How Do You Handle The Lets Check It Down Guy In Your Home Game? (4 Viewers)

[BGinGA]

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.

Okay, Jack - exactly which of these two positions is absurd in your opinion?

1. Agreeing to check a hand down is collusion (predetermining the outcome of a hand).
2. Intentional violation of the rules to gain an advantage is cheating.

Because those are my two positions.

 

[ssanel54]

Okay, Jack - exactly which of these two positions is absurd in your opinion?

1. Agreeing to check a hand down is collusion (predetermining the outcome of a hand).
2. Intentional violation of the rules to gain an advantage is cheating.

Because those are my two positions.

BG, the 2 positions that you post are not absurd, its your rigidity and unwillingness to view the situation as more than Black/white that is stubborn.

Verbally agreeing to check a hand down is collusion. Subtle agreement between two players to check it down is still collusion, but is commonplace and considered good strategy among skilled tournament players. The first is usually committed by inexperienced players until they learn how to subtly accomplish the same thing. Neither situation pre determines the outcome of the hand. It would play the same way if they both went all in.

Intentional violation of the rules is cheating, but many people violate rules without intending or even knowing that they are cheating, and I believe what Jack is saying is that not all people should be classified as Cheaters, since there is a common stigma associated with the term, that not every player views the same way.

To give another example. There is a big difference between a man who sexually assaults a woman at knifepoint and a 18 year old boy who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. In the eyes of the law, both are considered rapists, yet you probably aren't as concerned with the 18 year old living in your neighborhood.

 

[BGinGA]

BG, the 2 positions that you post are not absurd, its your rigidity and unwillingness to view the situation as more than Black/white that is stubborn.

Verbally agreeing to check a hand down is collusion. Subtle agreement between two players to check it down is still collusion, but is commonplace and considered good strategy among skilled tournament players. The first is usually committed by inexperienced players until they learn how to subtly accomplish the same thing. Neither situation pre determines the outcome of the hand. It would play the same way if they both went all in.

Intentional violation of the rules is cheating, but many people violate rules without intending or even knowing that they are cheating, and I believe what Jack is saying is that not all people should be classified as Cheaters, since there is a common stigma associated with the term, that not every player views the same way.

To give another example. There is a big difference between a man who sexually assaults a woman at knifepoint and a 18 year old boy who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. In the eyes of the law, both are considered rapists, yet you probably aren't as concerned with the 18 year old living in your neighborhood.

Thanks for the rational and well-written response. I don't disagree with anything you posted. (well, one item, but I'll address that below). Jack just seems intent in putting words/thoughts in my mouth that just aren't there. I understand that every situation requires to be viewed in whole and in context, and I have no problem doing just that. My point is that the perceived "rigidity and unwillingness" cited has been put forth by Jack's comments, and not mine.

Verbally agreeing to check a hand down is collusion. Subtle agreement between two players to check it down is still collusion, but is commonplace and considered good strategy among skilled tournament players. The first is usually committed by inexperienced players until they learn how to subtly accomplish the same thing. Neither situation pre determines the outcome of the hand. It would play the same way if they both went all in.

I'm not sure how you logically come to ^this^ conclusion. If two players agree to check down a hand to the river (ie., no betting), that certainly does determine the outcome of the hand ahead of time (the best hand will win the pot with no additional chips won or lost by either player). That is a lot different outcome than if both players had been all-in (best hand will win the pot along with typically a bunch of chips changing hands). Those are the two extremes, but even the middle ground (when both players play/bet/fold normally) can result in vastly different outcomes. By agreeing to check it down, only the first outcome is possible, and the other outcomes are no longer possible.

 

[ssanel54]

I'm not sure how you logically come to ^this^ conclusion. If two players agree to check down a hand to the river (ie., no betting), that certainly does determine the outcome of the hand ahead of time (the best hand will win the pot with no additional chips won or lost by either player). That is a lot different outcome than if both players had been all-in (best hand will win the pot along with typically a bunch of chips changing hands). Those are the two extremes, but even the middle ground (when both players play/bet/fold normally) can result in vastly different outcomes. By agreeing to check it down, only the first outcome is possible, and the other outcomes are no longer possible.

