Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

I was playing in a live limit holdem game this weekend and got an odd comment from an otherwise nice guy/decent player next to me.

Long story short, I was first to act on the river with a busted draw that I had played in an unorthodox way. Due to the general flow of the hand I was 99.99% certain that my ten high was no good, there were several "i want to see that hand" nits at the table, there was a chance that the river would check through, and I really didn't want my hand shown. So I decided to fold rather than check/fold.

The guy next to me says "you really shouldn't do that", and I tell him no big deal my hand was definitely no good. He said that my open fold "devalued" the hand of the last person to act --- I told him the rules allow me to check bet or fold in that spot, and he agreed that I was allowed but asserted that it was "unethical". I argued that betting or checking in certain situations has the possibility of changing the value of hands yet to act and if my legal action happens to impact another player in an adverse way, well that's poker, but he was steadfast.

Does this make sense to anyone? Has anyone else ever heard anything similar?


thanks.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

in low limit, limit hold'em it's probably not a big deal. But it is a poker pecadillo. It is a big time no-no in no-limit. I imagine you would get your ass chewed if you did it in a game of any size.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
in low limit, limit hold'em it's probably not a big deal. But it is a poker pecadillo. It is a big time no-no in no-limit. I imagine you would get your ass chewed if you did it in a game of any size.

[/ QUOTE ]


Can you explain why? You make it sound more like a collusion issue.

Also, does flop vs. turn vs. river make any difference?

thanks

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

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.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

I never found it unethical when a few players at my local cardroom throw their hand away instead of checking. I find it hilarious when they do it on a constant basis.

Folding a big pot for one bet can be a big mistake even with a weak holding, but folding for zero bets? If you do it once for a specific reason that's one thing, I'm talking about players that do it several times an hour.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

the idea is that it makes a bluff much easier for the middle person to run against the last guy, as he no longer has to bluff out two possible calling hands.

If its no limit its even worse. If the middle guy thinks you were on a draw that mightve gotten there, and that the last guy has a mediocre hand, it can become very profitable to throw a big bet out there ifc he knows he doesnt have to worry about your hand any more. It can put a real squeeze on the person last to act in that type of situation.

Sorry that was kinda rushed but hopefully you get the general idea. Just check next time, and if it gets checked around then you can just throw your cards in the muck.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

How can a, presumably, experienced player with nearly 2000 posts on this forum ask this question? This is basic stuff. I usually assume the guy checking out is a weak fish.

Regards,

T

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

Well he was first to act so there was no one in front.

Honestly I see this happen pretty regularly, and no one at the low-limits has ever made a fuss about it, but I can see people in a high stakes game getting upset.

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 ]

as I said in my post I was first to act.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

In no limit, the decisions are more difficult when your action doesn't close the action.

so say you are the 2nd to act and there are 3 people in the pot. On the river, P1 checks. For whatever reason you decide to make a play at the pot and you make a big bluff. Now P3 has a marginal hand. He is much more likely to call if he knows P1 is going to fold. This is also somewhat true in higher limit hold'em games.

same concept on 4th street or the flop if the last person to act is on a draw and contemplating whether to call or maybe even raise.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
How can a, presumably, experienced player with nearly 2000 posts on this forum ask this question? This is basic stuff. I usually assume the guy checking out is a weak fish.

Regards,

T

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play a lot of live poker, I guess. Thanks for your input.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
in low limit, limit hold'em it's probably not a big deal. But it is a poker pecadillo. It is a big time no-no in no-limit. I imagine you would get your ass chewed if you did it in a game of any size.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if you are online and don't want your hand to be recorded if gets checked all the way? i could see in bigger games where this could be valuable information you don't want to give up

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

Wow I find it hard to believe that none of the 10 responses give even a clue to this "unethical" move to which when I am dealing I have been the "guy next to you". And you (not our poster) always gave that very same response.

The answer: Offer protection to the rest of the table.

Just knowing they have gotten past you, means that you will not check-raise. Understand?

