Check it down while someone is all in?

[jaggibson]

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.

 

[StormRaven]

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.

 

[trewtrew]

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.

 

[lcid86]

Gpg

 

[lcid86]

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?

 

[ItsMe]

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.

 

[ckingriches]

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.

 

[The Dark Side]

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.

 

[LizzyJ]

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?

 

[LizzyJ]

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).

 

[RA2000]

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!

 

[Stu_Ungar]

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.

 

[Double-A]

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.

 

[aliengenius]

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:

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.

 

[SoCalJD]

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.

 

[Mortis]

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.

 

[OzExorcist]

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).

 

[MLG_King_v2]

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

 

[Pokerdude420]

Money

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

 

[SoCalJD]

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.

 

[chuG]

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.

 

[elbandiddo32]

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.

 

[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.

 

[SoCalJD]

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.

 

[RedEe]

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).