Okay. I misunderstood your meaning. The only issue I have with your statement above is that Discussing or Agreeing to check it down does not equal checking it down. You may end up hitting your nut card, and in which case (as you mentioned earlier), you will bet it. Again, the bet is usually a subtle hint saying "i got this one"

 

[jbutler]

Okay, Jack - exactly which of these two positions is absurd in your opinion?

i don't think i need to expand on scott's position expressed above. he has already presented two excellent analogies which make clear that attempting to classify two qualitatively different actions with the same extreme language is, at best, unhelpful.

Thanks for the rational and well-written response. I don't disagree with anything you posted. (well, one item, but I'll address that below). Jack just seems intent in putting words/thoughts in my mouth that just aren't there. I understand that every situation requires to be viewed in whole and in context, and I have no problem doing just that. My point is that the perceived "rigidity and unwillingness" cited has been put forth by Jack's comments, and not mine.

please explain what words i put into your mouth. i asked if you agreed with a position. you said yes and the argument proceeded on that basis.

the rigidity scott referred to is your stubborn refusal to back away from the position that someone who checks a hand down should be called a cheater. the harm in doing so is perfectly illustrated by scott's examples with regard to pornography being equated with cheating and with consensual sex between teenagers being equated with forcible rape in terms of requiring registration as a sex offender.

a third party who knows nothing more than that his neighbor is a registered sex offender is certainly justified in doing all he can to keep that person away from his family. however, if he were told that his neighbor is on the registry because he had, at 18 years old, had sex with his 16-year old girlfriend in a state with no carve out for that relationship, a reasonable person would feel very, very different than if the neighbor were a violent, predatory rapist. similarly, if a player is called a cheater, other players will justifiably ostracize them from games. however, if those players learn that the supposed cheater's offense was agreeing to check a hand down, reasonable players would recognize that ostracization is an absurd reaction.

your own view as to the proper penalty for agreeing to check a hand down makes this clear as well. you state that a player guilty of such an infraction would not be banned unless he committed multiple offenses. what if a player was caught palming chips out of the pot as he pushed it to the winner? would you wait for multiple offenses or would you permanently remove him from your game? i'm sure the latter. why not the same penalty for the guy who agrees to check a hand down? the answer is obvious - because they are not the same offense. they are qualitatively different. so calling them the same thing - and in particular using the most inflammatory language possible to refer to them both - is not accurate.

it's your failure to recognize that classifying a player who agrees to check a hand down as a cheater - and an expressed willingness to provide no clarification to other players - that is rigid and short-sighted.

 

[BGinGA]

i don't think i need to expand on scott's position expressed above. he has already presented two excellent analogies which make clear that attempting to classify two qualitatively different actions with the same extreme language is, at best, unhelpful.



please explain what words i put into your mouth. i asked if you agreed with a position. you said yes and the argument proceeded on that basis.

the rigidity scott referred to is your stubborn refusal to back away from the position that someone who checks a hand down should be called a cheater. the harm in doing so is perfectly illustrated by scott's examples with regard to pornography being equated with cheating and with consensual sex between teenagers being equated with forcible rape in terms of requiring registration as a sex offender.

a third party who knows nothing more than that his neighbor is a registered sex offender is certainly justified in doing all he can to keep that person away from his family. however, if he were told that his neighbor is on the registry because he had, at 18 years old, had sex with his 16-year old girlfriend in a state with no carve out for that relationship, a reasonable person would feel very, very different than if the neighbor were a violent, predatory rapist. similarly, if a player is called a cheater, other players will justifiably ostracize them from games. however, if those players learn that the supposed cheater's offense was agreeing to check a hand down, reasonable players would recognize that ostracization is an absurd reaction.

your own view as to the proper penalty for agreeing to check a hand down makes this clear as well. you state that a player guilty of such an infraction would not be banned unless he committed multiple offenses. what if a player was caught palming chips out of the pot as he pushed it to the winner? would you wait for multiple offenses or would you permanently remove him from your game? i'm sure the latter. why not the same penalty for the guy who agrees to check a hand down? the answer is obvious - because they are not the same offense. they are qualitatively different. so calling them the same thing - and in particular using the most inflammatory language possible to refer to them both - is not accurate.

it's your failure to recognize that classifying a player who agrees to check a hand down as a cheater - and an expressed willingness to provide no clarification to other players - that is rigid and short-sighted.

Highlighted the parts above that illustrate my point of statements I never said, but you keep insisting I did.

