| This is a discussion on Check it down or not?? within the online poker forums, in the General Poker section; Here is an article I found discussing the topic that I think comes up quite a bit while playing poker. Should you check it down ... |
| | ||||||
![]() |
| |
|
#1 | ||||
| ||||
| Check it down or not?? Here is an article I found discussing the topic that I think comes up quite a bit while playing poker. Should you check it down if you have a player all in and 2 people with chips lefts against them. Here’s a common tournament situation: One short-stacked player pushes all-in and is called by two or more larger-stacked opponents. Among experienced tournament players, there’s an unwritten rule that both of the bigger stacks will just check the hand through all the way to the river—maximizing the chance of the short-stacked player being eliminated, because he’s competing against two other hands at the showdown, instead of only one. In practice, this sort of thing happens all the time during tournaments. There is some question of whether or not this unspoken agreement to “check it down” anytime a third player is all in might actually be a form of implicit collusion. In a sense, the two checking players are ganging up on the all-in guy, which technically fits the definition of collusion. But unless these two players actually discuss the action of checking it down between them, for all practical purposes they are simply pursuing a time-honored tournament strategy. It’s a strategy so commonly embraced among tournament players that anybody who doesn’t follow this practice—who decides instead to bet and push the other live player out of the pot—might find himself on the receiving end of some angry comments and nasty looks from the rest of the table. Especially if the all-in player ends up surviving as a result. This debate boils down to what matters most to you as a tournament player—the chance to eliminate an opponent from the competition, or the chance to win whatever chips are in the pot? The actual merit of this play depends on the specific situation, and several factors play a role here. First, how far along is the tournament? Has it gotten into the money stage yet, or even close to it? If the answer is yes, then eliminating opponents takes on a far greater importance than it does when the tourney is still in the early stages. Early on, it’s all about surviving and building up your chip stack. Knocking out opponents is a secondary consideration. But once the tourney gets into the money, every eliminated player guarantees more cold hard cash for each player who remains. And that’s almost always worth more than any single pot of tournament chips. Something else to consider is how many chips, if any, are in the side pot—the pot the two remaining players are competing for. If there’s nothing in it, or next-to-nothing, then there’s little point in betting at it just to push the other live player out. The main exception would be if you actually hold a good hand which you are reasonably sure will beat the all-in player at the showdown. Now you’re betting to protect your equity in the main pot, so the other live player won’t draw out on you. Even here, there’s mucho disagreement among tournament players as to what “good” hand would in fact be good enough to merit a bet in this situation. Some players feel that only the nuts—a hand that is virtually an iron-clad guarantee to beat Mr. All In—is bettable here. While others feel that a hand as weak as second pair would be worth a bet, as long as it gives the bettor an improved chance to win the main pot. This standard varies all over the place, depending on the individual and the particulars of the situation. The one universally-agreed-upon Unforgivable Deadly Sin in tournament poker is to bluff at an empty side pot when you do not want to break.a third player is all-in. This is a bet which carries a huge downside—it gives the all-in player a much greater chance of surviving, since the bluffer, by definition, has nothing—and no upside either, since there are no chips in the side pot. Of all the unwritten rules in tournament poker, this is the one |
| Play Texas Hold'em Online Poker | Check it down or not?? | |
|
|
|
#2 | ||||
| ||||
| if you have a winning hand do not check, if you bluff at an empty side pot huh just not smart. Big side pot and you can get the other player out go for it . I never like to double a short stack up, just let them have the blinds and stay short. |
|
#3 | ||||
| ||||
| *takes a deep, calming breath* These articles (what's the source of this one, BTW?) and threads always ignore the most important parts of the argument. They're talking about a metagame concept (ie: thinking about consequences of actions outside of this one hand) but then ignoring all of the other metagame implications. It's not just "eliminating a player vs the chips in the pot". It's very much situational and there are all sorts of reasons you might want to bet to push the other live player out of the hand. They include: - It's the bubble, you've got a big stack and you're making a killing stealing blinds and raising scared players off their hands. It's actually in your interests to keep the short stack in the game and prolong the bubble as long as possible. - You know betting a dry side pot will put various players at your table on mega-tilt and you think you can exploit that to your advantage* - Related to the above, you can see a benefit to giving yourself a reckless image. I feel like I've typed the above post sooooo many times now over the past year or so. I don't even play that many donkaments. Anywho, point is I think the above are all perfectly justifiable reasons for betting in this situation, even the dreaded bluffing a dry side pot. You're just not seeing the whole picture if you stick to the dusty old convention all the time every time. * or you think it'll be worth it for the lulz |