1 step further: 4 players after the flop, during any portion of the hand after the flop. 1st player bets 2nd player slowly begins to reach out and cut the call of 4 chips but he has a stack in his hand..he's not finished....you insta-muck....NOW HE RAISES! You offered no protection to the other 2 players involved.

And yes in a larger NL game you will get kicked in the nuts for it. As you should now.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow I find it hard to believe that none of the 10 responses give even a clue to this "unethical" move to which when I am dealing I have been the "guy next to you". And you (not our poster) always gave that very same response.

The answer: Offer protection to the rest of the table.

Just knowing they have gotten past you, means that you will not check-raise. Understand?

1 step further: 4 players after the flop, during any portion of the hand after the flop. 1st player bets 2nd player slowly begins to reach out and cut the call of 4 chips but he has a stack in his hand..he's not finished....you insta-muck....NOW HE RAISES! You offered no protection to the other 2 players involved.

And yes in a larger NL game you will get kicked in the nuts for it. As you should now.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you see, the rules are the rules, and openfolding is allowed. Getting angry about someone openfolding is like getting angry about someone calling a raise with T2s and flopping a flush. You might be frustrated because you got burned, but the player operated within the rules of the game. It wasn't an angleshoot either, he wasn't string betting, none of that gray area stuff. He openfolded. Allowed by the rules. End of story.

Oh and newsflash, of course people acting behind get more information than those acting ahead. That's that old advantage-of-position thingie we talk about from time to time.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow I find it hard to believe that none of the 10 responses give even a clue to this "unethical" move to which when I am dealing I have been the "guy next to you". And you (not our poster) always gave that very same response.

The answer: Offer protection to the rest of the table.

Just knowing they have gotten past you, means that you will not check-raise. Understand?

1 step further: 4 players after the flop, during any portion of the hand after the flop. 1st player bets 2nd player slowly begins to reach out and cut the call of 4 chips but he has a stack in his hand..he's not finished....you insta-muck....NOW HE RAISES! You offered no protection to the other 2 players involved.

And yes in a larger NL game you will get kicked in the nuts for it. As you should now.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you see, the rules are the rules, and openfolding is allowed. Getting angry about someone openfolding is like getting angry about someone calling a raise with T2s and flopping a flush. You might be frustrated because you got burned, but the player operated within the rules of the game. It wasn't an angleshoot either, he wasn't string betting, none of that gray area stuff. He openfolded. Allowed by the rules. End of story.

Oh and newsflash, of course people acting behind get more information than those acting ahead. That's that old advantage-of-position thingie we talk about from time to time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea.. Its not forbidden in written rules, but its unethical, and unethical behaviour is not tolerated. Keep doing it, first you will be warned and then kicked.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

People acting behind you always have more information than those who act in front of you.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

I can't see why this would be unethical unless you were colluding with a friend and were HU on the end.

But it's definitely a no-no in no limit (of ANY size).

In a limit game, it's no big deal. This happens regularly at Commerce 20/40. Mason once won a hand with 32o this way.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see why this would be unethical unless you were colluding with a friend and were HU on the end.

But it's definitely a no-no in no limit (of ANY size).


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how it would be okay in limit and not ok in no limit.

I think I've been convinced by this thread that this isn't unethical - but it is clearly perceived by many as bad etiquette. There have been no rational arguments that have convinced me that there is anything that bad about doing it in any case - otherwise it would be a very very easy thing to just make against the rules. As someone else said, people want to kick you in the nuts for playing 83o but that isn't unethical (thank you jesus).

In any case, there have definitely has been enough convincing that it is a "bad" thing to do, and since there is no real significant value in doing it it's something I'll never do again.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]

But it's definitely a no-no in no limit (of ANY size).


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how it would be okay in limit and not ok in no limit.

In any case, there have definitely has been enough convincing that it is a "bad" thing to do, and since there is no real significant value in doing it it's something I'll never do again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

And it matters just as much in limit or no limit IMO. It's just that MORE people wont tolerate it in NL.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see why this would be unethical unless you were colluding with a friend and were HU on the end.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always thought that this is why it is unethical? The whole reason one is allowed to ask to see someone else's cards at the end is to check for collusion. It is NOT there for someone to gain information about how other's play (although it is used for that 99.9999% of the time). When someone checks out at the end of the hand it is like a way to circumvent this collusion check.

