Betting when a player is all in

Many times I have seen complaints on the table when a player is all in and another player makes a bet to put 1 or more others out of the hand. I would like to hear what some of you think about whether or not you should make that play. The complainers say you should never make a bet when another player is all in. Their argument is that you want as many people as possible to stay in the hand to put that person out. But what if there are a lot of chips at stake and you hit a nice hand? Or if after the flop you have a nut flush draw? Where would you draw the line?

If its final table, id check it down if theres no side pot, unless i have a certified monster.

Because then any hand thatd beat mine wouldnt fold anyway.

Sometimes i see people checking down till river then betting, its like giving a chance to the rest to make a hand to bust the player out.

But if its not final table, theres no point to checking down whatsoever in my opinion.

Thanks guys - I will read this when I am not working.

I am mostly talking in sng's - but playing more mtt's now, so interested in those situations too.

Fukk em if they don't like it - bluffing into a dry side pot is not only a proper play, but it's +EV for the player making the play, as well.

How is bluffing into a dry sidepot +EV? You are still having to face the other hand no matter what. You may increase your chances of winning but I don't think it is +EV to bluff. You are not bluffing off the person all-in to take the pot so you are not really stealling anything with that bluff.

The only time I will not bet into a dry sidepot is at a final table where knocking someone out will greatly increase my winnings. You have to be in chip accumulation mode till then so if I hit, I will bet it out. You have to win every pot when you hit so bet it if you got it.

This is one of those funny rules that people play by but nobody can tell you where they got it from. I don't remember reading it anywhere. It is just one of those things that everybody knows but don't get when to use it accordingly.

go ahead and bet

I'm with the consensus here - unless there is a specific, tangible benefit to knocking out the all-in player (for example, on the bubble, final table, etc), play it like any other hand. Eliminating 1 guy in a field of 60 is not a real benefit - the chips should be more of a concern than the elimination.

And even if there IS benefit to eliminating the player, there are times when its appropriate to bet out. If 1/2 your chips are already in the middle, and you flop a good but breakable hand (for example, you have [Qs] [Js] and the flop come [Qh] [Jh] [9s]), you should bet out. Yes eliminating someone is good, but you still have to make sure your stack has the best chance of surviving/increasing to win or at least place higher.

it is costumary to check down get that one player out,thats one less to suckout on you but if you have a monster bet medium so they dont fold but be prepared to go all in,and get beat. i usaully check it down it doesnt piss anyone off and they go after you every hand.???????

It's only really when you're down to the last few in a tournament, and eliminating a player will increase both remaining players' real money expectation.

In a cash game or any other stage of a tournament, go ahead and bet for value or to get your opponent to fold.

Forgetting about bubble situations, final tables etc. So is the mid stages of an MTT and the pot is big, with several callers. Flopping a good but not great hand TPTK/2Pair type hands should almost always be bet out strongly. Flopping a drawing hand like your flush draw, you should generally take your free cards if your oppenents are prepared to check it down, and always bet out if you make your hand. Making a flat pot odds call from say the BB with a weak holding, you should be prepared to check down unless you catch a piece of the flop.

Things like semi-bluffing into a dry side pot makes no sense, your flush draw example above.

Thanks guys, your responses are very helpful.

I fall on the side of checking down most all in situations whether it is a cash game or a tournament. The obvious exception is when you have the absolute nuts. My reasons for this are simply due to experience. I have seen way too many people come back from the dead to win tournaments because players wouldn't check down the hand. The usual irony is that a checkdown would've eliminated the player that ends up winning but someone wants to overplay top pair and end up losing to 2 smaller pairs.

Having said that, I used to get really ticked off when people would bet into a checkdown situation. Now, I'll just say I hope you have the nuts and fold if I don't have anything.

Most of these answers seem to apply to a tournament situation. What if you are in a 9 player sng?

SNG's

dakota-xx said:

Most of these answers seem to apply to a tournament situation. What if you are in a 9 player sng?

Click to expand...

SNG's you should always play your hand. Typically only the last 2 or 3 places pay, and 3rd place never pays all that well. You should be playing to win and win only in single table SNG's - for the amount of time you invest, it's not worth playing just to be "in the money."

pendijo said:

it is costumary to check down get that one player out,thats one less to suckout on you but if you have a monster bet medium so they dont fold but be prepared to go all in,and get beat. i usaully check it down it doesnt piss anyone off and they go after you every hand.???????

Click to expand...

Where and when do people learn this? I am not picking on anyone in particular here, I just want to know. Can someone tell me, I have never read it anywhere but people seem to all know about it in the worse way, "check it down NO MATTER WHAT."

medeiros13, how many times have you had the best hand on the flop only to get rivered by the other guy on these "check it down" spots. Yes, sometimes the all-in will beat me and then go on and do well. How many times do you let some river you because you "played nice" and then finishes ahead of you when you normally would win that pot because you bet. I think the second is alot worse than the first. I want every chip at the table as fast as possible. If I hit a flop I will bet it out.

