New Players>Checking it Down

ive noticed a lot of new players Dont check it down when theres an Allin player in the pot,, i Cant say this enough, When theres an Allin player in the pot, Check it Down, UNLESS you got the NUTS, (best hand nobody can beat ) besides winning a pot its also just as Important to get Players Eliminated and move up a place, especially if your in the money already,ive seen to many players Bet, with Nothing, then the other player folds and the Allin player wins the pot, in MTT`s its just as importamt to get players OUT,,Remember this please,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, buck

OMG I hate this. People constantly throwing in continuation bets even though their AK missed, then pushing out the winning hand. So annoying. If you've got a made hand then I can understand wanting to get some extra value out of it, but each player out is often more money in you pocket. This is only an issue in MTT's though, as I personally am a big fan of side pots in cash games.

Totally agree.

Had it happen at the weekend where i only had bottom pair and Mr Agrro i shall call him decided that with a K&Q on the flop he would bet again with what turned out to be his 9-3 .

Luckily for me the all-in took the hand with the K - but why bet again with 9-3 insane and annoying.

He didnt last much longer and i made the money Karma

I disagree, there are plenty of times to bet without the nuts. In fact if someone is all-in and there's a significant side-pot, bluffing could even be beneficial to you. Depending on stack sizes, getting an elimination isn't even always good. If you're a big stack on the bubble, you want people in as long as possible, so you can continue to push people around who are scared of busting.

Now the one thing that people don't seem to understand, is that if there is no side pot, bluffing achieves nothing. If you get a better hand to fold, you win exactly 0 chips. That is stupid. But if there's money in the side pot, or you are in danger of being outdrawn (say AJ on a JT7 board with 2 clubs), betting is also fine.

I just disagree with your logic, you do not check it down to eliminate a player, the goal in the tournament is to accumulate all the chips, not just wait for people to bust out. The better logic is that bluffing into an empty or close to empty side pot does absolutely nothing good. There are several good reasons though, to first off bluff with a substantial side pot, and second to bet without the nuts even when the side pot IS empty. Poker isn't a team sport, you should always be doing your best to increase your expected winnings in the tournament, if that includes checking it down, then it does. But there are many situations where it's appropriate not to check it down, who cares if the short to medium stacks on the bubble are unhappy, they shouldn't have gotten short in the first place .

+1 for agree. Rookie players should let the more intelligent, more creative and more experienced players make the decisions as to whether the getting a large stacked opponent to fold is more EV than allowing the small stack to stay in.

just happened to me Last week Zach,, player Bets, i have 4 4 and fold, player that had bet had K Q and the Allin had A K, and won the hand with Ace High,,, Its Very Important to Eliminate Players too, you keep playin that way Zach you going to lose a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$,,,buck

Deja Vu

CHECKING DOWN

and I know you've done more threads about it as well.

I'm pretty sure that Zach is a much more successful player than you, and your respective posts on this thread are a good indication as to why. You have to accept that there are levels of thinking above yours when it comes to poker (many, many levels).

I'm personally a follower of the check it down to get rid of a player notion. However, as with all things in poker, there are no absolutes. In my case unless there is a significant side pot, there just is no reason to bluff at a pot.

Only (IMO) when the shorty was very short, like below the BB, is there any overwhelmingly great reason to bet at a pot that will do more good by eliminating a player than gaining a few chips.

I always check it down if i have nothing, but if I've caught something pretty good on the flop, or turn, i will bet it, it doesnt have to be the nuts.

Betting with nothing into a dry sidepot makes no sense. Betting with nothing into a significant sidepot can make perfect sense.

I actually don't mind letting shorty hang around at the end of tourneys if I have a significant chip lead at the bubble or just ITM. Just having a shortstack at the table means people are waiting for him to bust before they risk their tournament life. This is primetime for stealing and accumulating the chips needed to win.

lol, well first off I rarely play tournaments so anything I say on this topic should be taken with a grain of salt. Basically though, there are no details to this, but it looks like KQ did make a bad play, he bluffed into a dry side pot. If you had a hand, you'd call him and he'd lose the money he put in, and if you didn't have hand enough to call, as was the case here, you fold and he wins absolutely nothing. So you are absolutely right in some cases. Now if there was a side pot, say all-in shoves, KQ or you raised, the other called. Then there's money in the side pot and KQ bet and when you folded he picked up the side pot even if he couldn't beat the all-in. But from the sound of it KQ made a stupid play, and you're right he hurt himself, but the worst part was in that his expected chip gain for that play is negative. Sure eliminating a player is important, but the biggest problem was that the play hurts him when you wake up with a hand.