I think it's more of a hot topic issue on the river rather than on the flop. I've seen plenty of times where there were 6 limpers preflop, and SB calls while saying "pot odds". Then the flop totally misses him and he open folds while everyone has a good chuckle about what he may have held. No one seems to mind it as much in a case like this.

As a sort of off-topic story, I'd like to share an amusing check-out story of my own. I had been playing holdem for almost a year and was in a live 10/20 game. I limped in in early position with Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. It ended up being 7 way to the flop for one bet. Flop was something like A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. I was in my "tricky play" stage of learning the game so I thought it would be awesome to go for a checkraise. Checked around. Turn bricked. I was sure someone would now bet 2nd, 3rd, maybe even 4th pair here, so I went for a checkraise again. Checked around. River bricked again. There were too many players in I thought for my hand to be good, so I open mucked when checked to me with 4 players to act behind me. I didn't want anyone to see I failed to bet with my hand. Turns out my Queen high with Jack kicker would have outkicked someone else's Queen high, and the pot would've been mine. Now I never open muck, but for the "ethical" reasons as well as this one.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

Open folding is poor sportsmanship in a multiway pot if you are not first to act.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Open folding is poor sportsmanship in a multiway pot if you are not first to act.

[/ QUOTE ]


Your sentence had seven too many words.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

It's debatable whether your options post-flop when not facing a bet are Check or Bet or if they are Check, Bet, or Fold. Either way it is defininitely a beach of etiquette

One of the things I really like about the Full Tilt software is that they have removed the option to fold when not facing a bet thus protecting all players hands. So clearly someone found this to be an important issue.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quite simply, the people who acted behind you had more information than those in front of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this always the case? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Back on topic, I've never considered this to be an issue, but it makes a lot of sense how it could be considered unethical. You ARE still doing it in turn, though, so maybe not.

A Few Points and Wisdom from Ray Zee
 

A few points:

- It's unethical for the reasons stated by others.

- If a player does this he is hurting others (by not protecting other players action).

- A player who routinely folds out of turn is giving off information, IOW, when he doesn't do this a very observant player will know he has a hand he will potentially call or checkraise. Now the very observant opponent acting last may check down a very marginal value bet or not bluff off a bust. So the player is hurting himself as well as others in the hand.

And Ray's Wisdom second hand:

We have to deal with the fact that many people do this and similar breaches of etiquette. Here's an example: Let's say you are Player A acting first on the river. You are bluffing or have a very marginal hand that you believe is slightly worse than Player B. You believe Player C has a busted draw. You bet figuring Player B probably won't call because he has to fear an overcall by Player C. Player B doesn't even have to pause, he can see Player C is folding out of turn. So Player B calls, picking off the bluff or marginal value bet.

This sort of thing used to upset me. But Ray Zee in a long ago thread told me to grow up and account for this before betting the river (if I was in Player A's position). He reminded me that I will often be in Player B's position and use similar information. Finally he impressed upon me that Player C is the big loser, since his opponents will know when he has a hand that he will at least call or even raise with and adjust accordingly.

Ray of course used fewer words, and I'm no Ray Zee. But we can still learn from him.

~ Rick

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

No one here has given a good reason why checking out when it is your turn to act is unethical, i.e., not conforming to approved standards of behavior.

It is allowed by the rules (as far as I know) and does not reveal anything about the cards in your hand. Indeed, checking out can affect the play of the remaining players, but so do every other motion or decision at the table. The fact that the first player to act decided to fold is just another piece of information that the remaining players will have to factor into their decision about how to play the hand.

Edit: You are under no obligation -- ethically or otherwise -- to protect someone else's hand or action.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is allowed by the rules (as far as I know)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that folding out of turn is allowed by the rules.

But...if I bet out of turn, I must take my bet back, and I'm not required to make a bet when it's my turn to act. But if I FOLD out of turn, there's no way I'm allowed to remove my cards from the muck when it's my turn to act. So, betting/calling/raising out of turn has an undo clause but folding doesn't.

