Checking it down

I don't know if this should be common sense or if this is part of poker skills but if a short-stack is all-ined and two people call, isn't it best to check it down unless you have a very good hand that you're willing to take their chips as well? I've seen so many of this common mistakes and rookie blunders done by lot of retards who bluff into an empty side pot.

For example, I have about 4500 chips. Another big stack has about 9000 chips. Short-stack only had about 333 chips and blinds were at 300/150. Shortstack went all in. I was big blind and I just had to put 33 chips more to stay in the pot. Same goes for bigstack who was small blind. Flop came up 44J. This retarded bigstack betted into an empty side pot with A7o. I obviously folded because my Q6o is no good. 6 comes up on the river. shortstack had AQo, winning by a kicker. I thought it should be common sense that people should check it down since there's no profit from bluffing into an empty side pot because purpose is to beat short-stack all-ined player. This was during bubble play too.

I believe this is more of common sense than having poker skills. People who have common sense would know that bluffing into an empty side pot when there's short-stack player who's all-ined is a retarded play. I only bet into an empty side pot if I have strong hand where I'm willing to eliminate my opponent too or I'm sure I have short-stack player dominated and kick my opponent off the pot.

It is VERY annoying when some donkey makes a play for a pot instead of doubling the chance of a knockout, but if the all-in player is down to 1 BB (and especially if they are a sit-out!) it doesn't really matter, they are as good as gone 95% of the time and you've a great note on the idiot too- as it is obviously gonna go to a showdown so you get a glimpse of his range!
Yes, it is kinda poker etiquette to check a pot like this down to the river, but in certain circumstances it hardly matters. The short-stack's all-in is just a bit of juice for the pot, and it can be played out between other players as usual.
It does depend on levels though. In a freeroll full of sit outs, it wont matter. In a decent stake tourney where a double or triple-up could fetch a player back into the game...check down 100% of the time.

Well, its about optimising your Ev isnt it.
No point into bluffing into dead money, like some people often do, but unless its on the bubble, or final table, I think building stack is more important for your Ev than knocking people out.

And another thing to remember, even if its obvious at times, you should never suggest or tell anyone to check it down in these situations. Its against the rules, and can get you disqualifyed.

I know it's illegal to tell them to check it down. But as common sense, it's wise to check it down when u don't have anything. It's a silent consent people have to play solid poker. Like you said, if you have something, then you optimize to increase your chipstack by betting. If you have your opponent beat, you should bet and kick him off the pot. But bluffing into an empty side pot is very stupid and retarded.

I know that building stack is important. But there's nothing to gain from bluffing into an empty side pot. If you're called, you're only called by a better hand. If they fold, you don't win anything from a player who folded and you still need better hand than all-ined player to eliminate all-ined player. There's nothing to gain from bluffing into an empty side pot. But yet, there are retards who semi-bluff or bluff into an empty side pot. I don't think this is about poker. It's about whether people have common sense or not. When people bet into an empty side pot, it usually tries to imply "i'm sure I have all-ined player beat but i'm also willing to take ur chips too or i don't want u to draw or get a better hand"

It's very annoying when retards bluff into an empty side pot that has no expected value and gain.

Majority of the time that is what I try to do is check down. Especially if its the bubble player. seen to many times that player ends up winning because you get push out and they come back and take you out.

This is a contentious issue. It's not hard to agree that checking down is fine when knocking one person out is meaningful. However, there are differences as the what's meaningful. Just as an example, if you're right on the bubble in a satellite tournament, it's pretty clear that one more bustout is meaningful. However, how many players before that do you start checking down hands?

The key thing is to do what's best for you. As an example, if you're the monster stack in a tournament near the bubble and people are letting you steal at will, it's possible to make a reasonable argument that checking down isn't in your best interest.

Check downs are more common during live play. On-line, I don't think most of the players understand what that is.

Understand?? More like "don't have the slightest clue" about most things 'poker' ...

I just played $1 27 player sng. won it. I ran into another dumb bigstack who tried to bluff into an empty side pot when I had a boat. I had pocket 10s and had 10s full of 5. it was hilarious. Since he was being a dumbass, I slow-rolled and took him out. On the river, he pushed all-in, I clicked on time, took my time, then called at last second. I won the whole tourney just by taking him out since I became a dominating chip leader and pressured lot of people using big stack strategy. It was hilarious how there are so many idiots who bluff into an empty side pot.

From now on, I have new approach against dumbasses when I have very strong hand. If some idiot bets into an empty side pot while I have nuts or strong hand of full house or better, I'm gonna slow-roll and take all my time. Of course, if the texture of the board is dangerous of flush draws and straight draws, then I have to bet it out if I don't have a boat or better. I'm having fun of slowrolling idiots. I usually don't slowroll but I just enjoyed slowrolling during that time.

You certainly shouldnt suggest it during the hand but, after the hand you can educate players about alternate ways to play the situation.