|
#4 | ||||
| ||||
| I found it in Poker Player magazine. Ok I do believe if it's early in a tournament then you can bet into an empty pot, but if your going to bluff at a pot after the flop why not just push in to get the others out before the flop. I have seen so many times and it has happened to me, I'm in a hand with 2 other people and 1 person is all in I will almost always check it down unles I have the nuts or I'm positive I have the best hand. Anyway I get in a pot with 2 others 1 being all in flop comes and I hit a open ender I check other player checks now turn brings my straight I check not trying to trap just not knowing what the allin player might have, I want them out but then the other player will try to bluff at it then I'll put him all in and take his chips, now thats a good thing. On the other end I have seen this both live and online, I'm in a three way pot with no side pot and 1 player allin, flop comes and I have nothing no draw no pair so I check and the other player bets a huge amount so I muck, the 2 players flip over their cards and the guy betting the flop has nothing, then the turn would have paired me up and eliinated the allin player, but since I mucked due to a bluff bet the allin player wins the pot and then 20 minutes later eliminates me or the player that kept him alive because of a stupid bluff bet with nothing. |
|
#5 | ||||
| ||||
| *taking more deep breaths in a vain effort to calm myself* All you've done is repeat the content of the article and add a couple of examples. You haven't explained why and it's the most important thing to be considering here. Otherwise you're just blindly following a rule, and we should all know that's never a good thing to do in poker. So here's some questions to get you thinking: - Do you think I'm wrong? If so, why? - Are any of the reasons I've given for players maybe wanting to go against the dogma invalid? If so, why? - In your second example, why did the player bluff the dry side pot? You're assuming it's because he's stupid, but can you think of some other possible explanations? |
|
#6 | ||||
| ||||
| Here is what you have to remember. The players that are all in will see all 5 cards no matter what. If you don't flop a good hand, there is no point to risk more chips betting your opponent out the pot. If you do have a good hand, go ahead and extract more. Decent players know the "rule" of checking it down. It's just better chances to knock out the all in guy if you and the other player see all 5 cards together. If you do end up making a good hand, go ahead and bet a small portion and hope to get paid off. Just remember you can't say anything to "checking it down". This can disqualify a hand. I also agree with OzExorist. This is a super general thing. Gotta be more in depth and post some situations. Last edited by JEP712 : 6th January 2010 at 11:29 PM. |
|
#7 | ||||
| ||||
| re: Check it down or not?? poker Quote:
*sigh* |
|
#8 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#9 | ||||
| ||||
| If I'm not getting any of the advantages Oz mentioned, I don't mind checking it down. If I have Tp then I'll ussually build a small side pot if I think the first All-In could have weaker holdings. Usually it bugs me when somebody bets into an all-in pot that I'm in as an overstack. But that's ussually because I'm drawing. So I figure in pot odds and add a player note. I called a guy down once with 2nd pr and a straight draw, failed to make my straight, but it turned out my 2nd pr was good enough to take the pot(s). Made a note on the player that he bets with K-high in an all-in pot and that was that. The expected etiquette of the table should not alter your style of play. You play in a tournament to try to win - not make friends. Any action that lessens your chance of victory is foolish. |
|
#11 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#12 | ||||
| ||||
| A perfect example came up in a game I played earlier this afternoon: 9-player SnG, standard three get paid structure. Four players are left, blinds are around 100-200, I'm the overwhelming chip leader and, best of all, the short stack is disconnected. I'm making an absolute killing stealing blinds every single hand and neither of the other players want to get involved because they're scared of being knocked out when they know all they've got to do to cash is hang on until the disconnected player gets blinded out. It finally comes to the hand where the disconnected player is all in for their last 20 chips in the big blind. I call from the button, the small blind calls and we see the flop - 60 in the main pot, 360 in the side pot. I've got nothing, I don't hit and I bet anyway. The other live player folds, I take the side pot but the disconnected player takes the main pot. The side pot was worth a lot more than the main pot so that's justification enough for me stealing it but even if there were no side pot I'd still have done the same thing. Keeping the disconnected player in and the other two scared is just too lucrative and the risks of letting the disconnected player stay are absolutely minimal. Of course the other two players proceeded to lose it at me and call me all sorts of names. Then they both tilted off their chips pretty quick once the bubble actually burst. I LOLd |
