[bigfishead]

[ 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.