cash game - agreements

[medovnik]

i would like to ask one thing about rules in cash game. If there are 3 players involved in hand, one of them goes all in and the other two, who have him covered, call him, is there any rule, that is against an agreement of those other two players to check it all the way to the river? thanks for answers

[Jauron]

Probably varies from card room to card room or house game. I don't think it's out of line in a cash game so long as it's done after the all-in has been called (not while deciding to call).

[medovnik]

thanks for answer, I thought the same thing.

[HalfSugar]

Often you will find that it is almost an unwritten rule of poker that players will check all the way when someone is all in.

[xDiamond_CutteRx]

When there are 3 players in the pot and one is all-in, I think it is grossly immoral for the other players to VERBALLY agree to check it down.

[jimmer]

When there are 3 players in the pot and one is all-in, I think it is grossly immoral for the other players to VERBALLY agree to check it down.

Yeah, I agree. I think having a conversation with the other guy and AGREEING this out loud is immoral and bad sportsmanship, but if he is just 'on the same wavelength' it's fine.

If I don't know the guy or am unsure if they 'appreciate the checking down play' I usually try to make this obvious by making a conscious effort to look at the other player with a slight smile, making them aware that I have no interest in even looking at the community cards.

[HalfSugar]

I don't mind a measured check down but if I see someone check the nuts down, that boils my piss as much as someone with nothing bluffing a dead pot. I guess you can't please me

[Gunslinger]

is there any rule, that is against an agreement of those other two players to check it all the way to the river?

If those two are friends and have a pre-arranged agreement to check down all hands in these situations, that is soft-playing, which is a form of collusion and is basically against the rules. This is when there are other people in the pot. Like DC said, if they VERBALLY agree to check down a hand AFTER another player is all-in, then that is BLATANTLY against the rules.

If they are heads up, they can do whatever they want.

[Muck]

When there are 3 players in the pot and one is all-in, I think it is grossly immoral for the other players to VERBALLY agree to check it down.

Yeah, I agree. I think having a conversation with the other guy and AGREEING this out loud is immoral and bad sportsmanship, but if he is just 'on the same wavelength' it's fine.

I’ve been in this situation before, a guy shouted at me when I bet the flop and he had to fold. I wasn’t bluffing a dead pot I had Kings and beat the lady who was all in, but he argued we should of checked it to the end.

It’s more common in the later stages of tourneys were eliminating players is in effect to everyone’s interest. That’s where you fine players who look at each other and wonder “does he know this too?â€

[supafrey]

What's funny is how many times stupid people "check it down" when they absolutely should not. $$$$

[Kemics]

verbal agreements arn't worth the paper they are written on. If someone says i want to check it down, pop the turn , why give away a ridiculous amount of information about your hand.