I'm not sure what all of this means, but it's odd. Anyone know the specific ruling (or lack thereof) regarding checking/folding/calling/betting/raising/check-raising out of turn?

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that folding out of turn is allowed by the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is acting out of turn. It is your turn to act and you have the option to check but you decide to fold.

Also, you can -- in effect -- fold out of turn because there are many acts that will cause your hand to be declared dead. Purposely folding out of turn is likely a breach of etiquette (and possibly unethical).

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed, checking out can affect the play of the remaining players, but so do every other motion or decision at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is different. In this case you are making a play that can serve no benefit to you but can benefit another player. Poker is an individual game, each player is expected to play in a manner intended to benefit no one but themselves.

Imagine this sceanrio three players in a NL hand after the flop. First player has a stack of $600, you are the second player with a stack of $50 third player has stack of $200. There is $50 in the pot.

First player checks. You push your stack in hoping to take the pot with this pot sized bet. The third player goes into the tank, and keeps looking at the first players stack -- he wants to call but is concerned that the First player will come over the top if he calls. While he is thinking, the first player leans across the table and says don't worry about me I fold and throws his cards in the muck. Now Player two calls you because he no longer has to worry about player 1 coming over the top. Do you feel this was fair? Isn't Player one checking out just doing the same thing, leaning across the table and saying you don't have to worry that I'm going to check raise you.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is allowed by the rules (as far as I know)

[/ QUOTE ]

It really depends on who wrote the rules, but no you shouldn't do it. It continues to occur becasue the palyers that would do that will never understand why why shouldn't and players generally don't want to upset the sort of player that does this (they are giving away a ton of info when they don't do it). I have only had one player complain about; on that occasion I ruled that this was a breach of proper conduct and that at the table in question folding to no bet was not an option.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Imagine this sceanrio three players in a NL hand after the flop. First player has a stack of $600, you are the second player with a stack of $50 third player has stack of $200. There is $50 in the pot.

First player checks. You push your stack in hoping to take the pot with this pot sized bet. The third player goes into the tank, and keeps looking at the first players stack -- he wants to call but is concerned that the First player will come over the top if he calls. While he is thinking, the first player leans across the table and says don't worry about me I fold and throws his cards in the muck. Now Player two calls you because he no longer has to worry about player 1 coming over the top. Do you feel this was fair?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Player 1 acted out of turn and after Player 2 made his bet.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't Player one checking out just doing the same thing, leaning across the table and saying you don't have to worry that I'm going to check raise you.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% different. In our situation, Player 2 has to decide what to do based on the fact that he is heads up and with full knowledge that Player 1 is already out of the hand. He may now determine that a pot size bet is or is not the best move, but he has all the information before he acts.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is allowed by the rules (as far as I know)

[/ QUOTE ]

It really depends on who wrote the rules, but no you shouldn't do it. It continues to occur becasue the palyers that would do that will never understand why why shouldn't and players generally don't want to upset the sort of player that does this (they are giving away a ton of info when they don't do it). I have only had one player complain about; on that occasion I ruled that this was a breach of proper conduct and that at the table in question folding to no bet was not an option.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never done it and can see very little reason to do it, but as I read Robert's Rules, I don't see it being improper. I hate to rely on online poker for anything, but on many sites you have the option of checking out rather than checking.

If you make that ruling or house rules state that you cannot fold to no bet, that's fine -- but while it may be stupid, I don't see it being unethical.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

"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.

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 ]

Again, there is no explanation.

I have not played regularly for more than 5 years, but I did start playing B&M more than 5 years ago and certainly before I ever played online. (Although I had little idea of what I was doing until about three years ago.)

Checking out is stupid because you are giving away information that you do not need to give away, but there is nothing improper about it. It does not clearly help one player or the other even though it may influence their action. Of course, if the check out was collusive, it is unethical, improper, unsportsmanlike, immoral and illegal -- but that is true of any collusive behavior.