|
#13 | ||||
| ||||
| OzExorcist, I can't exactly disagree with your comments. Clearly there aren't a lot of absolutes in poker, or in life for that matter. I think you may spend more energy developing your table persona than I do, but it certainly may be effective in your case. Any idea where I can get a Werbe Onesie? |
|
#15 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
As to my table image I don't really spend that much time cultivating it because at the stakes I play most of the players aren't paying attention anyway. Personally, making a killing on the bubble (like in my example above) is abouty the only time I'll deviate from the "rule". In most other situations I'm more than happy to check down and maximise the chances of eliminating the player. My point was that there can be valid reasons for not checking down, and image management ranks among them. |
|
#19 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#21 | ||||
| ||||
| re: Check it down or not?? poker Quote:
Not often, but often enough. That's hardly the point though. The point is that it's silly and short-sighted to say "ZOMGZ everyone should always check it down every time and death to those that don't because they're stupid donks" |
|
#23 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
because on the bubble or in the money eliminating a player is worth more than anything period. Any player remaining even shortstacked is dangerous. A chip and a chair ya know. |
|
#24 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
has to me and Im sure it has happened to anyone with a large number of tourneys. Burst the bubble and guarantee money. |
|
#25 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#26 | ||||
| ||||
| im not even going to read the article nor what anyone has to say ....cuz I already know how I feel about this and I feel anyone in a tourney serious about poker should feel the same way and that is in this situation only bet if your hand is strong if you have the nuts and in most cases youd want to check down and bet the river if you have the best hand other wise check it down and have the all in player face a slimmer chance of staying in....i dont know how many times some bafoon who bluffs too dam much bets some huge amount on the flopp in this situation with absolutely nothing ..not only showing the table what a full OF SH*& player they are but allows the all in to get chips and remain in the game while someone would have made the best hand come the turn or river ...like really what is the point you bluff get no callers no chips and you just made one player healthy whereas there would be one less player in the field and you lose no more or less chips if you haddnt bluffed ...if theres action in the side pot chances are the all in is beat anyway |
|
#27 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Seriously, read my first response to this thread then we'll talk. If you can't acknowledge that there are some situations where it's in your best interests to go against the dogma then you haven't thought hard enough about it IMO. |
|
#28 | ||||
| ||||
| re: Check it down or not?? poker Quote:
|
|
#29 | ||||
| ||||
| Here's another reason not to check it down. What if I'm confident, I'm ahead of original raisers range and will win the pot but the other guy might catch a card to win the pot instead of me. Eg. I have AKs - I put raiser on A-rag and other guy has KQ. Flop is T-4-2, you better believe I'm betting that flop to get rid of luck box #2 or maybe to get more chips from him. |
|
#30 | ||||
| ||||
| I can't really ever see a good reason to check it down. I would much rather the short stack get the chips over my closest competetor. The only time I see a good reason to check it down is if I'm behind and have outs. The only other good reason is that the payout is flat or it's a sattellite. |
|
#31 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#32 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
I know you're not the only one who feels this way, BTW - that's the point. |
|
#33 | ||||
| ||||
| I do agree with the strategy described. Eliminating the small stacks in tournament poker is the overall objective in the game. Check all the down until you have the absolute NUTS. Only then do I find it appropriate to value bet your hand. |
|
#34 | ||||
| ||||
| A player got short stacked in the SnG I was playing today on the bubble, he moved all in with his last 800 and I called with AJo, then the idiot bigstack moves all in with pocket 66 and forces me to fold. The flop had two jacks and the river was the ace. I called him out on it and revealed that I had had at least the jack, the short stack had shoved all in on KTo and caught a king. I still had a stack though which is why I folded I knew I could stay in it and play well, and I survived into the money. Checking it down may seem wrong to some, but if someone tried to check me down, I would accept it. Its not wrong that the players realize that knocking me out will make them more money. |
|
#35 | ||||
| ||||
| re: Check it down or not?? poker See it from the villain's perspective though - he's got a chance to either knock two players out and win a massive pot if you call and his hand holds up or, more likely, he gets to flip against the short stack with dead money in the pot and if they double up meh, they're still the short stack. Obviously you don't like the play but that doesn't make it "bad". |
Number of Posts: 35
Number of Authors: 16