For all you old folks, how big of a deal was check-raising back in the day?

You have it backwards.

But it's the motivation I find rude. If you do it because you think it's the best way to win a pot that's one thing. But the clear implication was that the kid didn't care about the money and was getting his jollies by seeing what would happen with his blind shoves.

I know the "correct" answer is to wait and take the free money he's offering but it offends me nonetheless. If that's the way to get your jollies, go get a lap dance.

How is it backwards, lol.

He said that check-raising bothers him not at all. No qualification for fooling around either. Maybe you don't know what you wrote.

Well, he also said that if someone fooled around by check-raising just for giggles, he considered it rude.

Adapting to a player who plays differently can be hard.

Yes, he could have had a derogatory attitude connected to it, that's rude. Only consolation is to try and take the money offered. Winning itself need to be more important than the nominal value in the "civil" world.

If you find rude a specific style of play, maybe you shouldn't play poker.

How is shoving every hand not aggression? What does he have to do to be labeled aggressive in your book?

And were I actually in that game I would have racked up and left, letting the floor (not the dealer, nothing s/he can do about it) know exactly why..

Question for you ..... What at the table behaviors do you find rude and do you think not playing is the correct response?

Wow. Someone wants to literally give away money and some people on here want to leave and discourage them from doing it...

I'm confused.

What did I say to give you the impression that I think shoving every hand pre-flop is not aggressive?

What do I find aggressive? Three betting non premium hands, very light continuation bets, bluffing. Probably the same things you find aggressive. But I find NONE of those things rude. I applaud all of those actions and wish I had the skill set to know when it is appropriate for me to act that way and how to properly follow up.

So, what did I say to give you the impression that I think aggression equals rudeness?

I explicitly stated "being aggressive is not the issue." What part of that is unclear?

To (try again) to be clear, In my opinion it is the motivation that is rude. I certainly could be wrong about this but from the poster that first mentioned the behavior I got the impression that the player was doing this every hand because he found it amusing. He may find it amusing, I find it rude.

Dude what?

With the current state of poker being largely No Limit Holdem check-raising doesn't occur all that often that it should be any kind of issue with anyone as it is well within the rules of game play. Speaking personally, as someone who spent a large portion of my playing career at mid-stakes Limit Holdem check-raising was rampant (often on multiple streets in the same hand) so I'm very comfortable with it!

Started playing live poker and online in the late 90's, early 00's. Had a guy online go ape$@^& over me checkraising him, made all sorts of threats if I ever tried that in person. Live poker, it was always an allowed part of the game, though maybe the occasional oldtimer (old timer back then, I guess I am an old timer now) would talk about how you couldn't do that back in the day. But I think the game changed a lot around the time that the WSOP got started.

I have never seen anyone in live poker get angry over getting check raised.

You literally said this was not agression.

I can only read what you write, I cannot read your mind. I didn't comment on rudeness. I commented on how you explicitly said it it wasn't aggressive.

This is not about aggression.

Interesting case of misconception. Each part focusing a bit differently.

Sure, but it is obvious where the impression comes from. Confusion is a choice at this point.

I went back over the posts and can finally see how you interpreted what I said as you did. Unfortunately, you can't read my mind as I did not intend it as you read it.

I did not intend to say it's not aggression, of course it is. My intention was to say that he is not doing it to adopt an aggressive style of play. He is not doing it as a tactic to improve his win rate. He is doing it for the "fun" of seeing what will happen. He is doing it because (I believe) the money is meaningless and he gets his jollies that way.

Perhaps I should have said something like "This is not just about aggression." Would that have been better?

I have the bankroll and skill set to only play the lowest level LHE that I can find. You probably don't play in those games but I've seen several instances of people getting angry over being check-raised.

Absolutely. I agree 100% with this revised take.

That said, if a person plays stupidly just to get his jollies on, yet plays within the rules, what is he doing wrong?

People play poker for lots of reasons, many to their own detriment. I know it is hard to believe on a professional poker forum like 2 + 2, but making money is often at least the 2nd or 3rd (or 4th or 5th or worse) motivation for playing poker. In my experience more people play for social reasons than for monetary reasons. Some people like to gamble. There isn't a "coin flip", i.e. flush draw or straight draw they will not chase.

So, if you don't like people continually shoving all in (even though it is to their detriment) what else is considered rude by you? Is a person who pays to much to chase a flush draw being rude? Is a person straddling or blind betting being rude? How about calling a pre-flop raise with 23 offsuit?

Where do you draw the line on acceptable versus unacceptable behavior by someone who is playing for reasons other than monetary reasons?

Technically, nothing wrong. What s/he is doing is ruining my enjoyment of the game. Since everything that is happening is within the rules of the game, my answer is to stop playing at this table and find a more pleasant environment in which to play. I may have words for him/her or the floor to let it know why they lost a customer but probably wouldn't say anything.

Except for the "like to gamble" part that's a fair description description of me and my motivations. I take issue with the substantial number of posters who don't seem to understand this and seem to feel that making money is the ONLY reason to play. I had a cousin like this who played 10-20 stud at the Bellagio for many years. He was also a very accomplished bowler (210 avg) who couldn't bowl unless there was money on the line. He couldn't understand how the game itself was interesting even as a simple test of skill.

Where I draw the line is a matter of "feeling" and is difficult to articulate. It mostly depends upon motivation. None of the things you've mentioned cross the line (although constant straddling comes close - if you want to play higher stakes enter a higher stakes game) I've been unable to reasonably define where the line is but as Justice Stewart said, "I know it when I see it."

I'll have to leave it at that