How many of you will check a hand down with someone if there is a 3rd party all in? Is this considered to be a good play? It seems to reason in my mind that you should put aside that one pot, to try to move yourself, and everyone else up a spot. Maybe you win, maybe you don't, but the more people the all in guy has to go against, the more likely he will be eliminated.

Am I completely off in my line of thinking here? Cause it seems like noone ever does that.

Correct it is good play.

If its for a SNG/tournament where the the player all in will be the bubble boy, then its best to just check it out and eliminate him.

Then the table can start to play real poker and this is where you can shine, as lot of players will just feel relieved they are in the money and may loosen up which you can exploit.

Having said that, if you have the nuts when by all means raise it and go 1 on 1 and take down the big pot.

In tournaments, you usually do want to check the hand down in order to eliminate a player. There are two exceptions to the rule:

1. A side pot has formed. Betting is still acceptable to try and take down the side pot.
2. One of you has the nuts, and cannot be beat. Common courtesy here is an overbet or all-in to let the other player know you have this hand won.

A common problem I see is someone overbetting with a hand weaker than the nuts, and they cannot even beat the original all-in. Too many cash games.

Originally Posted by Juniorsdaddy

In tournaments, you usually do want to check the hand down in order to eliminate a player. There are two exceptions to the rule:

1. A side pot has formed. Betting is still acceptable to try and take down the side pot.
2. One of you has the nuts, and cannot be beat. Common courtesy here is an overbet or all-in to let the other player know you have this hand won.

A common problem I see is someone overbetting with a hand weaker than the nuts, and they cannot even beat the original all-in. Too many cash games.

That is what I see constantly, and commonly I fold, only to see them get beat by the original all in.

i check it down ill only bet if i have the absolute nuts i dont believe in betting into a side pot when hit crap like one pair etc or nothing just to have the all innner knock you out

Most of the time, in a tourney, I'd say check it down to try to eliminate the all-in.

If it's nowhere near the bubble, and the all-in has no chips to speak of (i.e., the pot is teeny), just play normally and ignore the all-in.

If on the bubble or at a crucial point (another level in the money), definitely check it down with as many people as will play. The only betting that should be done had better be with the absolute nuts. (Some will check it down with the nuts, too, but will play happily if someone tried to take a stab at the pot. Be warned.)

The point, right then, is to eliminate the all-in. Don't be a jerk and bet with nothing, leaving the all-in alive and well. The assumption that a bettor has the nuts, so most everyone else will fold and everyone is gonna see your stupid hand fail miserably.

Originally Posted by doops

Most of the time, in a tourney, I'd say check it down to try to eliminate the all-in.

If it's nowhere near the bubble, and the all-in has no chips to speak of (i.e., the pot is teeny), just play normally and ignore the all-in.

If on the bubble or at a crucial point (another level in the money), definitely check it down with as many people as will play. The only betting that should be done had better be with the absolute nuts. (Some will check it down with the nuts, too, but will play happily if someone tried to take a stab at the pot. Be warned.)

The point, right then, is to eliminate the all-in. Don't be a jerk and bet with nothing, leaving the all-in alive and well. The assumption that a bettor has the nuts, so most everyone else will fold and everyone is gonna see your stupid hand fail miserably.

I agree, if your no where near the bubble, then play normal. What I dont get is when a player forces you out of the pot with nothing, and ends up losing to the all in anyway. Is he trying to win a side pot with nothing?
Maybe I'm missing something.

it depends. if i've got AK, or QQ+...maybe JJ, it depends on what the all-in guy's range might be...i might still raise after their shove. i'm trying to profit if i think i have a good hand. if their shove covers a blind and its not worth it for me to call, i'll happily fold, i'm not greedy at all....but if i've got a good hand, i'm not so much going for the all-in guy, i'm going for everyone else who called...even if the shove wins, i can still make some chips if i play my cards right, and i'm more than happy to bet it out

if its just "correct" to call at times, even if i'm sure i've won, there's times i'm fine with checking it down with someone, especially if i know they're really tight and there's a reason they called to begin with.

Originally Posted by xnihilo82

How many of you will check a hand down with someone if there is a 3rd party all in? Is this considered to be a good play? It seems to reason in my mind that you should put aside that one pot, to try to move yourself, and everyone else up a spot. Maybe you win, maybe you don't, but the more people the all in guy has to go against, the more likely he will be eliminated.

