How Do You Handle The Lets Check It Down Guy In Your Home Game? (2 Viewers)

Most rules only make the out-of-turn action (check, fold, call, bet, raise) binding if subsequent action does not change the bet value. For example, if a player verbalizes "call" out of turn and the current bet value is then raised, his previous "call" is no longer binding.

I prefer to play the dead call.

In other words, if I call 10, then someone calls out of turn, next player raises to 40... when it comes to the out-of-turn player, they can either put up the 10 they promised and fold their hand, or they can put up 40 or more to stay in. Either way, they're paying at least 10.

The overriding rule is that the punishment for acting out of turn is that you're forced to make the action. If you let them off on the punishment aspect, people get lax.
 
Checking it down may not seem like a big deal until you find yourself All-in against a married couple in a tournament, and the husband tells wifey to check it down. Then the whole world of collusion becomes vibrantly clear.

So say this does happen, and you get bounced from the tournament. Who cares? Worst case scenario you are out $50 and have to go get a hot dog and beer to wait for the cash game to start. When all is said and done, you had a fun night out with your friends. Home games are not about breaking your buddies, they are about hanging out for some friendly competition. You absolutely try and want to win, but it's not the reason to go to a home game.

(Except from what I hear about the circus table... I think people at that table want each others homes only to rent it back to the guy to remind them of their miserable timing or luck).
 
So say this does happen, and you get bounced from the tournament. Who cares? Worst case scenario you are out $50 and have to go get a hot dog and beer to wait for the cash game to start. When all is said and done, you had a fun night out with your friends. Home games are not about breaking your buddies, they are about hanging out for some friendly competition. You absolutely try and want to win, but it's not the reason to go to a home game.

Going to home games may not be about breaking your buddies, but you shouldn't be subjected to cheating tactics, either (especially when those tactics are designed to break you or your buddies). Collusion of any kind is cheating, plain and simple, no matter the setting or stakes. Poker is not a team sport/game.


I prefer to play the dead call.

The overriding rule is that the punishment for acting out of turn is that you're forced to make the action. If you let them off on the punishment aspect, people get lax.

You may prefer the 'dead call', and have every right to structure your home game rules as you wish. But RRoP and TDA rules say otherwise, and for very good reasons. I won't rehash them here.
 
Going to home games may not be about breaking your buddies, but you shouldn't be subjected to cheating tactics, either (especially when those tactics are designed to break you or your buddies). Collusion of any kind is cheating, plain and simple, no matter the setting or stakes. Poker is not a team sport/game.

calling checking it down cheating unreasonable and misleading, particularly to people who are learning the game. if you're using the same terminology to refer to the checking it down and stealing money from the pot or setting the deck, something is wrong with your terminology.
 
calling checking it down cheating unreasonable and misleading, particularly to people who are learning the game. if you're using the same terminology to refer to the checking it down and stealing money from the pot or setting the deck, something is wrong with your terminology.

Agreeing to check it down is predetermining the outcome of a hand. That's collusion. And if checking it down is against the rules (and it usually is), then doing it is cheating (intentionally breaking the rules). Nothing wrong with my terminology.
 
Agreeing to check it down is predetermining the outcome of a hand. That's collusion. And if checking it down is against the rules (and it usually is), then doing it is cheating (intentionally breaking the rules). Nothing wrong with my terminology.

consider the following scenario: you ban a player from your game for repeated agreeing to check a hand down. you later overhear a conversation between two players during which one player tells another that the banned player was banned because he was found out to have cheated in the game. you would feel comfortable with that level of explanation circulating among the players without any further detail?
 
yes.

Although the player probably wouldn't get banned, unless there were other repeated problems with intentionally breaking rules. He'd likely see a lot of rail time, though.
 
consider the following scenario: you ban a player from your game for repeated agreeing to check a hand down. you later overhear a conversation between two players during which one player tells another that the banned player was banned because he was found out to have cheated in the game. you would feel comfortable with that level of explanation circulating among the players without any further detail?

Yes because it is.

Is there a hierarchy of cheating?

Would you welcome this person into your game?

Also I would also ban the person doing the requesting.
 
Should you ban the guy who reminds the BB not to fold because he has not ante'd his chips yet?

