Re: Collusion ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't consider enforcing the rules to be an angle.
If the tourney has a rule about explicit "check it down" collusion, then I think suggesting it should not only get the cheater's hand killed, but get him removed from the tournament with no refund.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I am of the opinion that this offense should be immediate disqualification. While other offenses may warrant a warning, I see no way in which a player can accidentally ask others to check it down, and I see no way that a player could possibly be acting in good faith when he does this.

Re: Collusion ruling
 

Maybe this is just because I used to play magic, but:
Every player in a tournament should know the rules. The casino should make the rules available(online or in print).
If someone does something that effects the gamestate then their hand is dead.
No one should have to ask for their hand to be declared dead when they check it down either. It should be standard.

There are situations where you can be severely [censored] by someone saying "check it down". Situations where almost everyone would probably agree something should be done to repair the situation.
Thats why the rule should be enforced all the time and not by giving a warning.
You should get a warning beforehand, when you read the rules.

Folding out of turn is a minor procedural error.
Saying "check it down" is cheating.

Re: Collusion ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't consider enforcing the rules to be an angle.
If the tourney has a rule about explicit "check it down" collusion, then I think suggesting it should not only get the cheater's hand killed, but get him removed from the tournament with no refund.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I am of the opinion that this offense should be immediate disqualification. While other offenses may warrant a warning, I see no way in which a player can accidentally ask others to check it down, and I see no way that a player could possibly be acting in good faith when he does this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this because there are a lot of social players that don't know what they are doing is wrong. To people that have put thought into this stuff this is clearly cheating, but a lot of players have put no thought into poker ethics etc.

If you seek out people that aren't so bright to play with you shouldn't expect them to understand things that are clear to the thinking population.

Re: Collusion ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't consider enforcing the rules to be an angle.
If the tourney has a rule about explicit "check it down" collusion, then I think suggesting it should not only get the cheater's hand killed, but get him removed from the tournament with no refund.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I am of the opinion that this offense should be immediate disqualification. While other offenses may warrant a warning, I see no way in which a player can accidentally ask others to check it down, and I see no way that a player could possibly be acting in good faith when he does this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this because there are a lot of social players that don't know what they are doing is wrong. To people that have put thought into this stuff this is clearly cheating, but a lot of players have put no thought into poker ethics etc.

If you seek out people that aren't so bright to play with you shouldn't expect them to understand things that are clear to the thinking population.

[/ QUOTE ]

While there are some offenses where i might agree with your thought here this isn't one of them. o me this offense is so self evident that any player who violates it can't claim that they thought it was allowed. To me it is impossible to not understand this. I know players who claim to believe it is legal, or claim they didn't know it was illegal, but I don't believe them.

Re: Collusion ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't consider enforcing the rules to be an angle.
If the tourney has a rule about explicit "check it down" collusion, then I think suggesting it should not only get the cheater's hand killed, but get him removed from the tournament with no refund.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I am of the opinion that this offense should be immediate disqualification. While other offenses may warrant a warning, I see no way in which a player can accidentally ask others to check it down, and I see no way that a player could possibly be acting in good faith when he does this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this because there are a lot of social players that don't know what they are doing is wrong. To people that have put thought into this stuff this is clearly cheating, but a lot of players have put no thought into poker ethics etc.

If you seek out people that aren't so bright to play with you shouldn't expect them to understand things that are clear to the thinking population.

[/ QUOTE ]

While there are some offenses where i might agree with your thought here this isn't one of them. o me this offense is so self evident that any player who violates it can't claim that they thought it was allowed. To me it is impossible to not understand this. I know players who claim to believe it is legal, or claim they didn't know it was illegal, but I don't believe them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe them. Many years ago I was playing in a Las Vegas casino and complained about the checking it down with 5 players left in the tournament (they would tell the dealer they want to check it down and the dealer would just run out the cards for them). The floor came over and said "they always check it down when they are heads up in a pot." These players didn't feel they were doing anything wrong, there are a number of places where it is customary to check it down heads up, how would these people understand a tournament is different?

Re: Collusion ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I'm short stacked in a tournament, go all-in, get multiple callers, then one of the callers mentions to another caller that they should all just check to knock me out. Would I be able to get a rulling that would nullify their hands in any way?