 

[jbutler]

...someone who checks a hand down should be called a cheater...

...classifying a player who agrees to check a hand down as a cheater - and an expressed willingness to provide no clarification to other players...

Highlighted the parts above that illustrate my point of statements I never said, but you keep insisting I did.

you have a very short memory. see the below exchange between us earlier in this thread:

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.

 

[BGinGA]

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?

Okay, let's break your scenario down instead of taking my reply out of context.

1. I ban a player for repeated rules violations -- specifically, repeatedly breaking a collusion rule that results in him gaining an unfair advantage.
2. Two other players have a conversation (that does not include me), using terminology that I never used to describe the situation regarding the banned player.

Your specific question is "would I feel comfortable with that level of explanation circulating among the players?"

It's not my responsibility to police conversations to which I have no part, or to police conversations which contain content to which I had no part. Players gonna talk, and obviously somebody other than me chose to equate the banned players action with "cheated in the game". Somebody asks me, I'll tell them exactly what transpired.

 

[jbutler]

Okay, let's break your scenario down instead of taking my reply out of context.

1. I ban a player for repeated rules violations -- specifically, repeatedly breaking a collusion rule that results in him gaining an unfair advantage.
2. Two other players have a conversation (that does not include me), using terminology that I never used to describe the situation regarding the banned player.

Your specific question is "would I feel comfortable with that level of explanation circulating among the players?"

It's not my responsibility to police conversations to which I have no part, or to police conversations which contain content to which I had no part. Players gonna talk, and obviously somebody other than me chose to equate the banned players action with "cheated in the game". Somebody asks me, I'll tell them exactly what transpired.

okay, so which of the statements you highlighted did i put in your mouth?

you have made clear that, in your view, someone who agrees to check a hand down is a cheater and you have expressed your willingness - above and again here - not to clarify to other players the dimensions of the supposed "cheating."

 

[BGinGA]

Find ONE instance in this entire thread where I referred to somebody as a cheater. You won't find one, because that is terminology that YOU use, not me.

 

[jbutler]

Find ONE instance in this entire thread where I referred to somebody as a cheater. You won't find one, because that is terminology that YOU use, not me.

i'm not sure of the distinction you're trying to make. you said it's cheating. i guess you're saying that someone can cheat without being a cheater or that you wouldn't call someone who cheats a cheater?

 

[BGinGA]

i'm not sure of the distinction you're trying to make. you said it's cheating. i guess you're saying that someone can cheat without being a cheater or that you wouldn't call someone
who cheats a cheater?

What I actually said is that the intentional violation of rules to gain an advantage is cheating. Looking around at the definition of the word in this context, I'm not alone....

"Cheat: To violate rules deliberately, as in a game. It is generally used for the breaking of rules to gain unfair advantage in a competitive situation."

What exactly is your point here, Jack?

 

[jbutler]

What I actually said is that the intentional violation of rules to gain an advantage is cheating. Looking around at the definition of the word in this context, I'm not alone....

"Cheat: To violate rules deliberately, as in a game. It is generally used for the breaking of rules to gain unfair advantage in a competitive situation."

What exactly is your point here, Jack?

i'm trying to respond to your claim that i put words into your mouth. i still fail to see where i did. you highlighted words from a post of mine, but then i showed you where you, in fact, did say those things. specifically, what did you not say?

 

[CdnBeerLover]

Been trying to follow this argument, and I honestly have no idea what BGinGA's position is.

Collusion of any kind is cheating, plain and simple, no matter the setting or stakes. Poker is not a team sport/game.

and

Okay, let's break your scenario down instead of taking my reply out of context.

1. I ban a player for repeated rules violations -- specifically, repeatedly breaking a collusion rule that results in him gaining an unfair advantage.

To the casual observer, it looks like you would consider them a cheater if they did this...they are attempting to collude, and you consider collusion cheating. Yet you claim that you wouldn't call them a cheater. What, exactly, would you call them?

:

 

[Tommy]

A colluder? :

 

[BGinGA]

Been trying to follow this argument, and I honestly have no idea what BGinGA's position is.

To the casual observer, it looks like you would consider them a cheater if they did this...they are attempting to collude, and you consider collusion cheating. Yet you claim that you wouldn't call them a cheater. What, exactly, would you call them?

