CHECKING DOWN

Last night at the P Stars tourney i came across this situation and ive seen it many times before at our tourneys, this is what happened, also > allinking17, i dont know who he is< There are 6 players left, JL goes allin, allinking17 calls, it cost me $300 to call so i do, i have pocket 4`s, the cards on the table are a 2 6 j 10 k i think, but whatever that dont matter, i check the flop,allinking checks, i check the turn,allin checks, i check the river, allinking bets, so with all the over cards there i fold, the cards are turned up and JL wins the hand and Triples up with a pair of 2`s, At this point in a tourney you want to elimanite players, especially the bubble guy,BTW pokerstars pays 5 places. Now by allinking betting, ( with nothing ) and getting me out we did not elimanite JL and he tripled up, my pocket 4`s would have knocked him out, so why did allinking bet, is it greed, you had nothing allinking,so why did you bet, theres more of a chance to knock someone out if its 2 hands against 1, at this point in a tourney its about eliminating someone, not about the money in the pot, that was a stupid move, and above all, JL is one of the Best and Most Dangerous players here, so the Moral of this is , think before you bet, if JL had any card on the table you were beat Allinking, its better to check it down and eliminate a player than to make a stupid move. I still dont know why you bet with nothing, in this type of situation the Only time you should bet is if you know you got the best hand for sure, JL is 1 of our best players and i know i dont want to ever triple him up, hes very tough, as you saw when you went H2H with him. buck
PS. anybody know who allinking17 is and how did he get the password

I know exactley what you mean Buck - it is a kind of unwritten code usually isnt it.

If someone goes all-in and there's a chance of knocking him out - just check it down.

I have been undone by this also a few times in SNG's just lately and i think 9/10 times the person betting doesn't have the best hand and perhaps - like yourself had - a small pocket pair looks well beaten by the board you have to fold.

Only to find your opponent was trying to buy the pot and in fact gets beaten by a smaller p-pair than you held or a higher high card than your opponent has.



So he doubles / triples up - catches cards knocks people about - then out and wins

Oooooohhh - maddening

IanT

Nice thread Buck, i remember myself and Dorkus checking down against Ian a few weeks back on Stars. I actually had 2 pair that time but there was a possible straight on the board.

Betting on the river here should only be done when your holding the nut hand, IMO.

It is an unwritten guideline that people should check down. That is the point of getting out the small stack. The more against the small stack the better. Yet what if you do have the hand ? Do you keep checking down and while hoping your other opponent(s) don't get cards to better thier hands?

So the question would be asked? When would or should 1 bet when it should be checked down?

There were 7 players left, we weren't on the bubble yet, thus I see nothing wrong with him making a play at the pot. You should play to win, not just to cash (sometimes it backfires though >.<).

Edit: Maybe it was 6, can't remember and too lazy to check PT. See below though.

I'm of 2 minds on this. Altruism has no place in poker and I'm not going to play a hand a certain way because of some unwritten rule of etiquette. If the game is past the bubble and if I'm not very sure I have a stronger hand than the All-Inner, I will check it down. However, once I feel I have a lock on the hand, maybe with a straight or a flush, I will bet, still trying to extract those last few pennies from anyone else still involved. But more than that, I'm not going to allow someone with trips or two pair to make a full house.

In your case Buck, I completely agree with you. AllInking did nothing with that raise but hand the pot to JL and keep him in the hunt. It hurt you as well as him. But cooperation plays like this are rare at low limit games and tournaments and unheard of in freerolls. I don't know who Allinking is, but if he's new to the forum, then he may also be new to the game. Sounds like he's just lacking in some fundamentals.

P.S.- How did you and J.Led finish up?

What I wanna know is if you had a pair, why didn't you call? Lord knows I've seen ya call with A-high enough times!

Seriously, I don't think it was a wise play, but I don't see the huge problem with it either. If I remember correctly, Jesus was the shortstack and allinking was the big stack at this point, 1 or 2 places off the bubble. By betting the turn on that hand, allinking acheived two things;

1) Stopped Buck potentially drawing out on him on the river,

2) If he misses his draw, he invariably loses and keeps the shortstack around, thus making stealing pots easier for him in the near future by maintaining the bubble situation (you all have seen for yourselves that once the bubble burst people tend to go a bit crazy and tend to drop out quickly, by keeping the bubble alive, a big stack can build up his stack even more by constantly stealing).

3) If he hits his draw, he invariably wins.

That said I still don't like semibluffing in this spot at all. With something like mid/top pair I could understand it more, as the prevention of drawing out would apply more.