TIA

[/ QUOTE ]




so you like to fight angles with angles? nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another intelligent post

Re: Collusion ruling
 

I've seen a TD get pretty bent over a "let's check it down" comment. He didn't disqualify anybody, but he made it clear that there had BETTER be some betting after the flop, or else. But that's a rarity (and only happened because it was the final table and the TD was hovering keeping an eye on things like a good TD should).

Re: Collusion ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't consider enforcing the rules to be an angle.
If the tourney has a rule about explicit "check it down" collusion, then I think suggesting it should not only get the cheater's hand killed, but get him removed from the tournament with no refund.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I am of the opinion that this offense should be immediate disqualification. While other offenses may warrant a warning, I see no way in which a player can accidentally ask others to check it down, and I see no way that a player could possibly be acting in good faith when he does this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this because there are a lot of social players that don't know what they are doing is wrong. To people that have put thought into this stuff this is clearly cheating, but a lot of players have put no thought into poker ethics etc.

If you seek out people that aren't so bright to play with you shouldn't expect them to understand things that are clear to the thinking population.

[/ QUOTE ]

While there are some offenses where i might agree with your thought here this isn't one of them. o me this offense is so self evident that any player who violates it can't claim that they thought it was allowed. To me it is impossible to not understand this. I know players who claim to believe it is legal, or claim they didn't know it was illegal, but I don't believe them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe them. Many years ago I was playing in a Las Vegas casino and complained about the checking it down with 5 players left in the tournament (they would tell the dealer they want to check it down and the dealer would just run out the cards for them). The floor came over and said "they always check it down when they are heads up in a pot." These players didn't feel they were doing anything wrong, there are a number of places where it is customary to check it down heads up, how would these people understand a tournament is different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slightly different scenario. In this scenario they aren't heads up in a pot. If you ask these playersr why they are checking it down they aren't going to tell you they always check it down heads up, they are going to tell you that it increases there chances of knocking out the all-in player. I simply do not believe that anyone playing a poker tournament thinks its acceptable to make an agreement between two or more players to try to knock out the third.

Re: Collusion ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't consider enforcing the rules to be an angle.
If the tourney has a rule about explicit "check it down" collusion, then I think suggesting it should not only get the cheater's hand killed, but get him removed from the tournament with no refund.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I am of the opinion that this offense should be immediate disqualification. While other offenses may warrant a warning, I see no way in which a player can accidentally ask others to check it down, and I see no way that a player could possibly be acting in good faith when he does this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this because there are a lot of social players that don't know what they are doing is wrong. To people that have put thought into this stuff this is clearly cheating, but a lot of players have put no thought into poker ethics etc.

If you seek out people that aren't so bright to play with you shouldn't expect them to understand things that are clear to the thinking population.

[/ QUOTE ]

While there are some offenses where i might agree with your thought here this isn't one of them. o me this offense is so self evident that any player who violates it can't claim that they thought it was allowed. To me it is impossible to not understand this. I know players who claim to believe it is legal, or claim they didn't know it was illegal, but I don't believe them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe them. Many years ago I was playing in a Las Vegas casino and complained about the checking it down with 5 players left in the tournament (they would tell the dealer they want to check it down and the dealer would just run out the cards for them). The floor came over and said "they always check it down when they are heads up in a pot." These players didn't feel they were doing anything wrong, there are a number of places where it is customary to check it down heads up, how would these people understand a tournament is different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slightly different scenario. In this scenario they aren't heads up in a pot. If you ask these playersr why they are checking it down they aren't going to tell you they always check it down heads up, they are going to tell you that it increases there chances of knocking out the all-in player. I simply do not believe that anyone playing a poker tournament thinks its acceptable to make an agreement between two or more players to try to knock out the third.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is different. I was just pointing out there are some people that have given this no thought and some of them work on the floor. I think for a penalty to be in order for a first offense it needs to be clear that they wouldn't have come to "check it down" without saying anything. For example player A picks up some chips and player B says "just check it down" there will be a penalty issued.

Re: Collusion ruling
 

Here's a post about how I handled a similar situation

I'm calling the floor 100% of the time if I'm all-in shorty and someone offers to check it down, and I won't be nearly as nice as I was in my story.