Checking it down
 

Home game, S&G, first 3 pay, one shortstack on button, 3 players left. Shortie moves all-in, sb thinks for a while and makes the call. BB thinks for a while too and says "Whell, I have a decent hand which can easily knock shortie out too. How about I call and we check it down?" SB agrees but button protests that they can't talk about this and that they can't agree to check it down.
What's the ruling here? How improper behaviour is this? I've heard this before but don't know the ruling about this...

Re: Checking it down
 

Very improper behavior, its equivalent to collusion.

I don't know what the ruling is either. I'm pretty sure you just say "dont do that again, its cheating", because most likely they had no idea that it is cheating. If they did it again, I might be inclined to give the button the chips he could have won (from SB and BB) and let the SB/BB play the hand however they want.

^I don't think that's the "correct" decision, but it seems fair to me.

Re: Checking it down
 

Definately not kosher. I'd be tempted to rule that the BB is out of the hand. But I'm sure that ain't kosher either.

Re: Checking it down
 

You should have both been penalized for this outright act of collusion. While it is perfectly acceptable for you two to check it down, it is completely unacceptable for you to discuss it and agree to check it down.

Re: Checking it down
 

Should have winked every so slightly while checking.

Re: Checking it down
 

Was sitting at a Cash game at a Local Casino the other day and the guy sitting next to me asked if I wanted to Check Down when we were the only two in to see the Flop. I had a weak Ace and just said: "Sure."

Felt a little odd, but I guess it is no worse than the BB & SB deciding to Chop when everyone folds around.

Re: Checking it down
 

True, that's different, heads up you can do about whatever you want.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
Was sitting at a Cash game at a Local Casino the other day and the guy sitting next to me asked if I wanted to Check Down when we were the only two in to see the Flop. I had a weak Ace and just said: "Sure."

Felt a little odd, but I guess it is no worse than the BB & SB deciding to Chop when everyone folds around.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a heads up hand in a cash game this is not a big deal. however keep in mind some rooms will not enforce the agreement if he decides to bet, and it also may make other players feel there is collusion going which can be bad for the game.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
True, that's different, heads up you can do about whatever you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. There are things you can not do heads up, at least in well run games.

Re: Checking it down
 

"about"

Re: Checking it down
 

At some home game tourneys we have a rule that if you openly ask or tell another player to check it down when someone is all in you receive a 10 minute penalty. The hosts announce this before the start of every game and again before the start of the FT.

In OP's situation there isn't anything they can do at that point unless they had some rules in place. Just give them a stern warning and let them know it will be a penalty from now on.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
In OP's situation there isn't anything they can do at that point unless they had some rules in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rule against explicit collusion is inherent in poker, you don't need a special rule for the situation.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In OP's situation there isn't anything they can do at that point unless they had some rules in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rule against explicit collusion is inherent in poker, you don't need a special rule for the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was more saying you need a special rule to specify what the penalty should be. In the absence of that a warning is probably all you can do, IMO.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In OP's situation there isn't anything they can do at that point unless they had some rules in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rule against explicit collusion is inherent in poker, you don't need a special rule for the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was more saying you need a special rule to specify what the penalty should be. In the absence of that a warning is probably all you can do, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the notion that for a rule to be enforceable there must be spelled out a specific penalty for the situation. There should be someone who has the authority to assess penalties for rules violations and they should have some discretion.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In OP's situation there isn't anything they can do at that point unless they had some rules in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rule against explicit collusion is inherent in poker, you don't need a special rule for the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was more saying you need a special rule to specify what the penalty should be. In the absence of that a warning is probably all you can do, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the notion that for a rule to be enforceable there must be spelled out a specific penalty for the situation. There should be someone who has the authority to assess penalties for rules violations and they should have some discretion.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Try that at a home game and you'll end up getting disinvited back or jumped by a couple of his friends. If the players are that bad to realize that this is collusion then this home game isn't being played for serious money and by good players. Just issue the warning and in the future let people know what is expected of them BEFORE the game begins.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In OP's situation there isn't anything they can do at that point unless they had some rules in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rule against explicit collusion is inherent in poker, you don't need a special rule for the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily in home games, it's not.

