Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ Home Game - Table Etiquette

[JPasky]

I was playing in a $1-$2 NL Hold'em home game the other night when the following hand came up:

Player A raised preflop, Player B calls all-in, Player C calls.

Now player A looks at Play C and says "Check it Down?"

I instinctively say "You Can't do That!"

Player A gives me one of those "if looks could kill" looks and says: "SHUT-UP your not in the Hand".

My question is: in a home game without a professional dealer whose job it is to make sure rules are followed, is it not everyone at the tables responsibility to say something if a rule if broken?

What if this was to happen at a casino and the dealer ignored it?

Thanks in Advance!!

Jeff P

[marathoner]

you guys are friends, right? if there are no formal rules, I'd keep quiet. I'm not sure a man isn't allowed to say check it down. and once its said,its said.

[hokie95]

you guys are friends, right?  if there are no formal rules, I'd keep quiet.  I'm not sure a man isn't allowed to say check it down.  and once its said,its said.

marathoner - The more you post, the more you make it clear that Lincoln was right.

J - Soft playing like this is collusion and is illegal. You are technically correct. Whether it was the right decision in your home game is a subjective matter. I would be annoyed if this happened at any semi-serious home game.

[marathoner]

your biased hokie. what was wrong with my response?

[JPasky]

you guys are friends, right?  if there are no formal rules, I'd keep quiet.  I'm not sure a man isn't allowed to say check it down.  and once its said,its said.

I agree once it is said you can't take it back. But if no says anything it is going to keep happening. If I am the one that is all in I am pissed. I don't don't think I need to explain why?

jeff p

[marathoner]

we agree Jeff. I think i'd take that opportunity to make formal house rules. It's surprising that somebody did that. I assume it's among friends.

[ganstaman]

I instinctively say "You Can't do That!"

I realize it was instinctive and therefore not thought out, but I would have replied differently. Instead of jumping on it and shouting (raised voice at least?), I would have more calmly explained that that is wrong and why. I think you definitely need to speak up in a home game, but how you do it is what matters most.

[JPasky]

we agree Jeff.  I think i'd take that opportunity to make formal house rules.  It's surprising that somebody did that.  I assume it's among friends.

Actually I wouldn't say we are all friends. I was invited to the game and have just met most of the players. The size of the blinds is not relevent to the size of the game. It is not uncommon to have over $5k on the table. This is a game where opening for $20 is fairly standard.

I have never been told any "house rules" that are differnt from standard casino rules. My question is should players at a home game only get involved in keeping the game fair if they are invoved in the hand? Or is it everyone's responsiblity to make sure the rules are followed.

jeff p

[JPasky]

I realize it was instinctive and therefore not thought out, but I would have replied differently. Instead of jumping on it and shouting (raised voice at least?), I would have more calmly explained that that is wrong and why. I think you definitely need to speak up in a home game, but how you do it is what matters most.

Thanks ganstaman.... you are right. I should have made my point, but in a more diplomatic way. Once it is done it can't be undone.... just need to try to keep it from happening again. On hein sight I need to not piss anybody off... I am up over 3k in 6 games...... i definetely want to get invited back

Jeff P

[ChekAtkins]

If both players just check it down without saying anything then they still 'agree' to check it down so it's not the end of the world but it's still bad etiquette (at the minimum). Check in the dark already.

[JPasky]

If both players just check it down without saying anything then they still 'agree' to check it down so it's not the end of the world but it's still bad etiquette (at the minimum).  Check in the dark already.

I agree.... if you want to check it down just do it. Just don't agree to it out loud.

Jeff P

[TCO]

Since the house rules are unclear, ask if 3 of a kind beat 2 pr or does a flush beat a str8? Would they grasp that?

[JPasky]

Since the house rules are unclear, ask if 3 of a kind beat 2 pr or does a flush beat a str8? Would they grasp that?

LOL... Good Point!

[elliot]

um... i don't think i really understand. why the hell do they care to cooperate in a cash game? maybe i'm confused and this was a tourney, but otherwise i'm not getting this. who cares if the guy busts? he'll just buy back in, right? if a guy tells me to check it down in a cash game, i'm almost sure to raise at some point. i'm very confused.

also, i'd be polite about it, but i'd have to say something. they guy was out of line. there's a fine line between "check it down" and "oh, you've got to call that." on man per hand.

