, let their opponent show first and then fold, even though the proper action should have been them showing first. If somone does this you just wait longer next time and ensure they show their hand in the proper order. You don't get all heated and call them un-ethical.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
PS Note that making checking out against the rules would add perhaps one line to a rulebook.


[/ QUOTE ]

Some might argue it is already against the rules.

[ QUOTE ]
The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:

or taking action that could unfairly influence the course of play,

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PS Note that making checking out against the rules would add perhaps one line to a rulebook.


[/ QUOTE ]

Some might argue it is already against the rules.

[ QUOTE ]
The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:

or taking action that could unfairly influence the course of play,

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

But participants in this thread have made a reasonable case that it doesn't "unfairly influence the course of play". I disagree although I can see some merit to their arguments.

That said, most experienced players I'm friendly with hate to see this and DO believe it unfairly influences play. So a simple one line emphasis in a rule book would MHO have merit.

~ Rick

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

I've been following this thread, and it seems that there are two distinct definitions people are offering for "checking out."

The OP defined it like this:
[ QUOTE ]
Long story short, I was first to act on the river with a busted draw... and I really didn't want my hand shown. So I decided to fold rather than check/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

You state:
[ QUOTE ]
(First we need to define it) "Checking out" is folding out of turn when there are multiple players yet to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit I'd never heard it called "checking out" before, but had heard "open folding" to describe this play (opening the round of betting with a fold rather than a bet).

I certainly agree that folding out of turn is improper, but what the OP did was never out of turn. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Following the posts in this thread, it seems like many of those condemning this move are misunderstanding this as an out of turn fold. I think there was a post or two saying that the player doesn't have the option of folding here, but I'm not sure I belive that. There are plenty of things he could do where the house would have to rule his hand dead. Why would folding not be an option?

I see how some people could argue that this changes how the players after him were going to play, but any action (or tells) from the player would cause them to reassess what they plan to do.

I don't think this play is any different than being on the button, looking down to see crap like 72o and quickly running to the bathroom before waiting until it's your action, which gives you more time to "go" and a better chance at missing fewer hands. I rarely see anyone complain about that. Can someone who thinks this is different please explain howso to me?

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this play is any different than being on the button, looking down to see crap like 72o and quickly running to the bathroom before waiting until it's your action, which gives you more time to "go" and a better chance at missing fewer hands. I rarely see anyone complain about that. Can someone who thinks this is different please explain howso to me?


[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people would place the running away from the table out of turn in the same catagory. I think it is slightly different because there are most likely other players in the pot and the most common preflop action is folding, so it is nothing unexpected. On the river there are fewer players and your presence in the pot represents a serious threat to players that are thinking of bluffing.

The real quesiton is what are your options when not facing a bet; are they to check or bet or are they to check bet or fold. I would say that folding when not facing a bet is not an option.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've been following this thread, and it seems that there are two distinct definitions people are offering for "checking out."

The OP defined it like this:
[ QUOTE ]
Long story short, I was first to act on the river with a busted draw... and I really didn't want my hand shown. So I decided to fold rather than check/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

You state:
[ QUOTE ]
(First we need to define it) "Checking out" is folding out of turn when there are multiple players yet to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit I'd never heard it called "checking out" before, but had heard "open folding" to describe this play (opening the round of betting with a fold rather than a bet).

I certainly agree that folding out of turn is improper, but what the OP did was never out of turn. I don't see anything wrong with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Open folding doesn't cover mid position checking out. I wasn't sufficiently careful in my original definition so let me try definition Version 2:

"Checking out" is folding your hand when you are not facing a bet.

If I was to write the rule I'd try (version 1 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) "Checking out is improper unless head up".

Obviously a violator would get nothing more than a warning, and a repeat violator might get dealt out. But putting it in the rules would make it clear that the poker community thinks it is wrong.


[ QUOTE ]
Following the posts in this thread, it seems like many of those condemning this move are misunderstanding this as an out of turn fold. I think there was a post or two saying that the player doesn't have the option of folding here, but I'm not sure I believe that. There are plenty of things he could do where the house would have to rule his hand dead. Why would folding not be an option?

I see how some people could argue that this changes how the players after him were going to play, but any action (or tells) from the player would cause them to reassess what they plan to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have time to reread every post but my understanding of checking out is a player folding and any time when there is no bet to him. It can be done out of turn or in turn. Obviously this doesn't matter when head up.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this play is any different than being on the button, looking down to see crap like 72o and quickly running to the bathroom before waiting until it's your action, which gives you more time to "go" and a better chance at missing fewer hands. I rarely see anyone complain about that. Can someone who thinks this is different please explain howso to me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if there was a rule against "checking out" most people can see that the guy *really* needs to take a leak and would understand, so the floor would rarely be called. Gee, even I've done this one in emergencies (but then again, I need tome to wash before and after [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]).

~ Rick