I'm just saying you should not make it an absolute, especially in a forum where many new players will be reading this and just take it as gospel. We need to look at the reasoning behind why we do things. There's nothing worse than a beginner learning things like this without understanding the logic behind it, and then as they progress never fully grasping why this is the case. I believe that even if some of this logic may be over some beginners' heads, that they should still be exposed to the why behind it. Basically for most new players checking down when a player is all-in probably is good advice, because it is true the majority of the time and most people who are new won't be getting into details on when it is good/bad to bet.

But you claim I will lose a lot of money, when the entire basis of my post was that we should examine the impact on our expected return (code phrase for money) from the tournament and make our decision based on that. You're making a one size fits all blanket statement and I'm saying we should make our decision based on which one makes us more money, and you're telling me my "way" of playing will lose me a lot of money?

Lol @ Zach. Figured as much.

I do play tournies, and I have little doubt that Buck is broadly correct. Obviously it`s situational, but there aren`t many situations where you should run a major risk of doubling up the short-stack when you could have eliminated him.

As a very generalised rule you probably can't go wrong with this Buck. But the very generalised part is important.

A few things, a decent sized size pot changes things drastically. Flopping a good but vunerable hand generally means you should bet to protect it. ie A♥ K♥ on a A♣ 7♣ 6♦ board, checking there is generally incorrect, even if your hand is second best to the allin player. But for a new player before you are good at reading flop textures, going with what the OP says is usually good.

As a very generalised point for beginners, I'll agree with it.

There can be lots of good reasons for ignoring it though. Some of these include:

- There's more money in the main pot than the side pot.
- You've got a semi-vulnerable hand, like in tenbob's example
- You've got a solid (but non-nut) hand and you think you can extract significant value from the third player
- It's the bubble and you're making an absolute killing stealing pots from the players trying to fold into the money
- Implied tilt odds (something the "You have to check down every time no matter what" crew should really stop and think about)

Yes, I know I'll likely cop flak over this and I'll grant, often checking it down will be the right thing to do. But there are valid reasons for doing otherwise sometimes.

I think there's an even more important thing that new players need to focus on though:

Never, EVER actually say "Let's check it down" to the third player.

That takes what you're doing over the implied collusion line and straight into actual collusion territory. And actual collusion can score you a penalty.

In fact, if anyone ever says that to me, I'll often bet. Partially because they obviously don't want me to, partially to punish them for being so stupid, and partially so there can be no complaints about collusion.

he may well be more sucesfull than me, i dont really care, but who here can say they deposited 1 time to neteller $40. ya forty dollars, 2 1/2 yrs. ago, and ive cashed out over $ 2600. and still have about $500. in a few sites,, last time i deposited was in September of 2005, thats 2 1/2 years ago and that 40 bucks has taken me this far without depositing again, theres probally a hand full that have dont that,, ill Never get rich playing poker, but im satisfied with what ive done,,im not bragging,im just making a statement that im ok with playing the way i do,, buck

I do how ever stare at their names on the screen and hope they pick up what im thinking 'check it'

Of course there is a difference in not checking & checking when playing in cash games or a tourney, as in a tourney you could be knocking someone out and getting closer to the/more money

Exactally ian,, i based this on MTT`s,, i Rarely play cash games and i know its a bit different,, Staring at screen, Mmmmmm, maybe ill try that buck

Ok, I will come right out and admit that I have only been playing for maybe 10 months, but would someone PLEASE explain "checking it down" to this uber noob?

basically, if neither of you have a hand, or much of one against an all-inner in a mtt/sng, you check it down so that hopefully one of you hits or has a better hand and takes out the all-inner. Think thats right...............

When a short-stack goes all-in and is called by more than 1 other player, "checking it down" is that unspoken agreement between the players to NOT push each other out of the pot to increase the chances of eliminating the short-stack.

but you do get idiots typing in te chat-box,'check it down, ok?'.............sites treat this as collusion

I am that beginner that this thread speaks of(no, not the one in any particular game, just a good representation of a newb), and I hear what you're saying about checking it down, both pro and con. But let me offer support for the Tilt factor.... When I know I've made a mistake, supported by the offended party's chat, it presents an opportunity for me to think and find a very profitable trap. And no elixir on earth is sweeter to taste then that produced from taking a large bite from a more experienced, pissed off player, whose giving me crap for a rookie mistake that I've made.

Also why do I want to see a stronger player build his chip stack and gain more leverage over me?.... Isn't it in my best interest for less skilled players of my own level to be in the tourney perhaps getting lucky and taking out stronger players? Don't I stand a better chance of finishing higher when matched against them in a hand instead of Mr. experience?

Not trying to be stupid here, but it seems to me that you experienced players can forget where you came from and often fail to look at things from our viewpoint. In particular if you want us to make a change, stop demeaning us when we've made a bonehead play, we might take it personally. Better to take a breath, then offer advice with a patient attitude. Then we will appreciate what you have done and listen too future advice. Otherwise we tend to think your just an A hole who we could care less about at the felt.

