I've never really thought about it but I definitely see your point. I never fold against no bet just in case I can pull off a winner. I don't know how much it affects bluffing because if an aggressive player is checked to in last position, they often try to buy the pot if there is 2 or 1 other in the pot regardless.

MG,

Great to be here again! Classes are going great! Thanks for asking. As far as my absence goes, I've just been so incredibly busy. As a matter of fact, the week just ending yesterday I worked a total of 130 hours - not enough time for sleep let alone anything else. Things are good though and seem to be beginning to lighten up a bit so I hope to be able to be present more.

TUP

I am happy to hear things are going well. We all miss you very much here at BTP.

With certain flops, I can almost understand how some would fold instead of bet.
Example, BB or SB calls a small raise with suited connecting cards, say .
The flop comes down all red. something like .
Say he stays in for one more card and a 7 or 8 does not fall, he would be drawing totally dead, and I could almost see him folding.

About it giving information to the bluffer, it actually gives the same information to anyone paying attention, so it does not benefit any one player over another.

I see this quite a bit in online low stakes limit: someone playing multiple tables, and is involved in a big hand on another table, might just fold this hand to pay more attention to the other one.

I can see how you might be thinking collusion between two maniacs at a B&M table.
They would have to have agreed upon specific circumstances that would have to appear for this play to work, but it could happen.

Something like I have middle pair or bottom 2 pair in a hand when it is 3 way between me, you and another player, I will fold instead of check, so you will know that the lower pair cards are not in the third players hand.
I can only see very few situations where this would work.

Am I over-analyzing this?

Goddamn, Johnny, it's good to see you again! I just read an article of yours yesterday. It was brilliant, and something I'd never thought of before.

I do it. I seldom do it, but I do it, on purpose. In an SNG, where I have zero chance of winning from the BB, I sometimes fold instead of checking. I have several reasons for it, most of which go missing in action, I believe. First, it's actually very unusual for anyone to do this. It looks like a moronic thing to do. You have a free ride, so you're folding? Even the computer wonders if I know what I'm doing, as it says "are you sure????" HAHAHA, yep, I'm sure.

I try to create an image of being a very tight player, early in an SNG. I want everyone at the table to think I only bet when I have the nuts. Folding when I don't have to fold reinforces the image. Granted, only a couple of people may notice, but those most likely to notice are the ones who'll still be around when my strategy pays off.

If I'm able to still be in the game when it's down to four or five and the blinds are sufficiently high, then I'll shift gears from grandma to overdrive. My tight image should now allow me to pull in chips which I don't have the hand to win. (I don't like the term stealing, because it implies taking something I don't deserve to have.) I've worked for the time when chips will come my way without having the hands I showed earlier.

Folding instead of checking doesn't guarantee it, but it's part of an overall strategy. And if by getting out of the way, the two who are fighting over a pot I invested so little in go overly aggressive, all the better.

If it's not illegal, I say I can do it, for a reason. If it's immoral, all the better. First, know the rules. Then, flaunt them.

or am I wrong?


CJ

CJ,

It is against the rules of poker but unfortunately many rules are becoming victims in the poker explosion. I had a poker room manager apologetically explain away a new rule in their card room yesterday as "We just can't seem to get our new dealers to do it right, therefore we've changed the rule to compensate for their incompetence." What?!

The Bellagio did the same kind of thing in their $2/$5 blind NL game except their reason is the incompetence of the new players - not the dealers. In their game, as soon as everyone goes all in you must turn your hand over before the dealer will continue dealing - as if it were a tournament. Their explanation? They have too many players that think this is supposed to be the way it is cause their only poker exposure is tournament poker on TV - and it slows down the rake too much by having to stop the game until a floorperson can explain it.

I think it's up to the poker community to help the new players understand the rules - not abandon the rules in order to make it easier for them.

TUP

My top 3 favourite errors/misunderstandings that seem to infest live games...

1) An opponent is called, shows his hand and then insists to see yours. It is not your right to demand to see the cards of an opponent who paid to call you unless there is some specific reason i.e. suspicion of impropriety.

2) I've never seen this mentioned before but it's one I see often. Once someone (i.e. me) busts out of a cash game or tourney, the dealer assuming you will rebuy and dealing you into the next hand without inquiring whether you want to play on or not. This has happened to me before I had chance to explain I didnt want to play on, thus annoying all the other players who had to table their cards and start again, simply because of the dealer's lack of interest in the game.

3) The whole insisting to turn the cards over thing. However, I think that SHOULD be a rule, it's just annoying when people mistakenly insist on it in cash games when it doesn't apply.

My favorite pet peeve and rule violation is when a player gets called on the river and either tries to get the caller to show his cards or only shows one card. Personally, I almost never turn my cards over first when I just call on the river. I also never let the better get away with just showing one card, even if he has me beat. I usually say something like "Yeah, what else?" or something to that effect and then muck. If I pay to see someone's cards, by God, I'm going to see both of them.

I also agree with CJ, not being able to fold when its your turn to act shouldn't be a rule violation. What if you called with a connector in a game where you have a tight image and you miss your open-ended striaight draw on the river. Its heads up on the river and you know you can't buy the pot but the bettor has position on you and will probably check the river because some scare card hit. Must you now check and hope he bets so you can fold or fold and protect your image?