Checking it Down

A debate arose last night at the BrewHouse about the legality and etiquette of 'checking it down' at the final table when we were down to four players left in the tourny...

I argued wrong, "I don't wear my chaps for the Harley alone" Gary argued correct and said it was illegal. (Gary filled in for Herm last night, and all in all, it was WAY quieter and the tourny ran much more smoother than usual! :)

I always thought saying and agreeing to the other player with more chips "I will check it down" was just bad poker etiquette, however, not only is it bad etiquette, it is illegal, specifically called "explicit collusion" (explicit because it was done in the open as oppossed to implicit collusion, which is in secret or hidden), however, if the two big stacks do not communicate the "checking it down", that is perfectly OK!

I am still looking for more verification on this, but this is the Wiki entry on "Checking it Down":

In a poker tournament, when one player is all in and two other players are active in the pot, it is common for the two players with chips left to "check it down". Unless they explicitly communicate an agreement about checking it down, this is not collusion.

and another reference by Randy Hudson:

If you have one all-in player, and two other players who still have stacks left, is it 100% expected that the two "live" players simply check it down?

No, but it's pretty common. The presence of a player whose hand will always be shown down makes bluffing generally inadvisable, and consequently (though less obviously) shifts the hand strength needed for a value bet upward. Each of these makes bets less likely, and so tends to promote a checked-down finish.

When the players are involved in a place-paying tournament or supersatellite, and are near or in the money, that is compounded by the value of eliminating a player. Because both players benefit if either one eliminates the all-in player, bluffs usually have negative value, and the desirability of making value bets goes down even further. This is the situation where most players automatically check it down.

Failing to participate in this "implicit collusion" will draw scorn from some other players. The ones no longer involved in the pot still stand to benefit from elimination of the all-in player, so they also want to see it checked down, as that maximizes the chance of an elimination.

If anyone has more information on this subject, email me or post a comment, I am still not 100% sure of the ruling, but based on the above, it seems to be pointing to illegal!