Rules And Etiquette Question

[hank213 1,823]

Player 1 is UTG+1, Player 2 is in the hijack seat, Player 3 is OTB. Players 1 and 2 obviously play with each other frequently from conversations etc.1 limps, couple more limp as well as 2, Player 3 makes it 15, 1 calls, folds to 2 who calls. Flop Q83 with two clubs. check, check, 3 bets 35, 1 instantly raises to 100 and 2 calls after about 10-20 seconds. 3 folds. As the turn is coming out player 1 looks at player 2 and says "What do you want to do?" But the tone was such that it wasn't an information gathering it was definitely more of a "I'll check it down if you want or we can ship it, either way" kind of thing.Thoughts?

[gooch 0]

i think you have to kill them but i'll wait for a couple more opinions

[Teck_72 0]

Pow, right in the kisser

[mark_999 0]

yeah sounds like some friends who don´t really want to take eachothers money. I don´t think softplaying should be allowed, Friends off the poker table, enemies on the table.

[king_tanner 84]

I play in a Omaha hi/lo game frequently where the locals do this all the time, it kind of pisses me off. It would make me crazy in NL. Everywhere I have played when it is only 2 it is ok for the players to agree to check it down from what I seen, unless it is a tournament. I wish they would make it a rule that they can't even mention checking it down in cash games also.

[hank213 1,823]

yeah sounds like some friends who don´t really want to take eachothers money. I don´t think softplaying should be allowed, Friends off the poker table, enemies on the table.

Well, they almost certainly weren't social friends. One was a early to mid twenties dude and the other was a grandma. But as I was listening to the table talk when Granny showed up the kid knew her name and they talked about a couple times they played at the same table etc etc. What kind of piqued my interest in this hand was how the young guy said this wasn't any sort of collusive playing because 3 was no longer in the hand. My thoughts were that 3 was in the hand through the flop and then 1&2 basically were discussing a shut down after they bet him out. My reasoning is 3 being in the hand through the flop is hugely different than a couple players talking about checking it down when they've been heads up the whole way. Just checking it down without discussing would seem to be the better etiquette because they would still be "playing" (meaning there's a chance one of them might make a move at the pot) right? I mean, if that sort of action is ok what's to stop me and a friend of mine (or 2 or 3) coming in and basically playing together to bet other players out, then once we're heads up we'll just chop up their money? Or am I way off base here?

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Well, they almost certainly weren't social friends. One was a early to mid twenties dude and the other was a grandma. But as I was listening to the table talk when Granny showed up the kid knew her name and they talked about a couple times they played at the same table etc etc. What kind of piqued my interest in this hand was how the young guy said this wasn't any sort of collusive playing because 3 was no longer in the hand. My thoughts were that 3 was in the hand through the flop and then 1&2 basically were discussing a shut down after they bet him out. My reasoning is 3 being in the hand through the flop is hugely different than a couple players talking about checking it down when they've been heads up the whole way. Just checking it down without discussing would seem to be the better etiquette because they would still be "playing" (meaning there's a chance one of them might make a move at the pot) right? I mean, if that sort of action is ok what's to stop me and a friend of mine (or 2 or 3) coming in and basically playing together to bet other players out, then once we're heads up we'll just chop up their money? Or am I way off base here?

no, you're right

[Jam-Fly 8]

I think for these situations, there's only question you have to ask yourself..."Does this player's actions affect my money making ability in this game in a negative way"If the answer is yes, complain or quit.If the answer is no, keep playing. Yeah, it's certainly unethical, but so long as it's not full blown collusion (ie, they raised out a third player just to split the pot), I wouldn't care too much. As in, if the both had very good hands, and just didn't want to take each others money, I wouldn't care. More than often, friends playing in a game together favours you. For example, if player 1 limps, and player 2 raises, then his friend, player 3 reraises, it's easy to see he has a huge hand as he is not going to bluff his friend.

[blakheart 3]

I would suspect a form of angle shooting more then collusion. What happens often is that a player with a marginal hand may try to convince his opponent to check it down because he can not stand the heat.My guess that player 1 had a hand like q 10 or something and did not want to get pushed out of the hand. He probably suspects he is beat but has outs. He figures the other player won't bet without the nuts. So he tries to sell the other player on letting him see the next two cards for free.

[El Guapo 8]

Hank a couple of years ago I was in Tahoe playing 1/3 with a buddy of mine. Lots of table talk. 4-5 way pot on turn I make 2 pair and he makes his straight. It's obvious to me he made his straight. I don't remember the action but we were the only two in the pot on the river. River card gave me a boat. I bet somewhere around $40 which was no more than 1/4 of the pot. He called, and got pissed and got up from the table.Now to me, my bet was telling him, I've got it, go away.He thought I should have just checked, which to me is more collusive. If I showed a boat after checking on the river, there would have been some pissed off people at the table. He did not let it go for weeks. Still brings it up from time to time.

[TheWynn 0]

Pow, right in the kisser

[Fluffdog87 2]

People often don't know the rules at 1/2 or 1/3nl games.

[hank213 1,823]

I would suspect a form of angle shooting more then collusion. What happens often is that a player with a marginal hand may try to convince his opponent to check it down because he can not stand the heat.My guess that player 1 had a hand like q 10 or something and did not want to get pushed out of the hand. He probably suspects he is beat but has outs. He figures the other player won't bet without the nuts. So he tries to sell the other player on letting him see the next two cards for free.

player 1 (remember he pulled a fairly hefty check/raise for approx 60% of his stack) had pocket kings. 2 had AsQs. 3 folded KdQd. I suppose one could be trying to dodge the A or case Q safely but I doubt it.

Hank a couple of years ago I was in Tahoe playing 1/3 with a buddy of mine. Lots of table talk. 4-5 way pot on turn I make 2 pair and he makes his straight. It's obvious to me he made his straight. I don't remember the action but we were the only two in the pot on the river. River card gave me a boat. I bet somewhere around $40 which was no more than 1/4 of the pot. He called, and got pissed and got up from the table.Now to me, my bet was telling him, I've got it, go away.He thought I should have just checked, which to me is more collusive. If I showed a boat after checking on the river, there would have been some pissed off people at the table. He did not let it go for weeks. Still brings it up from time to time.

But you were still playing the hand. Even if it did go check/check you didn't verbalize intent or agree to soft play.

[El Guapo 8]

player 1 (remember he pulled a substantial check/raise for approx 60% of his stack) had pocket kings. 2 had AsQs. 3 folded KdQdBut you were still playing the hand. Even if it did go check/check you didn't verbalize intent or agree to soft play.

I know. I was giving it as an example of how this should be done. IMO at least. I think I even made a thread asking about it at the time, and consensus was I played it correctly and my friend was just all butt hurt.