Still, it wasn't a horrible play. We really should be talking about the 77 flop push into my KK instead, as that was donkstrike to the max. >.>

I just checked out our friend Allinking. Freeroll whore. Been around for a year. 15 posts period! All on his first day of membership. Was this a buy in? If not he should be a candidate for membership termination.

I actually asked him at the table who was he, and at least he was honest about it. He said that he was a member about a year and had forgotten about the site until he seen the money added game at PokerStars ($10 buy-in).

I also recommended that he post a bit, got no answer to that one though.

I see that it was a $10-$1 buy-in. I've got no problem with any member regardless of there activity participating in these. But I see also that Nick was generous enough to add $100 to the prize pool. Sorry, but somehow it doesn't seem right that someone with 15 posts that hasn't said boo in over a year should be elligable. All the worse that he actually won the thing. Strange though, If someone is good enough to beat that field you would think he would know enough to check it down.

FYP

Well on number 1>JL only had about $600 if i recall, it only cost allin about $600. and it cost me $300. i was BB, so it wasnt much of a pot.
2>> no matter who wins, me or allin it aint much i had plenty of chips and so did allin.
3> the ONLY time to bet is if your SURE you got the best hand
4>> He,allin had Ace high and bet on the river, if JL had any card on the board allin was beat, and JL did a 2 which gave JL a pair of 2`s and the win.
5> with 4 over cards on the board i was not going to call a bet with my pocket fours, Remember this was the river already when he bet after i checked.
6> I still say it was a stupid move when your up against an allin and all you got is Ace high, remember two players are always better against an allin when your trying to eliminate a player.
7> a guy like JL is dangerous, hes good and thats the players you always want to eliminate.
Maybe some of you dont agree with me, but even if i had Pocket Aces i still would have checked it down, to eliminate someone, and i believe thats the rite way to play, Remember where talking about JL and all of you know how dangerous he is with chips.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>buck

You misunderstand me I think.

I'm repeating myself here really, but it isn't a terribly bad play. If he hits his draw, he wins the pot. If he misses, by forcing you out of the pot he is potentially keeping JL around for longer. JL is still relatively unthreatening as he's still on a shortstack (no matter how good a player you are, with 6BBs or w/e you can only be so threatening), and the bubble keeps going, which is an advantage to the big stacks (shorter stacks are less likely to call steals on the bubble).

My point is that in some situations it can be correct to not want to eliminate a player on the bubble if you are a big stack and are playing to win.

Of course, I'm almost certain I'm giving the guy's thought processes too much credit (especially after the numerous times he said he "put someone on" an exact hand which was of course way off), and he didn't actually think of any of this and just thought "LOL FLUSHDRAW I BET KTHX", but I still think this topic brings up some important elements of late tournament theory.

No your misunderstanding me, ALL the cards were out, i checked on the river. he bet and i folded, there were No more cards to come, thats my point, he bet with nothing on the river, he had Ace high, and i folded my 44`s and JL beat him with his Dueces, thats what got me, by him betting i folded the best hand> 44 < why bet with Ace high and get the other guy out, if JL paired any card on the board he had him beat, and JL had a 2 which gave him a pair of 2`s and my 44`s would have elimanited JL, thats my point why bet with nothing after i checked, remember JL was allin. Good discussion though,lol, buck

he bet trying to increase his odds of winning the pot, when in actuality he should have checked in order to increase the odds of JL being knocked out by having both he and buck showdown their hands instead of just him.
he found his chances of winning the pot to be more important than the chance of JL being knocked out which is, IMO aswell as buck's, wrong. Especially with a player as strong as JL's tournament life on the line.

I think the only situations in which you would bet is if you have a definite read on what both of the other players have and are betting for value (knowing that the all in player is beat aswell as the opponent, or if the all in player is beat, and you're trying to push out the other player)
for example you have TT and a shorstack's all in (you put him on AK) is called by another player with 2 big cards.
If the board were to come all baby cards by the end, you would put in a value bet knowing that the all in player is beat because his big cards didn't hit.

