Is checking out "unethical"?

When can you fold? A basic poker rule is that a fold out of turn is not allowed. Even though no penalty is prescribed by law, it is clearly a breach of ethics, and a habitual violator may be barred for this behavior.

From an old Bob Ciaffone article:

When Can You Fold? -Bob Ciaffone

[brick]

When you check-out it changes the dynamic of the hand.
Now EP can make a decision without worrying if you would will check-raise because you aren't in the hand anymore. Or, LP may decide to raise a hand that he would have only called with hoping for an over call.

Or what if EP wanted to bluff because he put you on a draw.
So you check normally, he bets, now LP has to decide to call with an average hand with you still yet to act. So much tougher for him to call with a small pair.

Bottom line. By doing this you change the dynamic of the hand. Not cool.

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
When can you fold? A basic poker rule is that a fold out of turn is not allowed. Even though no penalty is prescribed by law, it is clearly a breach of ethics, and a habitual violator may be barred for this behavior.

From an old Bob Ciaffone article:

When Can You Fold? -Bob Ciaffone

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you! That is a very good article on the topic and is the best justification for a rule disallowing the "check out" that I have seen. However, even Ciaffone recognizes it is not such a big deal to check out if you are the first or last to act in a betting round. He writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an exaggerated example (one I have never seen in real life) of how this fold could be damaging to someone else. Suppose that in a fivehanded pot, you act first and check. Player two folds, player three folds, player four folds, and the button bets. Surely, he is more likely to bet here than if the whole field were still in. If he does bet, you do not know if he took advantage of those folds or has a real hand. You have been damaged, and the button helped, by players folding who were not facing a bet. Seeing three players fold makes the damage obvious, but if even one player folds, it is measurable. So, the only logical view of this behavior is that it is bad ethics to fold when not facing a bet if all of the players do not receive the same information on that betting round. By this rule, you can fold if first to act or if last to act, but not otherwise. (I am aware that it is possible to construct a situation in which the previous betting means one player will be helped more than another, even when you fold while acting first or last, but this would be quite unusual.)


[/ QUOTE ]

And I agree.

[ 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 ]

They are both wrong. And what is truly bizarre in your argument is that you defend the check-out as not acting out of turn, and use the example of a player folding out of turn as an example of acceptable behavior. Why do you spend the first part of your argument distinguishing between the two if you then say they are the same thing.

[IndyGuy]

[ QUOTE ]

They are both wrong. And what is truly bizarre in your argument is that you defend the check-out as not acting out of turn, and use the example of a player folding out of turn as an example of acceptable behavior. Why do you spend the first part of your argument distinguishing between the two if you then say they are the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that the folding out of turn to go to the bathroom was proper behavior. I've just never seen anyone complain about it.

In that bathroom example, I meant to (but didn't) make clear that the player isn't folding, he's simply leaving the table. When the action gets to that player, he is no longer there to act and the hand is folded by the dealer. Everyone at the table sees the player leave and knows that indicates a fold, but he never acts out of turn. Granted, if someone has already acted when he stands up, some players get more information than others. Perhaps it wasn't the best example to use, but in neither case presented in my earlier post is the player acting out of turn.

My original point was just to clear up the possible misunderstanding, since I was seemingly seeing replies differing based on how they were interpreting "checking out."

I had never even considered it to be an issue, as I had always been under the impression that folding was always an available play. I simply wanted to make sure I wasn't reading these arguments based on a faulty understanding of the situation.

[archangel]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't the original example in this thread deal with someone folding when FIRST to act? i think that makes a huge difference - in that case, everyone else is privy to the same information BEFORE they act and in turn.

[budman]

If there are three people in the hand and you are second to bet on the river and you check out, then the third person is given an invitation to bluff at the pot.

In the worst case, if your ten high was good, then it is highly unlikely that the third person would bluff at the pot with two possible callers and such a poor hand.

In this case if you were player one with a pair of fours you would certainly appreciate the second player 'protecting your hand' by at least not folding for free.

I think it is more a courtesy issue than ethical.