Am I completely off in my line of thinking here? Cause it seems like noone ever does that.

It can be right, but its against the rules if you and the second villain agree to do it.

So whatever you do, don't suggest to your opponent that you both check it down.

Originally Posted by Juniorsdaddy

In tournaments, you usually do want to check the hand down in order to eliminate a player. There are two exceptions to the rule:

1. A side pot has formed. Betting is still acceptable to try and take down the side pot.
2. One of you has the nuts, and cannot be beat. Common courtesy here is an overbet or all-in to let the other player know you have this hand won.

A common problem I see is someone overbetting with a hand weaker than the nuts, and they cannot even beat the original all-in. Too many cash games.

This^^^
If you do not have the nuts, check it down. It is extremely frustrating when the other player over bets and knocks you off the winning hand only to double up the original all in.

Go to the General Poker Section, then open the Golden Archives section, on page 2 about 5 threads down from the top you will find a thread titled "Checking Down, started by Buckster. Give it a read.

Early in a game I fight for the pot. Knocking someone out then is not significant. Mostly likely the guy who shoved short is dead money and will donk it off later anyway. So knocking him out now is less of a priority than winning a bigger pot is.

If we're close to the bubble, or trying to move up payout levels, I'll check it down unless I have a monster.

I would always try to check and stay in the pot here hopeflly that way keeping the third party in also and hopefully knocking out the all inner which is 1 less person and or and usually donk lol

I usually check it down if there's no side pot and it's near the bubble. The only way I don't check is if I hit a monster on the flop and I think my oppenent will pay me. If it's a bounty tourny I'll bet if I have a decent hand I can get the bounty.

i wrote about this very thing 4 years ago on here, yet, theres still players that bet when they got nothing, if you want to look it up, its in the Archives Section,,it happens still, at least once a week in our cc games, its just as important to get a player out of the game, but no one seems to believe it,,,,,,,, buck

Originally Posted by Stu_Ungar

It can be right, but its against the rules if you and the second villain agree to do it.

So whatever you do, don't suggest to your opponent that you both check it down.

Yes. Well. That's why we discuss it here, in theoretical terms. At the table, it stinks of collusion.

The reality is that, when like-minded players check it down, without discussion, it remains inherently collusive, as you/we are acting together to try to get another person out. That said, it is also non-collusive, because it is a standard play that potentially benefits literally everyone left in the game -- and the person who is all-in is not necessarily upset, either. I don't consider it objectionably collusive, even when done against me. In fact, if I am short-stacked, go all-in and two or more people call my shove, I am happy--- if my hand holds up, I can suddenly become a big stack. Tripling-up and quadrupling up is the greatest.

if its the final table makes sense monetarily to ensure that hes eliminated

Originally Posted by zjohnzzz

if its the final table makes sense monetarily to ensure that hes eliminated

Actually, final table can be most dangerous.

The check-down does not ensure that the all-in is eliminated, it just gives all hands a chance to win, and the hope is that the all-in will be gone when the dust settles. By pitting more than one against the all-in, there is an increased likelihood that someone other than Mr. All-in will win the hand.

However, if the all-in wins, he has tripled up, at least. So he is now likely to be back in the game, and two others have decreased their stacks.

It is, therefore, rather important that anyone who calls an all-in at the final table has a hand that is reasonably capable of winning.

Then again, that is what usually happens. Final tables get wild, often, and the lead can shift many times.

Originally Posted by Juniorsdaddy

In tournaments, you usually do want to check the hand down in order to eliminate a player. There are two exceptions to the rule:

1. A side pot has formed. Betting is still acceptable to try and take down the side pot.
2. One of you has the nuts, and cannot be beat. Common courtesy here is an overbet or all-in to let the other player know you have this hand won.

A common problem I see is someone overbetting with a hand weaker than the nuts, and they cannot even beat the original all-in. Too many cash games.

Originally Posted by xnihilo82

That is what I see constantly, and commonly I fold, only to see them get beat by the original all in.

