checking a hand down

[swinebag22]

What is the rule about two or more players verbally agreeing to check a hand down when another player is allin?

My understanding is that it is not only poor etiquette, but actually against the rules.

I mention this because this very situation, occured in a game last night. Luckily the guy all in scooped, but I made a point of telling them it was against the rules. He was an inexperienced player so didn't know better tbf. This led to someone mentioning a few absent players (who will remain nameless) who definitely do know better, who also do this. In fact the villain of the piece piped up and said he had seen him do it so thought it was ok.

This led to me thinking "was I right?", (after all, I'm not that experienced myself) so can someone let me know, please?

Is it a breach of the rules or is it just poor etiquette. If its a breach of the rules what is the penalty (not that I'd expect that to be enforced in a LPL game)

[tfeilding]

This'll be an interesting thread.

Any collusion in a hand is cheating and that includes saying 'Ill check if you do'.

What I do is check blind. That gets around the cheating side of things whilst still making my intentions clear.

As to what the penalties are for colluding, I have no idea. Ive never seen a penalty enforced for anything in the league.

One very frustrating thing is checking a hand down whilst having a strong hand, someone then catching and betting in to you. I've lost too many actual and potential chips that way.

[Dice Man]

I'm not sure what the LPL ruling is on this, but I see it done fairly often too. The purpose of the practice is to maximise the possibility of the all-in player being eliminated so that everybody else can move up cash places (or points). It's usually more of an unspoken convention. However, I think that in general LPL players completely misunderstand it. You only do this if you haven't actually hit the board. You don't agree to check down until the end. If say you have JT and flop a jack high board, you ought to bet the flop to reduce the possibility that the other player still live in the hand outdraws you. And if you have the nuts on the river and you don't bet into the dry side pot this is technically collusion.

As mentioned, the only reason LPL players agree to check down until the end (and I see players say this online in the chatbox sometimes too) is because they have heard that there is a certain situation where the correct strategy is to check down, and they think this applies every time when somebody is all in, whereas in reality it's a small minority of cases. They don't understand the actual reasoning behind it.

I usually don't say anything and the organisers usually allow it too, and I don't know what the official LPL policy is. I don't think it would matter anyway because the people who do it aren't really going to be able to understand it being a bad thing, and if told not to so blatantly collude, they'll check down anyway. I'm not that against it anyway. I don't think it's really a discernible breach of the rules. It's only technically collusion if you check the nuts on the river at the last possible action, and that hardly ever happens anyway.

[Liam_AA]

I've had a good look around and there is no set in stone rules. However it seems to be a general view that talking about it is cheating.

Implicit Collusion

Let's say there are three players left in the pot and one of those players goes all-in. There is now a good chance that the remaining two players will "check it down", meaning that they will both check, rather than bet or raise, until the showdown. This is known as "implicit collusion" because the two players are now, in effect, teaming up against the all-in player. There are several legitimate reasons why implicit collusion is somewhat tolerated:

* The chance of a successful bluff is much lower since there is a guaranteed card showdown with the all-in player.
* Eliminating players is an important objective in a tournament and both players have a vested interest in seeing the all-in player eliminated. Two hands have a better chance of beating the all-in player than one.
* Players not in the pot also have a vested interest in seeing the all-in player eliminated.

For these reasons, don't be surprised to see many checked-down hands in these situations. It is not considered to be cheating unless done by verbal agreement.

It would be interesting to get Mikes views on what should happen in the league.

Thanks

[LPL_Mike]

This is relevant to something i was putting together for our March Final at the Broadway Casino, because some players won't be use to a casino environment or dealers controlling the tables.

Its a very simple fact sheet on what not to do! and i recommend that all players are made aware of this and that they read it.

Poker Etiquette http://www.box.net/shared/static/i1sk73dic0.pdf

This can also be downloaded and maybe handed out to all tournament directors at the pubs, and aimed at new players.

Finals are going to be held more and more at local Casino's, the South West are having there first Final next month, and players will have to quickly acustom themselves to the casino environment and having dealers at the table....

[swinebag22]

I notice that, having read the poker etiquette sheet that this topic is not covered in it. is this because we are only taking about something that occurs rarely in a game, and isn't therefore worth mentioning.

Talking of poor manners at the table...........Slow rolling.................now do not get me started on that one............................................... ............................................

Some people love to do this

Too many people have seen that episode of "Fools and Horses" when the villain (delboy) says he has only 2 pair to the other guys full house or sommat.

He then flips his 2 pair. Aces and Aces

Slow rolling peckham chav pensioner scumbag!!!!

[The Reaper]

Am I going insane, because I swear it says on the sheet....

"The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:

. Agreeing to check a hand out when a third player is all-in".

...but I DO need some new glasses!

;P

The Reaper

[swinebag22]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Am I going insane, because I swear it says on the sheet....

"The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:

. Agreeing to check a hand out when a third player is all-in".

...but I DO need some new glasses!

;P

The Reaper

noooooooo........I never got to the second sheet.

Well thats that cleared up.

[Matty H]

If you're already allin why would you care if it's checked down? You can't make anymore out of it and likewise you can't be any worse off. Personally I don't see anything wrong with it and it happens in the casinos ALL THE TIME. Ok, so it's in the rules. Fair enough, then it must be adhered to. But it's hardly the end of the world in my opinion

[TheChickenman]

Originally Posted by Matty H

If you're already allin why would you care if it's checked down? You can't make anymore out of it and likewise you can't be any worse off.

I'm so shocked by the fact that someone needs to ask this question that I'm going to reply in the only fitting way, in German...

Sie haben mehr Wahrscheinlichkeit des Schlagens von von einem Konkurrenten als zwei.

OK... That probably doesn't make a lot of sense, stupid online translators.