Re: Checking it down
 

OK, thx! I'll suggest we add some ruling in advance to prevent this next time.

Re: Checking it down
 

Nothing wrong with this at all. In fact only an idiot bets into a dead side pot when trying to eliminate a player in a tourney. I would be more irritated if I was one of the players with chips left the other guy comes out betting at me.
Besides, the definition of collusion used in the poker room I deal in (and any I've ever played in) involves some sort of secrecy. Two guys saying "wana check it down?" is perfectly normal in any card room I've been to.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing wrong with this at all. In fact only an idiot bets into a dead side pot when trying to eliminate a player in a tourney. I would be more irritated if I was one of the players with chips left the other guy comes out betting at me.
Besides, the definition of collusion used in the poker room I deal in (and any I've ever played in) involves some sort of secrecy. Two guys saying "wana check it down?" is perfectly normal in any card room I've been to.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to distinguish what is within the rules, from what your stupid dealers let you do because they are do stupid to do there jobs. I have never been in a card room where to players in a tournament can ask to check down a pot, and never been in a cardroom what allowed to players to do this in a tournament or cash game when a player is all in. But I have been in plenty of cardrrooms with bad dealers who would sit and let it happen until a player objected.

EVERY CARDROOM HAS A ONE PLAYER TO A HAND RULE. EVERY CARDROOM HAS A RULE AGIANST COLLUSION.

Yes it may be good strategy to check it down, that doesn't mean that two players get to discuss it. On another hand it may be good strategy for one player to bet and another player to raise, but that doesn't mean that the players get to have a discussion about doing it.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing wrong with this at all. In fact only an idiot bets into a dead side pot when trying to eliminate a player in a tourney. I would be more irritated if I was one of the players with chips left the other guy comes out betting at me.
Besides, the definition of collusion used in the poker room I deal in (and any I've ever played in) involves some sort of secrecy. Two guys saying "wana check it down?" is perfectly normal in any card room I've been to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing wrong with this at all. In fact only an idiot bets into a dead side pot when trying to eliminate a player in a tourney. I would be more irritated if I was one of the players with chips left the other guy comes out betting at me.
Besides, the definition of collusion used in the poker room I deal in (and any I've ever played in) involves some sort of secrecy. Two guys saying "wana check it down?" is perfectly normal in any card room I've been to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. So you've never been to a casino?

Re: Checking it down
 

As a dealer, and as the rules in my room (and every room I know of in this city) stand this is not considered collusion. As long as the players who are discussing the hand are involved in the hand and discussing it openly it is considered angeling. Angeling is considered bad form in most places, but I have never seen it result in hand being killed or any action being taken (my Casino and two others in town even openly permit it). One of the players could have had a terrible hand and was just trying to talk the other guy out of betting in hopes that he would catch up. Punishing a player for saying "check it down?" is as absurd as punishing a player for saying "I'm going to raise if you bet." It's all just table talk.
The only time I've ever seen collusion called is when they players are attempting to deceive the table by working as team. This clearly wasn't the case in this situation.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
As a dealer, and as the rules in my room (and every room I know of in this city) stand this is not considered collusion. As long as the players who are discussing the hand are involved in the hand and discussing it openly it is considered angeling. Angeling is considered bad form in most places, but I have never seen it result in hand being killed or any action being taken (my Casino and two others in town even openly permit it). One of the players could have had a terrible hand and was just trying to talk the other guy out of betting in hopes that he would catch up. Punishing a player for saying "check it down?" is as absurd as punishing a player for saying "I'm going to raise if you bet." It's all just table talk.
The only time I've ever seen collusion called is when they players are attempting to deceive the table by working as team. This clearly wasn't the case in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all we're talking about a tournament and not a cash game. Discussing hands and especially asking another player to check it down when a third player is all in is absolutely collusion and although it won't result in a dead hand (almost nothing will), it should result in a penalty after the hand is over, so long as the rules stated this. I'm nt sure where you deal so maybe your room has different rules but 90% + of the rooms in the US have this rule in place for their tournaments.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
As a dealer, and as the rules in my room (and every room I know of in this city) stand this is not considered collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Level?