When i see that i lol, call him dumb but i don't put it in the chat box ..
I see it all to much, the only way i am taking him HU, if i have a monster.
Nice Thread Buck,,,,,

There sre som e older threads started on this subject.
I posted one,you can searh for if you like betting into a dry pot.
I have seen all to many times where someone was betting into a dry pot with middle or bottom pair forcing me to fold only to find I would have beat the all in,that is just such a common mistake I see all the time in the lo limit games.

Most times those going all in near the bubble are desperation hands. I'll raise to take my chances against them. And I like the second pot. There are times I've lost to the OB but have picked up the side pot and have increased my chip stack. Checking down is stupid. I will play whatever to have a healthy chip stack at the final table.

this is hardly ever the correct play. you should be playing to win. i will check down a hand that has some showdown value. if a bet is not likely to be called by a weaker hand. and most like my bet will only be called by a better hand. but if i got a hand that pretty strong and likely best such as TPWK i will bet to protect it. if this was a satellite then checking down would be ok. and sometimes in a tourney if the next pay spot is a huge increase.(maybe from 10th to 9th or 4th to 3rd). but for the most part play to win not just move up the pay latter.

I will almost always check it down unless there is a huge side pot and I have a very good hand or if I have the nuts and don't want the other guy to get free cards. That's when I would make a standard bet until a scare card comes and I slow down. It's nice to get those extra chips because you still have to play at least one other person and some times many more. Most of the time I check it down though.

The absolute worst is when you are in a satellite that pays the same for x amount of players. For example: There are 4 people left and top three get same prize. The short stack pushes and is called by you and one other. The flop comes all rags and the other guy bets. WTF is he thinking? Even if he has the nuts he gets no more for having more chips than the other 2 left. This kills me when people do this dumb shit. It's more annoying to me than getting slowrolled, and I really hate to be slowrolled!!!!

I had nearly a whole table limp once, and I had just over one big blind left. I shoved with K7 when it got to me and of course everbody called, the flop was like 2 7 4, and a guy with J7 pushed all in and boom it gave me instastack cuz he pushed everybody out of the pot.

I check it out when I think my hand don't beat my left opponent...

If I think it's better, I bet to get more into the pot and win more from that one...

Pending on when the player goes all in is a big thing here. If he goes all in preflop and the flop is very favorable to your hand i see no problem in betting more to get chips. Now if the person is all in after flop i may tend to check it down more.

Relationship to in the money is also way important here too 1 or 2 away, or 200 away?

Lastly there is a chance or the other player catching up ie beating you if you check it down. I can talk out of both sides of my face on this last point.

Originally Posted by Juniorsdaddy

In tournaments, you usually do want to check the hand down in order to eliminate a player. There are two exceptions to the rule:

1. A side pot has formed. Betting is still acceptable to try and take down the side pot.
2. One of you has the nuts, and cannot be beat. Common courtesy here is an overbet or all-in to let the other player know you have this hand won.

A common problem I see is someone overbetting with a hand weaker than the nuts, and they cannot even beat the original all-in. Too many cash games.

^^^This. Although already mentioned, it does also depend on where you are in your sng/mtt. Early on or near the bubble. This is such a good point I thought I'd re-iterate it.

it all depends on the situation in the tournament or sng. in most situations checking it down is the right thing to do. i was in a hand in a 9 handed sng satelitte where the top 2 player gained entry and when we were 3 handed and the short stack moved in on the button me in the BB called as did the small blind. i had 44 and flopped quads. there was abosolutely no need for me to bet as i knew i had the nuts and that the short stack would be eliminated and that gaining extra chips would be pointless.

Gpg

If only I could type...

Good thread. I get constantly surprised by this. I usually check it down unless I have the nuts. Too often, I fold to a bluff. Is there some poker etiquette we're supposed to follow?

Checking down seems to have gone out of fashion. What I don't like is if you're going to check it down:

A) hit something like 2 pairs or better on the flop, check the flop and turn then you face a big bet on the river when the other guy has hit runner, runner.
B) when another guy bets big and you immediately see he turned over a draw or high cards to the board.

So check down is fine provided the other guys are going to do it as well - how certain can you be of that.

There's nothing more infuriating than to see someone bet after an all-in, only to see his hole cards completely missed the flop after you've folded. This is particularly true when eliminating a player would have some meaning.

