Generally if a player offers selectively it's a clue that he has a reverse implied hands type hand or a draw he wants to get to cheaply. That leaks information and can't be smart.


I'll write more about this later in detail (ie., maintaining ethics in an imperfect world without being a chump) but perhaps the most realistic approach for me is to never offer a check down but consider accepting when it's good for me (as it was in the OP).

Keep in mind that in LA we have a tremendous number of tables but only a few rooms. If I stopped playing every place I often saw unethical behavior (or what I perceive to be unethical) I wouldn't have any place to play!


I've rarely seen a player renege on a agreement like this once entered into.


That's been my approach in the past. I may change a bit as I get more feedback from you guys (and really wonder what Ray Zee thinks).


Despite the button's more than half pot bet into seven opponents maybe the ballsy play was to checkraise all-in with about a $400 stack. I can be pretty sure that the hijack had the other king.
But this isn't a strategy forum

~ Rick

"Keep in mind that in LA we have a tremendous number of tables but only a few rooms. If I stopped playing every place I often saw unethical behavior (or what I perceive to be unethical) I wouldn't have any place to play!"

Excellent point.

Also, I could usually care less about being politically correct, but if I made a faux-paus with my spelling of renege, it was unintentional. For that matter, if anyone doesn't like my spelling they can stop by and I'll kick them directly in the nuts!

This is an excellent thread and I too would like to see what Ray says. i may be going fishin' for a few days to maybe a week or more, not sure if I'm leaving tomorrow or in a couple days, but if I disappear someone please let me know how this all turns out!

al

Funny, I ran my own version of the spelling through the Opera browser third party spell checker and it came up with "renege" (I think I originally wrote "reneg") and the correction simply didn't look right but I didn't have time to double check. Strange word written out.


Isn't there some sort of moratorium on being kicked in the nuts on the forum?


I'm really happy with the responses and learned a lot. But you're more likely to run into Ray fishing than getting him over here to B&M!

~ Rick

I believe agreeing to check down a hand in a cash game is clearly unethical, but it's allowed in every club I've ever played in. Something that is unethical but within the implied rules of a given card room. It's very paradoxical, which is the exact reason for this exercise Rick is putting us through.

It is clearly an ugly situation when a player is pushed off of a substantial pot only to see the remaining two players check it down. I will sometimes openly object to the remaining players when it happens to me if the pot is large. Interestingly enough, most of the time when I do object, I get genuine acknowledgments that my point is valid.

In a pot that is dominated by the action of just two players with little or no investment by other players, I'm not bothered at all by it. I would even say that it's relatively harmless.

Still, despite my view, I often accept offers to check down a hand, though I never make offers to do so. Sometimes I imply I'm going to check down a hand with physical telegraphs such as firmly slapping my palm down firmly on the table for a few raps each street as if to say, "I'm checking it down, you do what you want to do, but I encourage you to do the same". This is clearly ethical (IMHO) since I am not stopping the action to discuss our options - I'm acting and passing all options to my opponent.

Though it will never happen, it would be great if a rule were adopted as follows: "Remaining players in a hand may not make a deal of any sort in any hand were any player has folded who has invested more than the minimum bet."

I agree with this 100%.

However, I also think Al wants us all to grow a pair so it makes it easier for him to apply his patented KITN.

Do you think it's allowed because cardroom management is unaware that it's unethical/bad for the game or that they realize they simply can't easily control it so they throw up their hands?


This has been my experience too.


I agree. I guess the problem is the slippery slope argument, i.e., players see the relatively innocent check down and forget or don't realize it really isn't the same thing with substantial third party money invested.


I'm probably going to go with the first half of your method but I'm not sure I can do the palm slapping thing. Need to think on it more and welcome other input.


Good first draft wording for a rule!

I think the problem with checking down is that it's a form of softplaying which certainly isn't good for the game (simply stated - if everybody softplays everyone else the game isn't interesting; if some players softplay some opponents but not others the game isn't quite fair). You can't easily prevent all softplay (i.e., guy playing a good looking girl soft) but the house should do "things" to prevent it or encourage a level playing field. They really don't do much (at least here in LA).