Re: Checking it down
 

level?

And to Rottersod:
Our tournament rule state house rules are in effect for tournaments unless otherwise stated (I just looked at a copy of tourny rules and this isn't int he other wise stated category)
However, I think the point of disagreement here is over a house rules matter. For most cases our provincial gaming and liquor commission here considers the division between angeling and collusion to be defined by the house for all but the most obvious cases (signal passing, card trading, etc...)

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
As a dealer, and as the rules in my room (and every room I know of in this city) stand this is not considered collusion. As long as the players who are discussing the hand are involved in the hand and discussing it openly it is considered angeling. Angeling is considered bad form in most places, but I have never seen it result in hand being killed or any action being taken (my Casino and two others in town even openly permit it). One of the players could have had a terrible hand and was just trying to talk the other guy out of betting in hopes that he would catch up. Punishing a player for saying "check it down?" is as absurd as punishing a player for saying "I'm going to raise if you bet." It's all just table talk.
The only time I've ever seen collusion called is when they players are attempting to deceive the table by working as team. This clearly wasn't the case in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you are a dealer greatly angers me. the idea that any professional does not understand that this is a violation of one player to a hand, is collusion, and is not just table talk makes me sad about the state of our profession.

I understand that as a dealer there is nothing you can do about the managment refusing to handle this appropriately, but you seem to really believe that this is appropriate behavior.

Re: Checking it down
 

Discussing the hand while in play has become accepted as angeling here. I know that 3-4 years ago this wasn't the case and a local card room threatened me with a lifetime ban for doing it. City wide, discussion by players involved in a hand about the hand in progress falls under angeling and not collusion. So yes, based on the standard that has been set down around here in the last 5 years or so it's perfectly acceptable. Had the showed each other their hand and offered to check it down I kill the hands in a heart beat. But to just say "I have XX, do you want to check?" is permitted. We view it as a player attempting to play their own hand because it isn't necessarily the case they have what they say they do. Seems to me that it's just different rules in different districts.

Re: Checking it down
 

I don't even get this stuff about Angling.

Angle shooting is not acceptable behavior for a room to labvel something as acceptable because its merely angle shooting is absurd.

Re: Checking it down
 

lol, it's acceptable if the big rule board clearly states in (in bold letters)
"ANGLING IS PERMITTED, only players involved in a pot may angle"

Like I said different house rules if different jurisdictions.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol, it's acceptable if the big rule board clearly states in (in bold letters)
"ANGLING IS PERMITTED, only players involved in a pot may angle"

Like I said different house rules if different jurisdictions.


[/ QUOTE ]
WHAT?!?!

Angling is permitted?!?

I'm sorry but that is the most insane thing I have ever seen. Do you even know what "angling" is? At least where I am from "Angling" is a short term for the slang term "angle shooting" aka bending the rules in an unethical manner and is BY DEFINITION poor Etiquette!!! You're saying cheating is OK only if you're in the hand. I don't care about the "jurisdiction".

Whomever wrote that rule is confused.

Re: Checking it down
 

We consider angling discussion of the hand in progress in an attempt to gain an advantage.
For example:
"I have the flush, you better just fold" is angeling
or
"My hand is huge, I would check if I was you" also angeling
however:
guy not involved in hand "buddy, you should fold, he has a monster" - not permitted

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
We consider angling discussion of the hand in progress in an attempt to gain an advantage.
For example:
"I have the flush, you better just fold" is angeling
or
"My hand is huge, I would check if I was you" also angeling
however:
guy not involved in hand "buddy, you should fold, he has a monster" - not permitted

[/ QUOTE ]
Then, frankly, you guys either need to drop the slang from your formal rules, or learn the more "widely accepted" usage of the terms that you chose to use. It leads to imprecise and confusing rules.

Re: Checking it down
 

Imcclean, we get that by your place's rules, "checking it down" is allowed. Understood. Simply put, the entire place/"jurisdiction" is WRONG. LV casinos/AC casinos = where you should be getting your rules from.

Re: Checking it down
 

really?
I always thought my management should stick to the rules set down by our local gaming commission, guess I should turn in our T&C's and pick up a copy from Jersey.

Re: Checking it down
 

yesssssss


I'm sorry ,but I really think there should be a standard. And considering Vegas/AC are the casino capitals of the country, it should come from them.

Re: Checking it down
 

I work in a room with a magical muck, so I understand that some places aren't standard, and it can be frustrating as someone who actually knows and respects the game to sit there and watch stuff go on that nobody will back me on preventing.

The term they use is poor, but the sort of table talk they describe is fairly standard in the Bay Area, as well. But we would never call it "angling". I try to curb the table talk as much as possible, but you can't really stop it. Tho' to openly discuss checking it down during a tournament should NEVER be allowed.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
We consider angling discussion of the hand in progress in an attempt to gain an advantage.
For example:
"I have the flush, you better just fold" is angeling
or
"My hand is huge, I would check if I was you" also angeling
however:
guy not involved in hand "buddy, you should fold, he has a monster" - not permitted

[/ QUOTE ]

Your examples aren't really angling. They are a standard part of poker - i.e. lying/trying to confuse your opponent to gain an advantage while the hand is in play. An example of angleshot would be when the betting is done and one player purposely mis-declares his hand in an attempt to get the winner to muck his cards.

But lets get back to the original topic of this thread. Using your rooms' example of an angle I still don't see how it could be permitted for 2 players to agree to check down in a tournament when there is already another player all in. The all in player needs to be protected because he can not take any more action. Other players in the tourney need to be protected by 2 people colluding together to knock a player out. Some might argue that it is in everyone's best interest to eliminate a player but there can be times when it isn't. I can think of one obvious one - on the bubble of a big money event when the big stacks would rather play hard and take advantage of players just wanting to make the money.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
yesssssss


I'm sorry ,but I really think there should be a standard. And considering Vegas/AC are the casino capitals of the country, it should come from them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but LA's rooms are the poker capital of the US.

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
I work in a room with a magical muck,

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a magical muck?

Re: Checking it down
 

[ QUOTE ]
We consider angling discussion of the hand in progress in an attempt to gain an advantage.
For example:
"I have the flush, you better just fold" is angeling
or
"My hand is huge, I would check if I was you" also angeling
however:
guy not involved in hand "buddy, you should fold, he has a monster" - not permitted

[/ QUOTE ]

In a cash came, the first two examples are perfectly proper as long as there are no other players in the hand. If there is somebody else in the hand, not proper at all, and I would expect at least a warning.

In a tourney, your first two examples are never proper, unless you're down to the last two players in the tourney.

House rules are house rules, of course, but that's pretty basic (and important) stuff, so I'd hate to play in a place that tampered with basic rules.

This is directly from the Tournament Directors Association Rules.

The important part of the below is the protecting other players, note that the part about advice could apply to your examples as well:

[ QUOTE ]

Players are obligated to protect the other players in the tournament at all times. Therefore, players, whether in the hand or not, may not:
1. Disclose contents of live or folded hands
2. Advise or criticize play before the action is complete
3. Read a hand that hasn’t been tabled
The one-player-to-a-hand rule will be enforced.


[/ QUOTE ]

And then this,:
[ QUOTE ]
Poker is an individual game. Soft play will result in penalties, which may include forfeiture of chips and/or disqualification. Chip dumping will result in disqualification.

[/ QUOTE ]

And finally, from Robert's Rules of Poker:

[ QUOTE ]

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.




[/ QUOTE ]