No. It is the responsibility of all players to ensure that the pot is correct.

However, if the BB has already posted, then it is inappropriate to remind him to not fold his cards.

Ban? No. Warning? Absolutely. Penalty? Only after repeated actions and having been warned.
 
So, is it the verbalization of the act, or the act itself?. 5 players left, 4 get paid. Shorty goes all in. I call, then a second player calls. Prior to the flop, I check, looking at the other player but not saying anything. I'm essentially saying I'm checking every street, but not verbally announcing it. Player 2 now checks every street dark too. I hit my hand on the river and knock the bubble out.

Did we cheat?
 
So, is it the verbalization of the act, or the act itself?. 5 players left, 4 get paid. Shorty goes all in. I call, then a second player calls. Prior to the flop, I check, looking at the other player but not saying anything. I'm essentially saying I'm checking every street, but not verbally announcing it. Player 2 now checks every street dark too. I hit my hand on the river and knock the bubble out.

Did we cheat?

I'll say this. No one anywhere enforces anything against this.
 
Going to home games may not be about breaking your buddies, but you shouldn't be subjected to cheating tactics, either (especially when those tactics are designed to break you or your buddies). Collusion of any kind is cheating, plain and simple, no matter the setting or stakes. Poker is not a team sport/game.

The game sounds like the participants are not all on the same page. Some are in it for fun, some are in it to create a WSOP experience and are willing to quote RRoP and breakout the TDA rulebook. What you view as cheating others may just see it as the way the game is played, regardless of what "the book" says.

Doesn't sound like much fun to me. Kinda like playing in a friends basement while a couple players you don't know sit across from you wearing sunglasses and a hoodie in a $25 two table tourney. Then not bothering to say a word except to call the host over because a couple chips got knocked off a stack and came to rest across the bet line because my buddy hit a stack while lifting his beer telling a joke. Rules are rules after all.
 
The non-verbal "check it down" is common tournament strategy. The 2 players are rarely in cahoots, they are just targeting a common end goal. But if the last to act has quad aces on the flop and continued to check it down, you are looking at collusion again. I would ask the quad acer why he let that float by.

Enforcement of the rules is rarely a difficult situation. Like a child doing something wrong, most times you simply say no, and explain. Sometimes the punishment has to be more severe. But your players aren't children, and the "No" followed by an explanation is extremely effective.

That said, we've banned a few players over the years. Abusive attitude, not welcome back. Spill wine on the carpet, look, shrug and walk on? You're gone. All 3 players that we've cut from our events couldn't follow the rule of respect. Poker rules can be easily taught. Learning to respect others is something your parents should have whipped into you, and it's not my place to teach that.
 
The game sounds like the participants are not all on the same page. Some are in it for fun, some are in it to create a WSOP experience and are willing to quote RRoP and breakout the TDA rulebook.

I'd strongly argue that the two are not mutually exclusive. Far from it; a good set of rules eliminates a lot of arguments from ever occurring by having commonly-debated answers clearly identified in writing. There was initial push-back (10 years ago), but it didn't take long for everybody to understand the rules and the value of having them in place. The rules don't get in the way, they simply provide a level playing ground for everyone.


Doesn't sound like much fun to me.

Tom, you are very welcome to come join us anytime you are in the Atlanta area. We have a great time, and barely an event goes by when I don't get that exact feedback from somebody (usually a new player). Very friendly, very competitive, lots of laughs and good times. I'll gladly refund your entry fee if you don't feel you totally enjoyed the experience (and I'll even put up an additional/optional bet that it doesn't happen).
 
consider the following scenario: you ban a player from your game for repeated agreeing to check a hand down. you later overhear a conversation between two players during which one player tells another that the banned player was banned because he was found out to have cheated in the game. you would feel comfortable with that level of explanation circulating among the players without any further detail?

yes.

Although the player probably wouldn't get banned, unless there were other repeated problems with intentionally breaking rules. He'd likely see a lot of rail time, though.

Regardless of the penalty, if a host told me that a player was found to be cheating in the game and I found out later that the conduct which constituted the "cheating" was agreeing to check down a hand with another player all in, I would assume the host to be either an uptight prick or an idiot.

If you would not characterize that conduct as cheating without further explanation then you obviously see the problem with your terminology.
 
