Check it down or not??

Grossberger

Grossberger

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
May 12, 2009
Total posts
2,066
Chips
0
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
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​
you do not want to break.
 
peacebrother

peacebrother

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Total posts
121
Chips
0
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. :)
 
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
*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
 
Grossberger

Grossberger

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
May 12, 2009
Total posts
2,066
Chips
0
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.
 
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
*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?
 
J

JEP712

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Total posts
538
Chips
0
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:
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
If you don't flop a good hand, there is no point to risk more chips betting your opponent out the pot...

...unless you're making a killing on the bubble and you want it to go on for as long as possible, or you can see some image benefits to being seen as a maniac that outweigh eliminating a player, or you think putting other players at the table on monkey tilt is a benefit that will outweigh eliminating a player...

*sigh*
 
J

JEP712

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Total posts
538
Chips
0
...unless you're making a killing on the bubble and you want it to go on for as long as possible, or you can see some image benefits to being seen as a maniac that outweigh eliminating a player, or you think putting other players at the table on monkey tilt is a benefit that will outweigh eliminating a player...

*sigh*

LOL. Sorry, I forgot to mention that. Bubble play FTW!
 
Weregoat

Weregoat

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Total posts
665
Chips
0
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.
 
ihtennis

ihtennis

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 23, 2009
Total posts
233
Chips
0
ive got no problem with people betting into an empty side pot as long as they have a halfway decent hand, but it annoys me went someone bets into an empty sidepot, it is just pointless and you gain nothing out of it
 
S

shnish

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Total posts
14
Chips
0
*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

thank you for posting this again exorcist i never thought about those things and i agreee with that last couple reasons ecspeially thanks again !!
 
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
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 :p
 
ckingriches

ckingriches

Lucky Multiple League MVP
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Total posts
2,315
Awards
9
Chips
1
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?
 
salim271

salim271

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Total posts
1,678
Chips
0
I think this form of 'collusion' should only be put forward when its going to change how much everyone is going to get paid... Phil Gordon says it and i repeat it ^_^.
 
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
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?

A... what?!? :confused:

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.
 
ckingriches

ckingriches

Lucky Multiple League MVP
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Total posts
2,315
Awards
9
Chips
1
The "Werbe Onesie" reference is from the poker movie "The Grand". If you haven't seen it, make sure you do; it's hilarious.
 
Last edited:
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
The "Werbe Onesie" reference is from the poker movie "The Grand". If you haven't seen it, make sure you do; it's hilarious.

Seen it, enjoyed it, don't remember that bit though
 
Kasanova King

Kasanova King

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Total posts
798
Chips
0
I don't find anything wrong with either action. Staring a side pot is fine also - AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A HAND. Bluffing a dry side pot is just pure moronic.
 
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
I don't find anything wrong with either action. Staring a side pot is fine also - AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A HAND. Bluffing a dry side pot is just pure moronic.... unless one of the conditions Oz mentioned above is fulfilled

FYP :p
 
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
Touche - that makes a little sense - but really, how often does that happen???

*shrugs*

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"
 
lektrikguy

lektrikguy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Total posts
1,559
Chips
0
I tried to read all that article but then I looked out the window and saw an guy trip and fall on the sidewalk. Now I'm laughing so hard I lost interest in your post. Sorry.
 
Rldetheflop

Rldetheflop

Head Ranger
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Total posts
1,959
Chips
0
*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?


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.
 
Rldetheflop

Rldetheflop

Head Ranger
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Total posts
1,959
Chips
0
...unless you're making a killing on the bubble and you want it to go on for as long as possible, or you can see some image benefits to being seen as a maniac that outweigh eliminating a player, or you think putting other players at the table on monkey tilt is a benefit that will outweigh eliminating a player...

*sigh*

Youve never been the big stack on the bubble and the shortstack manages to double up (either from ahead or behind) then another player sucks out to stay alive and the blinds keep climbing you are card dead and every time you try to steal others have monsters all of the sudden the bubble bursts but you are the one out?

has to me and Im sure it has happened to anyone with a large number of tourneys. Burst the bubble and guarantee money.
 
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
Youve never been the big stack on the bubble and the shortstack manages to double up (either from ahead or behind) then another player sucks out to stay alive and the blinds keep climbing you are card dead and every time you try to steal others have monsters all of the sudden the bubble bursts but you are the one out?

has to me and Im sure it has happened to anyone with a large number of tourneys. Burst the bubble and guarantee money.

Sure it's happened to me. Doesn't make what I said any less valid, don't be so results oriented.
 
Top