Folding rather than Checking

Is there any scenario where you would rather fold rather than checking or raising?
I think it could be a useful tactic to raise your opponents pot odds to promote them to bet more aggressively against each other. I haven't thought of it much further than that.
This is obviously not useful at all in cash games but could it be in an MTT around the bubble?

i've run into a bunch of hands where i'd love to just fold instead of checking but i don't think there's an option..at least online. i've done this a few times at the live free rolls i've been going to at a local bar not for any strategy but because my hands were crappy.
However, i will use the tactic of doing a little trash talk and then do just a min raise ( ie blinds are 100 raise to 200) to get other people to go All in, knowing i'll fold but hoping another will call. This works half of the time in double up SNGs six max where u only need 3 ppl to bust out to win.

i do that alot in sngs when the blinds are high i fold to get the other players to try to bet and call knowing they wont have to worry about me check raising, and they know they only have to beat one person instead of two.
this is a good strategy

if there's a fish at the table and I quickly want to change my seat I just fold preflop so that I can leave the table and sit behind the fish

Not much of an advantage of folding even if its to get action between another 2 in the hand, I would rather "accidentally" show my cards to the table which will get the same action and still leave you with a chance at a split.

The only way I can see folding rather than checking or raising, to be useful is to deny your opponent information.

aa88wildbill said:

The only way I can see folding rather than checking or raising, to be useful is to deny your opponent information.

Click to expand...

Seen players do this alot in cash games but it doesn't really deny information the way I look at it they usually have a weak draw that missed.

I guess the player denying me they called a raise with K2s is good however I've been in spots where players have done this and I wasn't going to fire a 3rd barrel but get a nice gift with 8hi or something

I always set mine up to check when i hit the fold button if possible... I usually have more than ten tables going stacked at same time and it is a lot faster and saves a lot of unnecessary mouse movement to just click the fold button and have it check for you.

for the most part i dont think you should ever fold when its free to check

its like not picking up a dollar bill laying on the ground, because you dont want anybody to see u do it

Yes I must agree that to fold any hand rather than check seems foolish to me expecially since I have won a hand or 2 with nothing more than 7 high...although very very rarely...

I am under the impression that folding when you are not facing a bet is against the rules or at least is extremely bad etiquette. But, the only reference that I can find to folding when not facing a bet is specific to seven-card stud.

In Seven-Card Stud [According to Robert's Rules of Poker], you will continue to receive cards even after you "fold" until there is a bet that actually makes your fold valid. This is probably related to the fact that the specific cards each person will receive would be different if that person had checked.

Since that implies that the fold itself was not "illegal," I suspect I am wrong about folding out of turn never being acceptable. Do we really want to discourage people from giving up whatever tiny percentage of equity they might have had?

That said, I do know it was explicitly against the house rules at a private game I used to play in. Any player who attempted to fold when not facing a bet was told they had to wait for a bet to be made first. Then their cards were returned to them (if they had pushed their cards forward).

Most of the time, this didn't mean anything. I can think of one time where it was 5-handed and a guy tried to fold the flop. The flop was K-Q-Jr, or something like that. The guy held 6-5o. I have no idea why he was in the hand in the first place. Those games were insanely soft. I digress. His hand was returned to him. It checked all the way to the river, where he hit a 5. Turns out, a pair of 5s was good. He took the pot down. It caused quite an argument because a bunch of players were trying to argue that he had "folded." The house repeated that you can't fold if you could check instead. It was "The Rules."

I was going to edit the post above, but too much time has passed.

I decided to go and look at the old book we used when I was a kid. Growing up, my grandmother had a book called Official Rules of Card Games that was used to settle any questions about rules. It was published back in 1968 (claims first edition was 1887) by the United States Playing Card Company. They have a fairly complete list of the "Laws of Poker."

Sure enough, they did address this question:

9.(f): No player may check, bet, call, raise, or drop, except in his proper turn. A player may drop even when he has the privilege of checking. [...]

Click to expand...

It should be noted that this book refers to folding as "dropping." Also, look at that non-politically correct grammar usage. They use the masculine form for the personal pronoun! These days this would be rewritten with a bunch of "his or her" and "he or she" verbosity.

How much should we trust this book? Probably not much. Let me include the description of Omaha that this book contains.

Omaha--Each player receives two cards down. Five cards are dealt to the center, face down. There is a betting interval. Then the center cards are turned up one by one. There is a betting interval after each. Each player makes his hand from his own two cards and the five in the center.

Click to expand...

Also, this isn't just a messed up Texas Hold'em variation. They include a Hold'em, which is identical to the one we play today. I have seen other references to an Omaha like the one above. So, maybe that's part of the history. Still weird.