Regardless of the penalty, if a host told me that a player was found to be cheating in the game and I found out later that the conduct which constituted the "cheating" was agreeing to check down a hand with another player all in, I would assume the host to be either an uptight prick or an idiot.

If you would not characterize that conduct as cheating without further explanation then you obviously see the problem with your terminology.

Seriously jack, you are putting words in my mouth, than claiming I'm an idiot/prick for uttering things I never said. C'mon, lighten up Sally. I'm also not the only one who responded 'yes'.
 
I'd categorize it as "not following the rules" rather than overt cheating, especially if you're discussing the player with outside people. You never know who's so fixated with their reputation that they'd accuse you of slander even if your statements were technically true.
 
Seriously jack, you are putting words in my mouth, than claiming I'm an idiot/prick for uttering things I never said. C'mon, lighten up Sally. I'm also not the only one who responded 'yes'.

I asked explicitly whether you agreed with a particular position and you said you did. Don't see how that's putting words into your mouth.

Back to the point, though: what if a player talks about what a villain might hold while a hand is three-way or when he isn't even in the hand. Obv this is often done with the intention that the player make whatever decision the speaker perceives to be advantageous. Is this cheating? IMO, as with checking it down, it's a rules violation, not "cheating."
 
Let's be clear here... checking down a hand is not illegal, whether or not a third party is all-in.

Colluding to check down a hand in order to maximize the chance of the all-in getting busted is illegal.

And the reason it's illegal is because of the collusion, not the checking down.

If two players independently choose to check it down because that's the most advantageous strategy in their situation, that's not illegal - that's poker.

And this simply doesn't happen if one of those two players has a monster... you can bet your bupkus they will bet their monster, because they no longer fear that the all-in will survive; they fear that their monster won't earn max value.
 
Last edited:
Let's be clear here... checking down a hand is not illegal, whether or not a third party is all-in.

Colluding to check down a hand in order to maximize the chance of the all-in getting busted is illegal.

And the reason it's illegal is because of the collusion, not the checking down.

If two players independently choose to check it down because that's the most advantageous strategy in their situation, that's not illegal - that's poker.

And this simply doesn't happen if one of those two players has a monster... you can bet your bupkus they will be their monster, because they no longer fear that the all-in will survive; they fear that their monster won't earn max value.

Not to mention that it's against the rules in a tournament to check the nuts when closing the action..... and for the same reason: collusion.

- - - - - - - - - Updated - - - - - - - - -

what if a player talks about what a villain might hold while a hand is three-way or when he isn't even in the hand. Obv this is often done with the intention that the player make whatever decision the speaker perceives to be advantageous. Is this cheating? IMO, as with checking it down, it's a rules violation, not "cheating."

I would certainly characterize 'routinely or repeatedly violating the rules to gain an advantage' as cheating. You wouldn't?
 
As long as the rules are established, its 1. warning, then 2. penalty.
 
How I'd probably handle it from here on in if you want to keep a "serious" game:

1st time: verbal warning/reminder
2nd time: actual penalty (hand is mucked? seems like that could be open to abuse though) and a serious warning
3rd time: hand is mucked, guy is obviously a writeoff for any future games

Adjust as needed depending on the sort of person you're dealing with. I think if you're dealing with someone who people like, rarely plays and is genuinely not trying to cheat/angle, you can add a buffer period in between games so they're back on the first strike. But after the first offense, they should definitely be penalized every single time.
 
Killing a live hand is rarely in the best interest of the game. I prefer penalties that prevent the player from doing what he wants most: play poker. Make 'em sit out an orbit (blinds/antes/bring-ins still apply).
 
what if a player talks about what a villain might hold while a hand is three-way or when he isn't even in the hand. Obv this is often done with the intention that the player make whatever decision the speaker perceives to be advantageous. Is this cheating? IMO, as with checking it down, it's a rules violation, not "cheating."

I would certainly characterize 'routinely or repeatedly violating the rules to gain an advantage' as cheating. You wouldn't?

it depends on the act which allegedly constitutes "routinely or repeatedly violating the rules to gain an advantage." if it's agreeing to check a hand down or talking strat during a hand, no, i don't consider that cheating. i consider that a rule violation which would be subject to penalty at some point. cheating in the context of games/poker, connotes deception, so using the term to refer to these two acts is extremely misleading.
 