However, I'm not of the opinion that you need to have the nuts to make a bet in such a situation. If I have trips, a straight, a small flush, or even two pair or top pair and top kicker (assuming flushes and straights aren't likely), I'll bet. No reason to lose to runner runner flush or straight just to collaborate on eliminating a player my hand is already likely to show the door.

To be honest it does really depends on the situation. But I have no problems about still firing at the pot if I think I have the others players beat.

Originally Posted by Stu_Ungar

It can be right, but its against the rules if you and the second villain agree to do it.

So whatever you do, don't suggest to your opponent that you both check it down.

If that happened could the hand be declared dead?

Originally Posted by xnihilo82

That is what I see constantly, and commonly I fold, only to see them get beat by the original all in.

That happened in a qualifier tournament in San Diego and a fist fight almost broke out. And me being me, I yelled at the guy (along with everyone else including several people on the rail).

Depends on the situation.
It is an unwritten rule, but if you a sure to have the best hand you have to bet!
Otherwise you are correct!

Originally Posted by LizzyJ

If that happened could the hand be declared dead?

Yes.

In a tournament, the players involved could receive an infraction or be disqualified.

Verbal collusion is a direct breach of the rules.

Never bet into a dry side pot. What calls you?

In a tournament situation, it is VERY rare that any bet at a dry side pot would increase your tournament equity more than eliminating another player.

Making blanket statements like "I play it like it doesn't matter" is pretty horrible and shows a lack of understanding of tournament strategy and obliviousness to poker situational factors.

So here is the simple rule (which of course has exceptions):

Don't BLUFF into a dry (or small) side pot.

Clearly betting to protect your tp type hand, or trying to win a side pot that is often larger than the main pot is acceptable. But it is almost always incorrect to bluff into a dry or small side pot.

Also, proximity to the bubble makes a difference, the closer you are to the money, the more of a mistake it is to not maximize the chance of eliminating a player:

Originally Posted by Double-A

In a tournament situation, it is VERY rare that any bet at a dry side pot would increase your tournament equity more than eliminating another player.

Note that there could be exceptions to even this, such as actually wanting to prolong the bubble: if the situation is such that you are able to steal repeatedly because everyone has tightened up on the bubble (such as if stack sizes are such that you are able to shove every hand and accumulate chips), then of course having the bubble last longer is to your advantage.

Originally Posted by coolnout

I had nearly a whole table limp once, and I had just over one big blind left. I shoved with K7 when it got to me and of course everbody called, the flop was like 2 7 4, and a guy with J7 pushed all in and boom it gave me instastack cuz he pushed everybody out of the pot.

>>>

See, that's not a bad play. If "everybody called", *I* would've tried to isolate you with what very well could've been the best hand. I mean, there's no way J/7 will hold up against the whole table, so he has to protect it. Now, if it's just 2 callers, I'd check down. But you didn't say what part of the tourny you're in, how many players left, how many people are just trying to survive to the $, what your table image is, etc, etc. Too many variables to make *a* concrete Check Down Rule. However, in your example, if you were Bubble Boy, his play was pretty stupid. If there's one thing I hate worse than slow-rolling it's when someone *else* costs me $. Might sound silly, because in poker the object of *everyone* at the table is to cost me $, but I'd rather lose it *myself*, not when some moron (using your example again, and assuming you're Bubble Boy) knocks me off my 8/8 and then doesn't knock you out.

It depends on what's in the side pot. If the side pot is less than the main pot, then I will check it down the whole way, regardless of what I have. There is a better chance of eliminating a player if more people are in it. I know it's a better chance of getting sucked out on, but that's how I would play it.

Now, if there is a healthy side pot, and I have a good hand, I may bet. I wouldn't bluff for the side pot, though.

Originally Posted by LizzyJ

If that happened could the hand be declared dead?

No. There are pretty much no situations (short of actually throwing your cards into the muck) where your hand can be ruled dead. In this case, the players may be subject to a penalty, which would only take effect after the hand is finished.

Back to the OP... as others have mentioned, this is a subject that's come up a bunch of times on here, and the discussion never ends in agreement.

Most of the time checking the hand down is the correct thing to do. Without openly saying that's what you're doing, of course, because doing that is collusion and it's illegal. FWIW, your unspoken agreement to check the hand down is collusion as well, but because you haven't said anything nobody can prove it and penalise you for it.