Thanks for your very good response BTW, it got me thinking.

~ Rick

I



I'm really happy with the responses and learned a lot. But you're more likely to run into Ray fishing than getting him over here to B&M!

~ Rick[/QUOTE]

here i am rick. and yes as the games get bigger it is customary to let two players do what they want only when it becomes head up. no real harm done. but it isnt right if one is knocking other players out to get that spot. but not much to be done about it. and since its larger stakes with experienced players they can adjust and take advantage of any thing that happens like that as someone has to be making mistakes to try to get to a check down.
so in reality if you dont like them checking it down it means you arent looking for the good opportunities that these players will give you.

My gut says it's more the later than the former. Ethical or not there is a lot of momentum behind its popularity. My guess is that if the volume of average poker players (outside of this forum) were to vote on the issue, a slim majority would vote for it to be allowed under any circumstance where at any point the action gets heads up.

In L.A. there are cliques of players that love to play together and soft play each other. I avoid those tables like the plague. Interestingly enough, I find fans of soft play tend to be fans of offering a check down to anybody, not just their buddies.

I guess as Mr. Zee points out, it's our job to exploit these opportunities. This whole study capped by Mr. Zee’s comments now has me questioning if the long standing precedence of checking down, transcends the ethical issue. Perhaps it does, assuming everyone is equally subject to its random presentation of opportunity and exploitation. Regardless, I would still prefer a world that does not allow making check down deals.

Thanks for the thought provoking post and your kind words.

This is a really interesting question. For the most part, if it's heads up I'm okay with it. Of course, this assumes others aren't forced out of the pot by two players colluding.

I think how you approach this question is a matter of context. I play occasionally in Tunica. I know the who the regulars are. I've never seen two regulars check it down after a tourist drops out of a pot. If that happened, I'd be pretty pissed off. Once I saw one person offer to check it down with another when a third person was all in. The dealer called the floor before the one player could finish saying "if I call, do you want to check it ...".

But it's not uncommon for a husband and wife or a couple of college buddies to check a hand down, having gotten heads up "fairly". That doesn't bother me in context because I know it's not intentional collusion and, honestly, usually those checking it down aren't that good at poker.

If the problem were rampant, I'd probably be much less tolerant of the scenario. I realize there can be a slippery slope, but personally don't see it in practice much.

Thanks for helping again Ray.

In this case the fact that the hijack player was asking for a check down probably meant he had some sort of weak made hand (maybe a weak pair of kings like mine). Since the button seemed to want the check down except for my presence perhaps he was betting something like a draw, let's say JT. With my stack size (around $400) a checkraise allin might have been the best bet and if deeper (being not that confident of my reads) accepting the check down for myself would balance the ethical and EV middle.

~ Rick

In LA poker rooms we don't have as clear a distinction between regulars and tourists; if fact the "tourists" who visit LA clubs tend to be tough playing out of town college kids on break preying on middle aged failing minds like mine.

Another way of saying this is LA clubs mostly have regulars and semi-regulars especially at the middle levels (IMO 5-10 blind spread or capped buy no limit is mid level in LA). Since there are so many games and a greater mix of people and no clear distinction between poker predator and prey the ethical lines aren't as clearly drawn as they may be in a tourist area like Tunica or Las Vegas.


The chance of a dealer in LA even realizing that this (verbally agreeing to checking down when a player is allin) is an ethical lapse/violation and in most Los Angeles card club rulebooks is almost zero!


Good point.


My guess is LA is just a little farther down that slope and players like me simply have to learn to deal with this reality and still be able to look at ourselves in the mirror.

~ Rick

you grab the bait and I'll grab the beer! Besides, with all the tall tales I've been seeing lately on the ferums, we might as well be fishin'!

al

This is a case where the structure of the game matters. In a 5/10 LA game with a 400 cap buy-in, this affects all of the players at the table and is not good for the game. It should not be allowed.

In an uncapped game, I see no harm in allowing deals when HU.