Ettiquette question in home game - checking out of turn on river (1 Viewer)

[Frogzilla]

The two questions are:
a. is it legitimate among strangers in a card room / casino?
b. is it ethical among friends? should the perpetrator be told by the victim to fuck off and never play again with "them"?

A)
Heads up cash: yes
Multi-way cash: no
Tournament: no

B)
Yes it’s fine, and then yes the “victim” if they actually paid off the obvious nuts, that victim can berate the perpetrator

 

[Frogzilla]

Or since action was reopened should they just have raised and "that's poker"?

I missed this but I’m not sure you even have an option to raise in this situation. I know I’ve seen in a couple places that with something like this, the offending player cannot take any aggressive action on the betting round, forced to either call or fold.

 

[raynmanas]

Yeah, I often say raise when I mean bet.

pssh, typical angle shooter.

 

[MrCatPants]

I missed this but I’m not sure you even have an option to raise in this situation. I know I’ve seen in a couple places that with something like this, the offending player cannot take any aggressive action on the betting round, forced to either call or fold.

Depends on the card room. Technically rules I've seen lean towards this reopening potential actions as it's an aggressive action.

 

[Coyote]

Yeah, I often say raise when I mean bet.

Traditionally, poker terminology in Greek has been French.
Nowadays, American English is gaining ground, fast.
Many misunderstandings in between.

 

[upNdown]

Traditionally, poker terminology in Greek has been French.
Nowadays, American English is gaining ground, fast.
Many misunderstandings in between.

Oui

 

[Coyote]

Oui

What would the word "yes" mean on an American poker table?
a. check
b. call
c. OK/wow, I 'm thinking this over; gimme some time

 

[MrCatPants]

What would the word "yes" mean on an American poker table?
a. check
b. call
c. OK, I 'm thinking this over; gimme some time

I have heard this used for check before and had to clarify

 

[Coyote]

I have heard this used for check before and had to clarify

IMHO, it's very wrong to be used as "check".
Used as "call" would be understandable.
Anyway, nobody ever got hurt out of standardizind verbal declarations.

 

[Frogzilla]

What would the word "yes" mean on an American poker table?
a. check
b. call
c. OK/wow, I 'm thinking this over; gimme some time

Yes means nothing unless the dealer asked you something like “did you check” or “did you fold”

 

[Jimulacrum]

What would the word "yes" mean on an American poker table?
a. check
b. call
c. OK/wow, I 'm thinking this over; gimme some time

"Yes" is not an action.

Action still pending.

 

[Budha]

are you just talking about a check-raise? Because I’m all cool with that.
But intentionally acting out of turn to check, to induce a raise? I think that’s crossing a line in the sleaziness direction. But the more I think about it, maybe it’s worse than an angle? Because an angle is doing something that doesn’t break the rules - ACTING OUT OF TURN ACTUALLY IS AGAINST THE RULES. Hmm . . .

Wait, no not at all. I’m not talking about checking out of turn, or angle shooting at all. I am just talking about checking the nuts on the river as a potential strategy, so yes basically a check raise.

I was replying to just this part where checking the nuts on the river should not be allowed. That’s the part I’m not I can get behind. I think are times where it can make sense.

An issue that’s interesting to me, (but not really relevant) is checking the nuts on the river. Though it’s typically only a tournament rule that you can’t close the action on the river by checking the nuts, I think there’s a real good argument for making it a rule in cash games as well.

I totally agree, intentionally acting out of turn as an angle is not OK.

 

[upNdown]

I was replying to just this part where checking the nuts on the river should not be allowed. That’s the part I’m not I can get behind. I think are times where it can make sense.

Oh yeah. No, I’m just talking about checking the nuts on the river when you’re last to act - when your check ends the hand. That’s when it’s wrong because it’s soft play.

 

[Darson]

Lickers, wipers and now grumblers? What kind of game are you running?

 

[Budha]

Oh yeah. No, I’m just talking about checking the nuts on the river when you’re last to act - when your check ends the hand. That’s when it’s wrong because it’s soft play.

Ohhh - Ok, I see what you’re getting at now. Yeah, I agree with that, no reason to really ever check in that situation - lol.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Oh yeah. No, I’m just talking about checking the nuts on the river when you’re last to act - when your check ends the hand. That’s when it’s wrong because it’s soft play.

Ohhh - Ok, I see what you’re getting at now. Yeah, I agree with that, no reason to really ever check in that situation - lol.

I remember reading this rule was argued or changed because of information: if you're sure your opponent won't call a bet anyways, check and force him to show his cards even when you've got the nuts. I can't find any proof though, maybe I just dreamed it.

 

[MrCatPants]

Lickers, wipers and now grumblers? What kind of game are you running?

2/3

 

[Jimulacrum]

I remember reading this rule was argued or changed because of information: if you're sure your opponent won't call a bet anyways, check and force him to show his cards even when you've got the nuts. I can't find any proof though, maybe I just dreamed it.

This is how I feel about the rule that prohibits checking back the nuts on the end. (It also prohibits merely calling, IIRC. I believe the exact rule is that if you have the nuts, you must bet or raise if a call or check would close the action.)

I've never done it, but on the rare occasion, I could see a case where you just want to see your opponent's hand, and it's worth sacrificing the last bet to do it. it should be your prerogative to do so.

Sure, this could also be used for soft-play. But if people are soft-playing or colluding, banning checking down the nuts (a) doesn't stop the soft-player from betting the minimum, (b) doesn't stop a player from folding the nuts to dump chips, and (c) doesn't prevent or discourage a wide variety of other colluding behavior and soft-play.

But it does punish an honest player for checking down for information. It punishes a novice player for making a silly mistake. It punishes a weary-eyed player for misreading his hand.

And my biggest objection: It compels a betting action that should be voluntary. Poker is a game of making your own choices and using your own chips to carry them out. This rule takes choice from the player, and all in the name of preventing a thin chance of improper play that it doesn't actually prevent.

 

[upNdown]

But it does punish an honest player for checking down for information. It punishes a novice player for making a silly mistake. It punishes a weary-eyed player for misreading his hand.

It also punishes the woman I was playing with at Seabrook who, when the table talk turned to this rule, said in a panic “but how would I know if I had the nuts?!”

 

[Budha]

I remember reading this rule was argued or changed because of information: if you're sure your opponent won't call a bet anyways, check and force him to show his cards even when you've got the nuts. I can't find any proof though, maybe I just dreamed it.

I've never done it, but on the rare occasion, I could see a case where you just want to see your opponent's hand, and it's worth sacrificing the last bet to do it. it should be your prerogative to do so.

That’s a good point.

 

[Jimulacrum]

It also punishes the woman I was playing with at Seabrook who, when the table talk turned to this rule, said in a panic “but how would I know if I had the nuts?!”

Exactly.

Imagine you're that woman, and you get sat out of a tourney for two orbits for panicking with the nut flush because you were afraid someone could have a full house on an unpaired board. She wouldn't even understand what the TD's talking about.

It sounds like maybe this rule was removed in some places, which I hope is the case and will become standard.

It's such a dumb rule.