Nope

POKERSTARS GAME #4625564085: TOURNAMENT #22113163, $10+$1 HOLD'EM NO LIMIT - LEVEL VI (100/200) - 2006/04/14 - 18:32:19 (ET)
Table '22113163 3' 9-max Seat #3 is the button
Seat 2: allinking17 (8715 in chips)
Seat 3: Qhr1s (3025 in chips)
Seat 4: gordo300 (350 in chips)
Seat 5: kala5583 (1800 in chips)
Seat 6: ReadChomsky (1450 in chips)
Seat 7: buckster436 (8025 in chips)
Seat 8: JesusLederer (635 in chips)
gordo300: posts small blind 100
kala5583: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Qhr1s [Tc 3s]
ReadChomsky: folds
buckster436: calls 200
JesusLederer: raises 435 to 635 and is all-in
allinking17: calls 635
Qhr1s: folds
gordo300: folds
kala5583: folds
buckster436: calls 435
*** FLOP *** [Qs 7s 5h]
buckster436: checks
allinking17: checks
*** TURN *** [Qs 7s 5h] K♥
buckster436: checks
allinking17: bets 400
JesusLederer said, "gg"
buckster436: folds
*** RIVER *** [Qs 7s 5h Kh] 9♦
*** SHOW DOWN ***
JesusLederer: shows [2d 2c] (a pair of Deuces)
allinking17: shows [6s As] (high card Ace)
JesusLederer collected 2205 from pot
allinking17 said, "nh"
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2205 | Rake 0
Board [Qs 7s 5h Kh 9d]
Seat 2: allinking17 showed [6s As] and lost with high card Ace
Seat 3: Qhr1s (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: gordo300 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 5: kala5583 (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 6: ReadChomsky folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: buckster436 folded on the Turn
Seat 8: JesusLederer showed [2d 2c] and won (2205) with a pair of Deuces

Chris, are you serious? Ok, there was one card to come, but still, he was drawing to 11 outs. So it's still 3:1 that he's going to double J.Led up. All he had to do was check. If he hit his Ace or flush card on the river he still could have bet. The result would have been the same. Buck would have folded, or for all he knew, he could have rivered the nut flush and been called by a lesser flush. This hand should have been checked regardless of the all-in. What would he have done if Buck had come back over the top? I really have to agree with Buck on this. There's just no GOOD rational for that bet.

Yes there is, you just all seem incapable of looking at the bigger picture. You focus too much on the small picture ("he pnly had 11 outs", "the result would have been the same")

If you're playing to win, you will play aggressively on the bubble to accumulate chips. If you have a big stack, ultimately the bubble situation will benefit you if you play aggressively, as your opponents are less likely to play back at you. Okay, so in the short run you might keep running into shortstacks who hit AA/KK and lose a lot of chips, but in the long run aggressive bubble play is beneficial.

Once the bubble bursts, people loosen up. This is bad for the big stack as now he is relying on catching cards or riskier steal attempts to swell his stack.

Therefore I propose that it in many cases can benefit the big stack to keep the bubble running, and thus that a bet in this situation isn't the heinous crime some of you are making it out to be. Yes, he could have waited to the river, but he gains extra fold equity by betting earlier (I would vastly prefer a flop bet here if you're going to bet at all, but that's another story). Should people on draws always wait until the river before betting? Of course not, it depends on the situation.

Let's take a look at this.

1) Villain is less likely to win the pot against two players than against one. Thus it is in villain's interest to eliminate players from the pot.

2) JL's pushing range preflop is huge considering that he's so short stacked.

3) Even if JL doubles up, he still only has an M of about 4.

4) Buck needs a very good hand to call the turn bet, as (a) he is facing the prospect of a big river bet and is up against the only player who can bust him, and (b) it's generally expected, as this thread shows, that people will only bet in this situation with very strong hands.

I think his reasoning might have been a little more sound if his other hole card was bigger than six - say a Jack. My guess is that he put JL on A-rag and was hoping to go heads up and take the pot while knocking out the potential winner - a pair.

Just trying to figure out the reasoning...

Someone once asked "How do I become a better player?" or something like that:
The answer to that, is when you grasp the concept given by Dorkus.
Good Post.

The only time i have ever bet in such a situation is when, for whatever reason, i've failed to notice that the player is all in, and i misinterpret my opponent's efforts to check it down as weakness, so i automaticly stab at the pot without thinking.

otherwise i can't imagine any situation where i would bet, baring a considerable sidepot, or a made hand, as it seems to me that you're always better off with one less player, especially if you're 'playing to win'

finally, i had a question for Mr. Malorkus, since he was so keen on defending this play. Dorkus, would you honestly have made this play yourself if you had been in that fellow's shoes? Would anyone have?

-n

Seat 2: allinking17 (8715 in chips)
Seat 3: Qhr1s (3025 in chips)
Seat 4: gordo300 (350 in chips)
Seat 5: kala5583 (1800 in chips)
Seat 6: ReadChomsky (1450 in chips)
Seat 7: buckster436 (8025 in chips)
Seat 8: JesusLederer (635 in chips)

Here are the stacks at the beginning of the hand.
If he triples up JL with this hand, well, who cares?
Not allinking, he still has a large stack and will run over the table.
Buck will only call the paltry 400 bet if he has an above mediocre hand and will of course fold otherwise.
Allinking is trying to build a small sidepot in case he does hit his flush, and or with the small possibility that his hand is good.

