|
|
#51
11-11-2005, 05:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
[ 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? 
|
|
#52
11-11-2005, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
[ 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.
|
|
#53
11-11-2005, 06:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
what if there was jerkoff at your table who kept asking to see mucked hands at showdown? would it then be ethical to fold if you thought there was a good chance he would ask to see your hand and you think such information would hurt you?
as for online, it sounds like most of you have no idea what you are talking about. if you don't fold on the river your hand will be recorded, and i look out for my own interest first rather than thinking about protecting some guys action.
|
|
#54
11-11-2005, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It eliminates fear of the check raise from the later people
no one has to be scared that their call is going to be raised behind...gives too big an advantage to the last to act
|
|
#55
11-11-2005, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
[ QUOTE ]
what if there was jerkoff at your table who kept asking to see mucked hands at showdown? would it then be ethical to fold if you thought there was a good chance he would ask to see your hand and you think such information would hurt you? [/ QUOTE ] They should not be able to abuse the rules like that; if a player makes a habit of asking to see the floor shoudl put a stop to it. Also most players turbo muck when someone has been asking to see their cards.
|
|
#56
11-11-2005, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] You continue dealing cards to the folded spot until there is a legitimate bet. That is so the "check out" does not influence the cards that will play. If there is a bet in the same round following the check out, you do not deal to that spot. It is the same reason why the typical rule when the turn is exposed too early is to shuffle it in after the river that would have been dealt is dealt -- preserve the integrity of the order of the cards to the extent possible. This does not show that "checking out" is not a legitimate action.
|
|
#57
11-11-2005, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] You continue dealing cards to the folded spot until there is a legitimate bet. That is so the "check out" does not influence the cards that will play. If there is a bet in the same round following the check out, you do not deal to that spot. It is the same reason why the typical rule when the turn is exposed too early is to shuffle it in after the river that would have been dealt is dealt -- preserve the integrity of the order of the cards to the extent possible. This does not show that "checking out" is not a legitimate action. [/ QUOTE ] Of course it shows checking out isn't legitmate -- Assuming your "integrity of the order of the Deck" theory is correct (though I lean to Randy's explanation) you make the point for me. If a player folds to a bet then he doesn't have anymore cards dealt to him. Doesn't that change the order of the deck for future cards. If you had to maintain the integrity of the deck after a check-out then it is obvious that a checkout is not a legitmate action like folding to a bet.
|
|
#58
11-11-2005, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong on so many levels... let's look at an example. 4 players see the river.. the first 2 check-out to you and it's your turn to act. What has just happened? 1. Yes you now only have to worry about 1 other player, BUT 2. You ability to bluff now has greatly been reduced. 3. The player to your left now "regains" position on the entire table as opposed to someone just checking. With the first 2 checking-out, he knows that he will be closing the action. 4. Points 2 and 3 now give the guy to your left even more info than he should have and it helps him MUCH more than you compared to the first 2 just checking. I agree that checking-out is stupid and I have never done it and will probably never do it unless I'm pulling some meta games in a HU only situation (VERY DOUBTFUL [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])
|
|
#59
11-11-2005, 09:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
[ 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.
|
|
#60
11-11-2005, 11:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is checking out \"unethical\"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] It is very good and very simple example. I really hope you could understand it. Lets change the action. Player A checks against two players, player B folds, now player C is facing only one player. You think Bīs fold was fine? Bigfishead said it well.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