Re: A Few Points and Wisdom from Ray Zee
 

[ QUOTE ]
A few points:

- It's unethical for the reasons stated by others.

- If a player does this he is hurting others (by not protecting other players action).

- A player who routinely folds out of turn is giving off information, IOW, when he doesn't do this a very observant player will know he has a hand he will potentially call or checkraise. Now the very observant opponent acting last may check down a very marginal value bet or not bluff off a bust. So the player is hurting himself as well as others in the hand.~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Have to disagree with you here Rick. As several others have said, no matter WHAT action a person takes in turn, it is additional information for those who act behind him. The argument that checking out is unethical (or bad etiquette) because it gives someone more information is simply illogical.

It may be frustrating to others in the hand, but MANY legal actions are frustrating to other players in the hand.

When someone comments to me about checking out in turn, I let them have it - in a respectful manner of course, but it usually includes the word brainwashed.

Sparks

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Again, there is no explanation.

I have not played regularly for more than 5 years, but I did start playing B&M more than 5 years ago and certainly before I ever played online. (Although I had little idea of what I was doing until about three years ago.)

Checking out is stupid because you are giving away information that you do not need to give away, but there is nothing improper about it. It does not clearly help one player or the other even though it may influence their action. Of course, if the check out was collusive, it is unethical, improper, unsportsmanlike, immoral and illegal -- but that is true of any collusive behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't get it. No one has explained what is wrong with this play in terms of etiquette. If you make a very weak check, it also gives off information to a middle player (in a 3-handed game) that you don't have chit. This situation is especially so if you're typically tight aggressive and bet your hands that have much chance of winning.

I'm about ready to contact the rule master himself (Bob Ciaffone) about this one because this thread has gotten me curious.

It seems like the disadvantage of giving up all right to the pot can be made up for with the advantage of people not knowing your cards in some rare circumstances. I fold when I have no chance of winning all the time online.

Re: A Few Points and Wisdom from Ray Zee
 

[ QUOTE ]
Have to disagree with you here Rick. As several others have said, no matter WHAT action a person takes in turn, it is additional information for those who act behind him. The argument that checking out is unethical (or bad etiquette) because it gives someone more information is simply illogical.

It may be frustrating to others in the hand, but MANY legal actions are frustrating to other players in the hand.

When someone comments to me about checking out in turn, I let them have it - in a respectful manner of course, but it usually includes the word brainwashed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unethical is probably too strong a word but I still think it is bad ettiquete and in fact a mistake since the person who often checks out of turn is leaking information.

Also note that the additional information is unequally useful, i.e., the players with marginal bluffing or betting hands are perhaps helped more (I say perhaps since I'm not able do the math/logic not having slept last night).

Keep in mind this no longer bothers me but I am curious as to why any thinking player would do it (unles they believe possibly not showing their hand when online is more important than information leakage during the hand - and in B&M you can bullet fold a bust anyway if the river action gets checked through).

Anyway, I'm never going to do it and it doesn't bother me so it's no big deal.

~ Rick

Re: A Few Points and Wisdom from Ray Zee
 

[ QUOTE ]
When someone comments to me about checking out in turn, I let them have it

[/ QUOTE ]

What about checking out in turn with QQ preflop? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] (I ran it through some machines -- twas a bad fold unless I can put my opponent on precisely AA or KK. When the range is expanded to AA, KK, QQ, and AKs, I should call. But I'm in the small blind. Gah, I still don't know.)

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
No one here has given a good reason why checking out when it is your turn to act is unethical, i.e., not conforming to approved standards of behavior.

It is allowed by the rules (as far as I know) and does not reveal anything about the cards in your hand. Indeed, checking out can affect the play of the remaining players, but so do every other motion or decision at the table. The fact that the first player to act decided to fold is just another piece of information that the remaining players will have to factor into their decision about how to play the hand.

Edit: You are under no obligation -- ethically or otherwise -- to protect someone else's hand or action.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because it isn't unethical in the slightest but like Pavlovian dogs most posters here just react on cue to half-baked concepts they've misunderstood.

Oh, and btw, it isn't any more or less unethical in NL either.

Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
 

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.