Is checking out "unethical"?

[archangel]

[ 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?

[Randy_Refeld]

[ 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.

[Jeststeve]

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.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ 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.

[Jeststeve]

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.

[Rick Nebiolo]

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.

[ 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.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ 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 ]

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ 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

[IndyGuy]

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?