Is checking out "unethical"?

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ 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.

[bigfishead]

[ 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?

[GuyOnTilt]

[ 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

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ 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.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ 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 ]
[ 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)

[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 ]


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 ]
[ 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.

[archangel]

[ 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.

[archangel]

[ 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.