|
|
#11
11-18-2007, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#12
11-18-2007, 08:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#13
11-18-2007, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#14
11-18-2007, 09:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#15
11-19-2007, 07:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#16
11-19-2007, 11:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#18
11-19-2007, 10:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#19
11-19-2007, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#20
11-19-2007, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