:

I would consider their actions cheating, because that's what it is. If somebody else wants to call them a cheater, classify them as a cheater, or refer to them as a cheater, that's on them, not me. Why do I have to call them anything?

Seriously don't understand the confusion here. My position is very clear. jbutler claimed that agreeing to check down a hand was not cheating. I disagree.

 

[jbutler]

I would consider their actions cheating, because that's what it is. If somebody else wants to call them a cheater, classify them as a cheater, or refer to them as a cheater, that's on them, not me. Why do I have to call them anything?

so it's cheating, but you wouldn't call them a cheater? that's how deeply you have to parse my language in order to justify your claim that i put words into your mouth? nice try.

 

[BGinGA]

so it's cheating, but you wouldn't call them a cheater? that's how deeply you have to parse my language in order to justify your claim that i put words into your mouth? nice try.

Jesus Christ, Jack.... you said I called them cheaters and then based a whole bunch of other hypothetical crap on that single erroneous statement. What's your real problem here?

 

[Tommy]

During the WSOP this year, two players in the hand, player had the nuts, he checked it back and was given a 10 hand penalty. (maybe it was a warning first) Anyone remember that?

 

[jbutler]

Jesus Christ, Jack.... you said I called them cheaters and then based a whole bunch of other hypothetical crap on that single erroneous statement. What's your real problem here?

my problem is that you are unwilling to engage in the conversation in good faith.

you said that people who agree to check down hands have cheated, but you deny that you would call them cheaters. this is a bizarre non-distinction that serve no purpose other than to allow you to accuse me of putting words into your mouth.

 

[BGinGA]

my problem is that you are unwilling to engage in the conversation in good faith.

you said that people who agree to check down hands have cheated, but you deny that you would call them cheaters. this is a bizarre non-distinction that serve no purpose other than to allow you to accuse me of putting words into your mouth.

Perhaps we wouldn't have a problem if you didn't claim or infer that I said specific things and then base attacking posts and personal insults on those false claims and assumptions.

The real basis of the disagreement is whether or not agreeing to check it down (collusion) is cheating. You think it is not, while I (and others) think that it is.

 

[jbutler]

Perhaps we wouldn't have a problem if you didn't claim or infer that I said specific things and then base attacking posts and personal insults on those false claims and assumptions.

again, the basis for your accusation is your absurd claim that someone has cheated, but is not a cheater. i didn't insult or attack you.

The real basis of the disagreement is whether or not agreeing to check it down (collusion) is cheating. You think it is not, while I (and others) think that it is.

as noted above, the problem with labeling it cheating is that it falsely equates the act with those which are obviously much, much more severe.

also as noted above - but not responded to by you - is that you clearly understand that agreeing to check down a hand is not equivalent to, for instance, palming chips from a pot while pushing the pot to the winning player. you stated that you would not ban a player for agreeing to check a hand down. obviously you would ban a player for stealing money from the pot, so why you stubbornly apply the same terminology to both acts and why you would not feel the need to further clarify to the players in your game is difficult for me to understand.

 

[Mojo1312]

Look what you started Grandgnu. FWIW, I think Toonexile and DarPodo offered the best solutions.

 

[BGinGA]

Okay, this is the last I have to say about the matter. Take to PM/email before somebody tells us to get a room.... lol

....the basis for your accusation is your absurd claim that someone has cheated, but is not a cheater. i didn't insult or attack you.

I never made that absurd claim, either. See below regarding the insults.

...the problem with labeling it cheating is that it falsely equates the act with those which are obviously much, much more severe.

Cheating is cheating. Just because one type is arguably worse than another type doesn't change that. Different degrees of cheating? I suppose. Does murdering a person in premeditated cold blood make murdering a person in a fit of rage/passion NOT murder? Nope, still murder. Is one worse than the other? Probably. Doesn't change the terminology, however. I don't think it necessarily equates the act with anything, falsely or not. Of course, you may choose to equate it with whatever you want.

...you clearly understand that agreeing to check down a hand is not equivalent to, for instance, palming chips from a pot while pushing the pot to the winning player. you stated that you would not ban a player for agreeing to check a hand down. obviously you would ban a player for stealing money from the pot, so why you stubbornly apply the same terminology to both acts and why you would not feel the need to further clarify to the players in your game is difficult for me to understand.

I never called stealing chips cheating, you did. I'd just call it stealing. Regarding the clarification issue, see below.

