Is checking out "unethical"?

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ 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.

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ 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.

[AngusThermopyle]

"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.

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ 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.

[Sparks]

[ 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

[benkahuna]

[ 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.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ 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

[BoxTree]

[ 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.)

[Masquerade]

[ 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.

[IceKing]

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.