First, if you want advice get it here because when we're playing the most I'm ever going to say to you even if you're the biggest, luckiest, suckyoutiest (I'm sure that's in Webster's) donkey in the world is "nh". Why would I want you to play better against me?

Second, this little lesson, helps both players who are checking it down. By eliminating the shorty both players move further up in the tournament by eliminating a player and generally the pot isn't very big compared to the blinds, so losing the pot is secondary to getting rid of an opponent.

QFT

ok first off I'd like to say that Rob does not speak for me, for the purpose of this or any poker argument, how much money anyone has made is irrelevant. I talk about my money in my blog (yes I know, shameless advertising ) but you'll notice I'm not going to talk about any of that in most of the forums because it's simply irrelevant. A good solid poker strategy shouldn't have to have authority backing it, it should make sense on its own.

Basically, I haven't said that this is a bad guideline, I'm just saying that it's not always in the best interest of everyone to eliminate a player, and that if the side pot is big enough, bluffing for that can give you enough of a chip advantage to justify letting a small stack stay in and not bust.

Basically my problem is this - I always like to understand things, I don't like just memorizing stuff. This goes from topics like poker, baseball, math, etc. When I was learning addition we learned about number bases so we would understand why we carry when we get to 10. It's how I've been raised to learn. I approach everything that way. So for that reason I just cannot stand it when basic rules are stated without the corresponding logic behind it. It may be the fastest way to start making money to just teach beginners the basic strategy without any logic, and believe me that's how a lot of people learn.

Many people (even on this site) still don't understand topics such as why we bet. So sure if the beginners in this section are looking for the fast track to beating the low-stakes sngs they can probably follow guidelines like that, but if they're actually trying to learn the game, it's important to understand why we do things. That way, they'll recognize the exceptions, and figure out for themselves when to do different things, rather than just be like "well the forum topic said never to bet when a player is all-in without the nuts". The great thing about nlhe is that there are an infinite amount of situations and the best players are the ones who understand the game and can adapt to new situations. I understand this is the beginner's section, but we need to be teaching these people the reasoning behind why we do things, not just general guidelines that could be true 95% of the time. Because it's that 5% that will make a decent player into a great one.

As I mentioned, I'm still learning, hell I'll never stop learning about the game, that's what's so great about it. As long as poker's still around I'll hopefully still be involved and learning about it in 50 years. There's always more to learn. So I apologize if I come off as a bit harsh, I'm certainly not trying to say I'm superior to anyone, I'm just saying I think we need to approach giving advice to newer players as a good foundation for learning, helping them to understand the basic concepts before they start getting into advanced topics without having fully mastered the fundamentals. I've been playing poker for several years now and only as recent as within a year did I learn the logic behind why we bet and the reasoning behind the plays I make. That's when I stopped becoming a gambler and became a real poker player. I'm trying to help other players the same way. The sooner you start approaching the game with an attempt to understand it and don't try to take shortcuts and memorize rules, the more successful you'll be imo. This is true in many aspects of life, but definitely poker.

Sorry for the length, seems like I'm writing a book lol.

I concur.

I have to agree with Zach and OzExorcist on this one. There are times where betting is a better play than checking, such as having a made but vulnerable hand. Maybe the buckster you should have said that there is absolutely no reason to ever BLUFF at a dry side pot it is not always correct to check down a dry side pot.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but this is for anyone who is thinking of betting into an empty side pot with a weak (or non-existent) hand. The person you're up against might be very strong, and may be checking it down for the reasons explained in this thread.

I've checked down some pretty strong hands in tournaments, and I've also busted a few players out just because they were stupid enough to bluff the side pot.

It's like, "Well, I wasn't going to bet, but now that you've opened up the side pot, I think I'll bust you too."

As a general rule you should check it down, sure, but i don't think it is correct to say you should always check it down. First of all it is very rare that there is no side pot, and in many cases the side pot is actually as large, or larger, than the main pot.

Another thing is that by betting into even a dry side pot, alot of ppl will call with pretty marginal hands simply because they want to eliminate the all in player and since you "shouldn't" bet into a dry side pot they just can't bring themselves to fold. So if you hit a good hand you can actually often create a nice side pot. That said, the only time i remember actually betting into an all in pot was with 2nd nut flush or something, and that was largly because the donk in the pot had bet after the flop into a dry side pot so there was a nice side pot.

However, donks who make cbets into all in pots with A high or middle pair etc. should be shot.

zachvac

I'd like to thank you for taking the time to express this viewpoint. It may slow my progress, but any new skill that I am trying to develop is of little practical use to me without this underlying base of logic. Without it I personally am unable to think outside of the box when a creative answer would better serve me.