...your stubborn refusal to back away from the position that someone who checks a hand down should be called a cheater.

I never said that someone who checks a hand down should be called a cheater. You said that was my position, not me (ie, putting words in my mouth). I simply said that intentionally breaking the rules to gain an advantage is cheating. Agreeing to check down a hand (collusion) is an example of intentionally breaking the rules to gain an advantage. Sorry if you can't see the difference.

...if a player is called a cheater, other players will justifiably ostracize them from games. however, if those players learn that the supposed cheater's offense was agreeing to check a hand down, reasonable players would recognize that ostracization is an absurd reaction.

Again, I never called anybody a cheater. Nor am I responsible for the ostracization of individuals by others, whether it be justifiably, absurd, or otherwise. Why do you want to hold me responsible for the actions of others?

your own view as to the proper penalty for agreeing to check a hand down makes this clear as well. you state that a player guilty of such an infraction would not be banned unless he committed multiple offenses. what if a player was caught palming chips out of the pot as he pushed it to the winner? would you wait for multiple offenses or would you permanently remove him from your game? i'm sure the latter. why not the same penalty for the guy who agrees to check a hand down? the answer is obvious - because they are not the same offense. they are qualitatively different. so calling them the same thing - and in particular using the most inflammatory language possible to refer to them both - is not accurate.

I think everybody agrees that stealing is a pretty serious offense. That doesn't change the fact that intentionally violating a rule (ANY rule) to gain an advantage is cheating, nor does it make that statement inaccurate.

it's your failure to recognize that classifying a player who agrees to check a hand down as a cheater - and an expressed willingness to provide no clarification to other players - that is rigid and short-sighted.

I'm not sure exactly what that sentence means. I didn't classify a player who agrees to check a hand down as a cheater (again, putting words in my mouth). But even if I did, the statement: "It's your failure to recognize that classifying a player who agrees to check a hand down as a cheater... that is rigid and short-sighted." really makes no grammatical sense. Maybe you accidentally left out some key words.

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.

Your inference here is very clear, hence my reference to personal insults. Even though I would never tell you (or anyone) simply that a player was found to be cheating in a game I hosted, certainly not without further elaboration. If I did say anything at all, it would be a clear and detailed account of the events.

 

[jbutler]

so my takeaway, once again, is that you would call something cheating, but you would not call the person who did it a cheater. i guess that makes as much sense as anything else you've said.

 

[tommythecat]

BG you fell prey to one of the classic blunders. The most well known being never get involved with a land war in Asia. Only slightly less well known is this...never go in against a lawyer when semantics are on the line!!!

 

[Toonexile]

Look what you started Grandgnu. FWIW, I think Toonexile and DarPodo offered the best solutions.

Yay, I win :

 

[grandgnu]

Counselors, approach the bench...........


Girls, girls! You're both pretty and can go to prom!


I wouldn't call this guy a "cheater" based on him violating the rule one time. I actually had a talk with him (he arrived early) before my most recent game and explained the rule to him and why it's there. As many players out there, he was ignorant of the reasoning and was used to loosey-goosey games where this was a common occurrence.

The issue here isn't the act of checking it down, but verbally agreeing to essentially collude with another player to do so, especially in a tournament setting where actions have an impact on all other players involved in that event.

Now, if after being made aware of this rule the guy continually violated that rule, I would consider him a cheater, as he is choosing to openly collude with other players despite being aware of the rules. I'm not trying to run one of these, however:

 

[ssanel54]

I wouldn't call this guy a "cheater" based on him violating the rule one time. I actually had a talk with him (he arrived early) before my most recent game and explained the rule to him and why it's there. As many players out there, he was ignorant of the reasoning and was used to loosey-goosey games where this was a common occurrence.

Gnu, It sounds like you handled this in the most reasonable fashion, and that he was receptive to your teaching

Now for the million dollar question...

If the situation comes up where you are both at the final table, and one of the short stacks is all in. Do subtly try to get him to check it down? What do you do in a clear check down situation, when he keeps betting into you causing you to fold your winner and allowing the short stack to triple up? Do you say something to him?

 

[Pinball]

EDIT: THIS IS FOR A HOME GAME TOURNEY


1. his hand is immediately declared dead and any chips he's committed to the pot are forfeit

This +1 and if this bad habbit continues than 1 round penalty