Poker is all about controlled aggression. I will bet into dry sidepots all the time to defend a hand that I think is the winner. I will never bluff into one becuase you are gaining nothing since you will have to play the other hand no matter what.

The only time I see this work is if it will increase my winnings subsantially, $50-100 or more. Then I will allow people to mod the all-in to try and bust.

Small time S&Gs I may if it puts me in the money but after that forget about it, it is all about first. Here chips are more valuable because there are not as many to collect. Turbos I will never check it down, the blinds go up way to fast as it is.

At least 2 different situations.
All in preflop.
All in post flop.

Today for example in Omaha Hi, player a has 1000, b has 3000, i have 4000
A goes all in preflop. I got QQ910, and call, player b calls. Flop come AKQ
I bet my trips, and draw, player b calls my bet making him all in. TUrns out he has j10. Turn is K, I got my boat, river x. All in went in with kkxx, get the bigger boat, but I got most of player b's chips.

Had Player a not done his allin preflop, but post flop, I might have checked it down, though I think player b would have bet his straight before the turn paired the board.

players get annoyed (and perhaps rightfully) when a player initiates betting in that scenario without a made hand as this clears the way and gives protection to the all in opponent.

If they have a made hand then I say they have every right to protect it and/or grow the pot but bluffing a table or betting a draw against a wholly committed opponent with no side pot just doesn't make sense to me.

Time and time again, this act of protection sees the all-in win when another opponent would have made their draw, and have that all-in come back to haunt the table.

Get em out and worry about the spoils later.

This doesn't apply a jot to me if there is a sidepot of any significance.

I think it was in the TJ Cloutier book on tourneys where he talked about taking players aside in the breaks to talk to them about checking down to maximized the chances of the all in player getting knocked out. I had it out of the library so I can't look it up.

In a sit n go I never bet unless i have the ultimate nuts, better to eliminate rather than bluff and have that all in player come back to life and kill everyone. Seen that happen hundreds of times.

Bluff, Bet, or Chase?

This subject seems to be winding down...but I will throw in my 2-cents worth.

First, I agree that this is one of those "rules" that seems to make no sense unless you understand the concept behind it. Checking down has only ONE purpose, to knock out the allin player. But, you also have to remember that you have another objective in the hand...win chips, if you can. So, here is what I do.

If I don't have a made hand AND one that I believe will win, I check it down. If I have a hand I believe will win (which can now meet BOTH my objectives), I will bet. Why check it down? If the allin beats me, he probably was gonna beat the other player also. I don't require the nuts to bet into this pot. But I do require a strong hand...at least TP/strong kicker.

I WOULD NEVER BLUFF OR BET A DRAW in this situation! That is just plain STUPID.

Okay, now what if my bet ran off the hand what would have won on the river and the allin ends up beating me? Well, first, I am not out any more chips for making my bet. Second, think about the odds of this happening. The opponent who folded had to fold the best hand or get lucky and draw the winner AND the allin has to beat my hand. I will take these odds when I have a good hand to bet on. Again, what am I out...no chips, just an opponent who got a second life in the tourney. But hey, he was in the game before this hand. Bummer, but not a big deal. IMO

Let them whine all they want, I had a similar experience earlier today, I had K-Jos 1 player went all-in two others called I also called b/c the all-in was less than 1/4 my stack, the flop gave me a full house, the 2 others checked and I made a big bet and had the others fold.
I had won the hand and 1 had the nerve to ask "Don't believe in checking down?", "Not with a full house" I immediately shot back.
I never check it down if I have the nuts.

i watched a guy make a buy at a dry side pot with 6 high, when a king fell on the river. he pushed out pocket 10's that would have put the all-in all-out. to me, that's a dumb bet.

give me a break

depending on circumstances like stack size, bubbles, etc. YOU ARE STILL PLAYING your opponents. There is no crying in baseball! If you want genteel action join a bridge club. Depending on how many have called the all-in action, forcing out your opposition with a made hand or a bluff is all part of the game. Don't cry about not getting a chance to draw a set on the river... you are not playing the short stack all-in you are playing the big stack who calls it. If you are stupid enough to bluff out a winner and allow the all-in to hang around you deserve to get thumped.

admb0m said:

i watched a guy make a buy at a dry side pot with 6 high, when a king fell on the river. he pushed out pocket 10's that would have put the all-in all-out. to me, that's a dumb bet.

Click to expand...

A bet into a dry pot without a made hand is a dumb bet. Agreed.

Heraclitus said:

depending on circumstances like stack size, bubbles, etc. YOU ARE STILL PLAYING your opponents....forcing out your opposition with a made hand or a bluff is all part of the game.

Click to expand...

If we are still speaking of a three way hand with no side pot yet formed and one player allin, ONLY a made hand (and maybe some would argue a really good draw) should be betting. Why in the world would anyone bluff in this situation? If your bluff is successful, YOU WIN NOTHING.