[ChekAtkins]

On a related note: what if it's midway through a MTT, well before the money, and there are three players in a pot with one all-in? I recently was chastized for betting (when I had a good but non-nut hand) in such a situation. I was trying to build a side pot and didn't think 'checking it down to eliminate a player' was all that important. If it were later in the tourney where each player eliminated meant significant money...OK, then I see it...but at that point in the tourney (midway, well before money) aren't we still just trying to accumulate chips?

IMO, the unspoken rule of 'checking it down to eliminate a player' only applies very late in tourneys.

[elliot]

yeah, people getting pissy about that in the middle of a tourney are just getting upset because they heard on tv that you're supposed to check it down. the only reason that ever makes sense is when it is +EV for you. it is sometimes when approaching or in the money. it's more +EV for you to win the pot in the middle stages, though.

[qwyrxian]

On the original question, I think calling the person out is perfectly acceptably. And I actually don't think this is an issue of house rules. Out loud agreeing to check a hand down is two players making an agreement together for their own benefit that hurts everyone else at the table (I'm also assuming a tournament, because why would you check it down on a cash game?). One rule of poker that you have every right to expect is followed is "players have to independently play their hands, not colluding with any other player." This isn't a house rule. This is a rule that is true for all games that do not explicitly allow dealing. Would you consider it reasonable to play in a pick-up basketball game where two players on opposite teams made some sort of agreement to collude with each other?

And it doesn't matter that you weren't in the hand--your position in the tournament (heck, even the cash game if that is what this is) is effected by their actions. Depending on the circumstances, it may be effected either positively or negatively--maybe you don't want the all-in player eliminated, because you have a dead on, 100% read on him, so you want him in the game as long as possible so that YOU can take his chips, not one of these two colluders. If these people aren't your friends, all the more reason to call them out. And if they don't like it, finish the tournament as best as you can, and never come back.

[JPasky]

We were not playing in a tournament, it was a cash ring game and yes the all-in player had the choice to rebuy. Actually it was to my my advantage if the all in player lost the pot, because he was one of the the better players at the table. Player A was the guy that suggested "check it down" was the worst player at the table.

I don't think this is the point though. Do I only make a stand if the rules that are broken have a negative effect on my EV??

Jeff P

[FatherAshley]

I'm split on this situation.

True, according to Hoyle (or most casino rules), what they did is poor form. It must have shocked you at the time. Certainly you should ask yourself quiet Qs about the relationship between these two players. Friends, in collusion, or both?

A lot of that kind of thing goes on in private games. That's the price you pay for not having a rake. Mind you, if they are so open about it, at least it's not a secret pact ("if I scratch my nose and check, check it down"). You know what you're up against.

Your very act of speaking up, whether or not successful, at least made them aware that somebody at the table disapproves. It will happen a lot less, if at all.

On the other hand, people who play together a lot, whether real friends or just 'poker buddies', tend to get into little habits like these. Occasionally an outsider will join the game and not like what he sees.

It's really up to you how far your principles go. If you are IN the hand, you can certainly insist that this doesn't happen. If it upsets you enough, don't put your money on that table again.

It's a fairly minor point of order really, as certainly there are far worse forms of 'cheating' going on in most private cash games.

[qwyrxian]

I don't think this is the point though. Do I only make a stand if the rules that are broken have a negative effect on my EV??

Jeff P

No, I just meant to say that his argument of "you're not in the hand" isn't valid, because their decision to collude effects you, even though you are not currently playing.

Now, should you take a stand when the broken rules are not -EV? Well, you better make sure they are -EV--and I think that allowing collusion has to be against you, if only because you won't "take advantage" of the rule-breaking. In other words, this collusion is a tool the other players have that you don't have. That's bad.

But even if you knew the rule-breaking was +EV for you, then I don't think you should allow the rule-breaking. But that's an ethical question, which don't care to pursue.

By the way, the last sentence is misleading--everything I said before it was also addressing an ethical question, but I'm going to pretend it wasn't--that way I hide my ethical argument as an argument about "facts." This benefits me, but hopefully my aside mitigates that.