[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your example makes the guy a major tool.

You deserve what you get if you fall for it, but it doesn't make the guy who did it any less of a tool.

That is clearly an unethical move. I don't know how you could see it otherwise. There is no need to do that. If you did not play good enough to get them to lay down before the showdown, or you did not have a winning hand, tough.

Have some respect for yourself and for other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it comes down to respect any more than a check-raise is unfairly representing the strength of your hand.

Not that I'm entirely sold on my own argument, but i suppose what i'm getting at why isn't the check-out-of-turn-then-raise-after-he-bets any less of a "poker strategy" than a standard bluff all in? Because it's not in a 2+2 book?

Or is it just because the people who fall for it claim its not poker, in the same way people who used to (back in the day) fall for a check-raise claimed its not poker?

I don't know, I just find that so much of our law is based on people getting [censored] on and calling it unfair. Then the law changes to reflect whoever whines the loudest, regardless of whether it's really "right" to change it.

I'm in law school, and that thought paradigm i suppose has shifted to my views on poker. We're tought very early when arguing not to think in terms of right vs. wrong, but in terms of legal vs. illegal. Ethics are important, but legal arguments aren't based ethics.

[/OT rant]