But to say that you should always check the hand down in all situations is just plain silly. The most obvious situation where you might want to think about doing something else is this one:

It's on the bubble. You've got a pretty good stack, your opponents are playing super weak-tight because they want to cash, and you're making a killing stealing the blinds and antes. It's actually in your interests for the bubble to go on as long as possible, and therefore you want the short stacks to stay in. The more chips you accumulate, the better position you'll be in to take down the whole tournament. So why not bet the other players out, even if you only have a weak hand?

To my mind, at least, it's clearly both +chipEV and +$EV for us to keep the short stacks in the game, as opposed to making sure they're eliminated and guaranteeing ourselves a min-cash (which we're pretty certain to claim anyway).

I usually check it down unless i know i have the best hand and if the 3rd party bets i guess it depends how much and what you have. Also i suppose it depends if it is ring game or tourny

For me it depends on what level the tourney is in...If its on the bubble of money i will check it down..Anyother time in the tourney i will bet if i think i have the other player beat

Here's a great (and by "great" I of course mean "freaking horrible" ) example of what can happen when someone doesn't understand the check-down program. I usually don't chop when I make a FT in my local casino tournies. I figure I'm the best player, and unless I'm seriously outchipped, or unless I know/like the people making the offer, I decline. So I'm chip leader at a FT, and there's a senile old buzzard (SOB) in 2nd place. I know/like the guy, so when he says to me during a break: "Hey...if we get heads-ip, let's chop", I say ok. We get down to 3 players. I have a gazillion chips, SOB has a bazillion, and Mr Shortstack has, like, 2. So Mr SS is all-in, I call, and SOB *raises*! I fold, figuring he's got a monster, but he doesn't, and SS wins. This keeps happening. Again and a freakingain. I can't come out and say: "Hey idiot! You alreday said you'd chop with me! Check the f-ing thing down and lets go home with $500/ea!", so instead I just stare daggers at him with a "WTF!?" look on my face. Being a SOB though, he just doesn't get it, and the nearly mathmatically impossible thing happens: I get knocked out in 3rd and win about $100. I did find SOB a couple weeks later and explain to him (as nicely as I could) what a clueless player is was. He felt bad, and apologized...but he sure didn't hand me $400.

If i have top pair with a mid card then I might try and scare the other guy off to prevent one of his cards coming down.

Depends on the size of the pot though and position in the game.

Some people think it's bad poker to build a side pot and I disagree if you have a good hand then continue to bet and be aggressive. Play it just like you would play any other hand.

The check/down concept was the standard play years ago it was just understood that this would happen. The internet has expanded the player pool and made the game we all love more competitive. The check/down is still a good option if you are nearing the final table and or at the final table.

Originally Posted by rugby0

The check/down concept was the standard play years ago it was just understood that this would happen. The internet has expanded the player pool and made the game we all love more competitive. The check/down is still a good option if you are nearing the final table and or at the final table.

>>>

Good point. However (and I'll sound like The Old Guy), it seems that things like morality, common courtesy and common *sense* are disappearing everywhere these days, and that includes the poker table. I mean, how many times are you involved in a hand o/l when someone types: "I folded 9/10" (Usually on a flop of 10/10/9, after you've just bet trying to represent that you have a 10)? Or here's another one I *really* hate: the bet is 100, and someone raises 199 (or some other stupid odd amount). Both of these would get you, if not kicked out of a casino, and least slapped around by your tablemates or dealer. Same with check-downs. There's plenty of times to *not* do it (that have been described here), but quite often you see people bluff into the empty side pot either because they're complete a-holes or completely clueless.

Only 1 of 2 presumptions will prevail in an allin situation - either they win or they lose. Therefore, I always try to evaluate why myself and each player is in the hand in order to decide the best course of action. When I have a premium hand, I try to isolate to protect my hand or create a side pot to get value for my hand. Otherwise, I fold.

I completely despise passive preflop plays that induce repetitive SS allins such as limping to price them in or several flat-calls following the allin, which only seem to benefit the allin.

I prefer that myself or someone else take charge so that situation does not arise (multiway allin pot that is checked down).