Been playing a while and saw this on my last casino visit. Surprisingly, no floor was called, no verbal altercation, no one got kicked out. Quick summary:

Standard 1/3 hand. EP open to $12, 3 or 4 callers and the BB raises to $75. One limper calls. Flop comes J high 2 diamonds. PFR cbets $75 into $180 or whatever it was. Call. Before the turn is dealt, the caller starts chatting and basically asking the PFR to check it down. PFR after a bit agrees. Turn comes blank, check, check. River is a diamond. PFR checks, caller says "Oh, no, we not checking nothing down now". Bets $175. Whole table raises eyebrows and a few groans. PFR calls, other guys obviously shows Ad4d for the nuts. Caller then goes on to berate the PFR for falling for checking it down. PFR mutters something about being grimy. Caller gives out his address and invites him to "pull up" to some spot in a less than desirable part of town anytime if he has a problem.

1 - Does PFR have any recourse here? Should he have called the floor? If you bet out of turn it is binding. If you check out of turn and the action doesn't change in front of you isn't that binding as well?

2 - How bad was that call?

3 - Does basically telling someone to come to your house if you have a problem constitute a threat?

I was amazed that this didn't escalate any further.

I have seen this once before, and ended with a lot of f bombs and security getting called. As far as I know no floor or dealer is going to an enforce a "check it down" agreement. Every player still must make a valid action when it's their turn. I've never seen someone coerce another player to check it down while holding a nut draw then bet it when it hits though. Wow.

It's probably not going to meet any legal definition of a threat but I could see a floor who runs a tight ship giving the caller a timeout here over his behavior. No regular is worth that bullshit.

My understanding is that there is no enforcement through the gaming commission or the room on things like checking it down or conditional bets, as these agreements are not defined in the rules. But the floor always has the discretion to 86 someone. I am not sure that the floor could say 'give him back the bet, or you are gone for a month', as that seems like that would go counter to the room rules.

And that is as scummy as it gets. I would make sure that everyone in the room heard about the move, and I would request a table change every time caller sat down at a table, letting everyone know why I was changing.

Check down agreement not enforceable but caller is complete scum for doing that.

I think I understand where you are trying to go with the OOT questions. That won’t fly since the agreement to check it down is not an action so can’t be binding.

Don’t know what PFR had so can’t be certain but I would fully expect flushband usually nut flush. Not a call I make without lots of history. I fold and berate the @hat for what he did.

IANAL but IMO offering willingness to meet someone to face off at a random location away from current location probably does not rise to a legal threat. He did not threaten or promise any action against PFR. PFR would have to go to the site for damage to happen. But this behavior completely in character for such a pr***.

As the action is opened after the flop, trun, and river by the simple action of the card being laid on the table by the dealer.... Nothing technically wrong or "illegal" in poker terms.

Now in terms of sportsmanship - yes, poor form old man, as the saying goes...

No, it's not binding.

And you're not allowed to raise others out and then check it down.

It's not binding, and actually against the rules. It's a form of collusion, soft playing. Two players agreeing in advance how to play a hand is not allowed. Of course, once they say it, there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle. When that would happen when I was dealing, I would immediately say "you cant say that out loud". It didnt fix the situation for that hand, but usually players would take the hint and not do it again.

FWIW this type of situation is why I never check it down with anyone. It’s not binding and it’s bad for the game anyway. Whenever there are chronic check downers at the table, and sometimes it can be 3-4 people at the table that all check down with each other, I always ask for a table change.

Personally I think casinos should not allow people to check it down with each other. The problems is, it’s hard to compel people to bet. So if they agree beforehand there’s not much you can do but maybe separate them if possible.

it is simply an angle shot. One should ask the dealer first if there are any questions. If the dealer doesn't call the floor, one should call the floor if dissatisfied with the answer. Obviously don't go into a dark alley for a fight. If you want to retaliate, the next time you see him make that offer, just let the table know he has a draw and will bet if he hits it because you've seen him do it before.

Not compelling people to bet additional real money is one of the basic principles of regulated casino games.

Along the same lines you can't punish players for not putting additional real money in the pot. In poker tournaments where players use chips instead of real money you can force them to put in blinds and follow rules like having to bet the nuts on the river last to act. That wouldn't be legal in a cash game.

Thanks for all the replies. I guess it was better for PFR not to blow up the situation then since the guy was not a strong player and ended up giving all of that money back to the table eventually.

I guess the call was questionable since the guy had been caught bluffing before but this one seemed pretty obvious that he hit his flush. PFR showed KK no heart for what it's worth.

I agree that this makes me not want to check it down with anyone going forward. It also makes me wonder about other things like chopping the blinds. Is it possible for the big blind to agree to chop and then change his mind after SB mucks and then bet? Or is a chop enforceable?

Blind chopping is sanctioned, whether explicitly or not. (It would otherwise not be legal to pull your bet back.) It benefits all players remaining in the hand, and the conditions under which the option is available are not directly effected by those players.

Whether or not that makes it enforceable, I don't know. I have never seen what you describe. There is also a cap on losses, both to the immediate victim and to the room as a whole if appropriate recourse is taken.

If this is what makes you not want to check it down, then maybe reflect more. We mostly agree that one player is far scummier than the other, but both entered an unfair agreement from which PFR tried to benefit.

lol'd at the part about the giving of address and invitation to 'pull up'...

PFR had the most to lose as it was pretty clear to both players he was ahead. He was just trying to keep the fish happy which is good practice in general

checking it down is collusion and should be treated as such
if 2 people aren't comfortable playing a hand out against each other at bare minimum they shouldn't be allowed at the same table

Not binding. You could've called the Floor over to get him warned (or tossed), but you also might have been tossed yourself for the 'collusion' (there are other threads for that discussion). GL