This all comes down to stacksize of allinking
It also comes down to stacksize of every other player at the table.
This has relatively little to do with a) the cards he holds,
b) the strength of his hand.

Do I make this play?
Absolutely.
Do I make this play every time? Absolutely not.
Is this play correct?
As with virtually EVERY possible Hand to be discussed the correct answer is actually : It Depends.

Cool beans.

I wouldn't give RandomGuy credit for actually thinking this way, but Chris is correct all the way.

Well we could discuss this for a year and still have different opinions, I still say the rite thing is to check it down and get another player out, Anyone who wants to take a chance to triple JL up is Crazy, JL is just too good of a player to take that chance, I do like the replys here though, and ive learned a little knowledge from this. buck
HAPPY EASTER ALL

Again, I doubt AllInKing is that clever, but you do present a good case Chris. I'm not convinced yet but it does warrant some consideration. I personally believe that you gain more by eliminating opponents that late in a tournament. Allowing an opponent to double or tripple up when you could eliminate him is the equivilent of slowplaying a big hand. It could come back to bite you in the ass. I can't count the number of times I've gone from chip leader to observer in 2 or 3 bad hands.

- Well said TenBob, I agree with your sentiment completely


I agree with Four Dogs, Altruism has no place in poker. In the situation described by buckster436 I would always check it down, unless I had the nut hand. I was playing a poker tournament, (not online), in a seedy backroom of a London pool hall not two weeks ago.

There was just three of us left, with the small stack all-in on the big blind. So the Big stack and I checked it through until we got to the river, where he shakes his head and says I am sorry, I just have to bet here. It was the first time I had played this guy, but I had given him respect because I knew he was a poker dealer at a “legit” card room I use in London, and I folded my pair of nines. Anyway, all he was playing was “Ace high”, and he took the small stack out of the game. It was poor show, but at the same time, I didn’t mind so much because he was in a strong position to do that. If I was him though, I would have checked it down and given both of us the best chance to eliminate the third player, rather than risk giving the small player some more chip-ammo by risking my Ace high against him.

(Incedently, I just cut a deal with him after I doubled up with Aces. He was a good player, because he cut the deal in a flash, and I finished second then started a cash game as quite a happy chappy.)

Still, to make my own unplagiarised point; I appreciate it when someone will check down in a tournament with me, but I won’t whine about it if someone else doesn’t play my tactics. I actually think it is more of an education issue, and often, greed will take control of the minds for poker players who just don’t know any better. If in the situation - and you can type fast, mention your tactic in the chat area and hope for the best.



Peace,

Scouse.

I thought about this thread in today's buy-in at Titan.

We had an all in and two of us were checking down. On the river, I catch a card that gives me the nut straight. Now, I could have just checked down, knowing that the worst I would do is share the pot. But, this is poker and we are competing against each other, so I threw down a bet designed to extract a few more chips out of the other "checker."

It worked - I won and got a few hundred more chips, which I desperately needed. Sorry - no guilt here.

Betting into a non-existent side pot, especially with no hand and with players to eliminate, is a stupid move IMHO. You have nothing to gain (aside from 200 chips)

The only way you will get called in this situation is if you are beat, and if you are not beat you will take whats left if your hand is better than the guy you are checking down with!

Its a good thread but its basic poker IMO

And i don't think you have anything to be guilty of.

You should only feeel "guilty" if you bet into him.. he folds, and you lose to guy who is left in the pot as he is already all-in. Then you have done everyone a disservice, other than the guy you just gifted the pot.

Since when has poker been a team sport?

Must I quote myself?

This exact play? Nah. I would have either (a) reraised preflop, (b) bet the flop, or (c) checked it down. Depends on my mood, the alignment of the planets, and other fun stuff.

You are correct, you caught the NUTS, so in this situation its rite to bet, other than that i would check it down.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.....buck: hello:

You make a valid point, Chris. I didnt ignore your original post, I thought it had some valid points

I still dont agree betting into a non-existent side pot is a good move, regardless of the situation. Yes, sure you can bet on the flop but making a move in the late situation, with little to gain chip wise, I cant agree with that play

This play has NOTHING to do with gaining a few chips.
This has everything to do with keeping table dominance.

Which do you think gives you a higher +EV?
1) eliminating this player and picking up a few chips?
2) keeping the player in and running over the table for a few more orbits?

I choose #2 in this instance.

EV? - sorry what does that mean?

Equity Value... Villian loses here wich is a small amount. Yet still now keeps small stack in while still being able to bully others around some more for more chips.

Which has more equity.. Gaining a small amount by beating the small stack now not that he wouldn't mind or gaining more chips because the small stack stuck around.