Tell the player who violated the rule that colluding to check down hands is not allowed. No penalties or warnings. If they listen and respect your game then invite them back. If they don't abide then they aren't welcome anymore. Warnings and penalties can take the fun out of home games, so only keep inviting a player that can play by your rules without any warnings/penalties.
 
It's the agreeing to check it down that is a problem, not the checking it down.

Good written rules avoid a lot of arguments. In my 30+ years of playing, I've seen several rules arguments lead to the end of a game. Most of those could have been prevented by good written rules. That's why we have somewhat lengthy written rules, with WSOP, TDA, RRoP, and WSOP Dealer's Guide, as back up rules. Some new players are concerned about how many rules we have, but after they come, they won't be. We are more concerned with the spirit of the rules as opposed to the letter of the rules. Here's an example that came up last night.

We play with two decks, two rotating dealers, and there is little time between hands. After the flop, all players folded except the bettor. The next deck isn't quite ready to deal. Someone asks to rabbit hunt (specifically prohibited but not strictly enforced). Pot sent to winner, then rabbit hunt carried out. No harm to anyone and if it slows the game down, it's only by a couple of seconds. Basically, no blood, no foul, and no one complaining. That happened at the final table.

Same exact dealer, earlier in the game. Same situation except the next dealer is ready to deal. Rabbit hunting not allowed. No one complains.

My dealers have used good judgment about whether to allow rabbit hunting and don't in situations where it slows the game down. Until it gets to be a problem, I expect enforcement will continue as it does now -- not allowed most of the time, rarely asked for, but allowed on occasion.

Rules are supposed to make your game more orderly, prevent arguments, and give the TD something upon which to make a decision if an issue comes up.

I see home poker as being very different from bar league poker and casino poker, and for that matter, a casino night event put on by the high school reunion (or any other group). We want to prohibit cheating and have an orderly game. We want to keep pleasant players in the game so we want it fun. It's not a business. At the same time, several of us are highly competitive. From time to time we have a player who hates rabbit hunting at the game and he will say something. We won't do it while he's at the table. Our rules will be strictly enforced if a player requests it and it's their right to request it.

Now rabbit hunting isn't the same as cheating. I sometimes have a dealer who will lay out the flop, turn, and river. I will talk to them privately and reemphasize why we don't allow that. I've found once it's explained, they don't do it again, unless they forget. If they repeatedly keep doing that, they won't continue to deal. That's not cheating, but it can give a player an advantage (like if they've noticed a flaw in a particular card). That's why there is a burn card.

Not all rules have the same purpose. Some are there to prevent cheating. Some are there to provide order. Some that are designed to provide order might sometimes prevent cheating too. Some are written traditions about the way things are done though a different way wouldn't harm anything. I'd be careful about saying someone who violated a rule to provide order was cheating. They weren't. It's not the same.
 
if it's agreeing to check a hand down during a hand, no, i don't consider that cheating. i consider that a rule violation which would be subject to penalty at some point.

You may not consider it cheating, but I can guarantee that the all-in person who was placed at a disadvantage because of the rules violation (open collusion) does (or should) consider it cheating. Violating the rules to gain an advantage = cheating. it's almost the textbook definition.

Doesn't get any more simple than that, and I don't even know why we're still having this conversation (other than your stubbornness and profession). :rolleyes:
 
You may not consider it cheating, but I can guarantee that the all-in person who was placed at a disadvantage because of the rules violation (open collusion) does (or should) consider it cheating. Violating the rules to gain an advantage = cheating. it's almost the textbook definition.

Doesn't get any more simple than that, and I don't even know why we're still having this conversation (other than your stubbornness and profession). :rolleyes:

Consider this - If I tell you that a guy is cheating on his wife, you probably judge him a certain way. Do you judge him differently if you find out cheating = watching porn?
 
Doesn't get any more simple than that, and I don't even know why we're still having this conversation (other than your stubbornness and profession). :rolleyes:

Are you also a stubborn lawyer? Because it seems to me that it takes two people to continue a conversation.

If you can't see the absurdity of your position after the posts above - mine and others' - then I suppose there's no point to the discussion.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom