CHECKING DOWN

[Scouse]

Nice thread Buck, i remember myself and Dorkus checking down against Ian a few weeks back on Stars. I actually had 2 pair that time but there was a possible straight on the board.

Betting on the river here should only be done when your holding the nut hand, IMO.

- Well said TenBob, I agree with your sentiment completely


I agree with Four Dogs, Altruism has no place in poker. In the situation described by buckster436 I would always check it down, unless I had the nut hand. I was playing a poker tournament, (not online), in a seedy backroom of a London pool hall not two weeks ago.

There was just three of us left, with the small stack all-in on the big blind. So the Big stack and I checked it through until we got to the river, where he shakes his head and says I am sorry, I just have to bet here. It was the first time I had played this guy, but I had given him respect because I knew he was a poker dealer at a “legit” card room I use in London, and I folded my pair of nines. Anyway, all he was playing was “Ace high”, and he took the small stack out of the game. It was poor show, but at the same time, I didn’t mind so much because he was in a strong position to do that. If I was him though, I would have checked it down and given both of us the best chance to eliminate the third player, rather than risk giving the small player some more chip-ammo by risking my Ace high against him.

(Incedently, I just cut a deal with him after I doubled up with Aces. He was a good player, because he cut the deal in a flash, and I finished second then started a cash game as quite a happy chappy.)

Still, to make my own unplagiarised point; I appreciate it when someone will check down in a tournament with me, but I won’t whine about it if someone else doesn’t play my tactics. I actually think it is more of an education issue, and often, greed will take control of the minds for poker players who just don’t know any better. If in the situation - and you can type fast, mention your tactic in the chat area and hope for the best.



Peace,

Scouse.

 

[lightning36]

I thought about this thread in today's buy-in at Titan.

We had an all in and two of us were checking down. On the river, I catch a card that gives me the nut straight. Now, I could have just checked down, knowing that the worst I would do is share the pot. But, this is poker and we are competing against each other, so I threw down a bet designed to extract a few more chips out of the other "checker."

It worked - I won and got a few hundred more chips, which I desperately needed. Sorry - no guilt here.

 

[colin_147]

Betting into a non-existent side pot, especially with no hand and with players to eliminate, is a stupid move IMHO. You have nothing to gain (aside from 200 chips)

The only way you will get called in this situation is if you are beat, and if you are not beat you will take whats left if your hand is better than the guy you are checking down with!

Its a good thread but its basic poker IMO

 

[Scouse]

I thought about this thread in today's buy-in at Titan.

We had an all in and two of us were checking down. On the river, I catch a card that gives me the nut straight. Now, I could have just checked down, knowing that the worst I would do is share the pot. But, this is poker and we are competing against each other, so I threw down a bet designed to extract a few more chips out of the other "checker."

It worked - I won and got a few hundred more chips, which I desperately needed. Sorry - no guilt here.

And i don't think you have anything to be guilty of.

You should only feeel "guilty" if you bet into him.. he folds, and you lose to guy who is left in the pot as he is already all-in. Then you have done everyone a disservice, other than the guy you just gifted the pot.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

You should only feeel "guilty" if you bet into him.. he folds, and you lose to guy who is left in the pot as he is already all-in. Then you have done everyone a disservice...

Since when has poker been a team sport?

You have nothing to gain (aside from 200 chips)

Must I quote myself?

You focus too much on the small picture ("he pnly had 11 outs", "the result would have been the same")

If you're playing to win, you will play aggressively on the bubble to accumulate chips. If you have a big stack, ultimately the bubble situation will benefit you if you play aggressively, as your opponents are less likely to play back at you. Okay, so in the short run you might keep running into shortstacks who hit AA/KK and lose a lot of chips, but in the long run aggressive bubble play is beneficial.

Once the bubble bursts, people loosen up. This is bad for the big stack as now he is relying on catching cards or riskier steal attempts to swell his stack.

Therefore I propose that it in many cases can benefit the big stack to keep the bubble running, and thus that a bet in this situation isn't the heinous crime some of you are making it out to be. Yes, he could have waited to the river, but he gains extra fold equity by betting earlier (I would vastly prefer a flop bet here if you're going to bet at all, but that's another story). Should people on draws always wait until the river before betting? Of course not, it depends on the situation.

finally, i had a question for Mr. Malorkus, since he was so keen on defending this play. Dorkus, would you honestly have made this play yourself if you had been in that fellow's shoes? Would anyone have?

This exact play? Nah. I would have either (a) reraised preflop, (b) bet the flop, or (c) checked it down. Depends on my mood, the alignment of the planets, and other fun stuff.

 

[buckster436]

I thought about this thread in today's buy-in at Titan.

We had an all in and two of us were checking down. On the river, I catch a card that gives me the nut straight. Now, I could have just checked down, knowing that the worst I would do is share the pot. But, this is poker and we are competing against each other, so I threw down a bet designed to extract a few more chips out of the other "checker."

It worked - I won and got a few hundred more chips, which I desperately needed. Sorry - no guilt here.

You are correct, you caught the NUTS, so in this situation its rite to bet, other than that i would check it down.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.....buck:hello:

 

[colin_147]

You make a valid point, Chris. I didnt ignore your original post, I thought it had some valid points

I still dont agree betting into a non-existent side pot is a good move, regardless of the situation. Yes, sure you can bet on the flop but making a move in the late situation, with little to gain chip wise, I cant agree with that play

 

[Fish]

with little to gain chip wise, I cant agree with that play

This play has NOTHING to do with gaining a few chips.
This has everything to do with keeping table dominance.

Which do you think gives you a higher +EV?
1) eliminating this player and picking up a few chips?
2) keeping the player in and running over the table for a few more orbits?

I choose #2 in this instance.

 

[Scouse]

This play has NOTHING to do with gaining a few chips.
This has everything to do with keeping table dominance.

Which do you think gives you a higher +EV?
1) eliminating this player and picking up a few chips?
2) keeping the player in and running over the table for a few more orbits?

I choose #2 in this instance.

EV? - sorry what does that mean?

 

[twizzybop]

equity Value... Villian loses here wich is a small amount. Yet still now keeps small stack in while still being able to bully others around some more for more chips.

Which has more equity.. Gaining a small amount by beating the small stack now not that he wouldn't mind or gaining more chips because the small stack stuck around.

 

[Scouse]

I am slightly new to this concept - so please forgive my ignorance.

So there is more value in actually having the small stack who is all-in win the pot so he can keep the heat on the other players?

 

[Scouse]

Since when has poker been a team sport?

I understand what you are saying - and there is no reason why people should "play along" with checking down. But It can mean more value for you when someone else has been eliminated. I get it it is not a team sport - even when I sit down with some of my oldest mates to play, we understand that metaphorically speaking, we are there to slit each other's throats.

I suppose the concept of checking down boils down from a "pack mentallity"/survival instinct to get in the money.

 

[twizzybop]

Yes there is Scouse which Dorkus explained it very nicely.

 

[F Paulsson]

Equity Value...

expected value, actually. Often called "Expectation" as well. It's the sum of all possible events' values, times the chance that they occur.

https://www.cardschat.com/poker-odds-expected-value.php

 

[twizzybop]

lol I call it Equity.. Cause it still relates to the money aspect of it.

 

[F Paulsson]

Equity means "share." Your equity is simply your likelyhood of winning a specific hand; it has nothing to do with money value, it's only a percentage. If you're specifically talking about the money, then you definitely want to use "expected value" since that has a dollar sign, not a percentage, attached to it.

I promise.

 

[Scouse]

Expected Value, actually. Often called "Expectation" as well. It's the sum of all possible events' values, times the chance that they occur.

https://www.cardschat.com/poker-odds-expected-value.php

Thank you for the link! As it turns out, I am already familiar with the concept - just not the terminology.

I spent months going over this stuff at A-Level, only to find I actually only really got it after playing poker for a few years. Then it just clicked.

Cheers!

 

[twizzybop]

LOL if you win a specific hand.. then you've won money. I use "Equity".. yes it is "Expected" value.. I just personally use "Equity"..


Just like I call trips 3 of a kind even though it may be a set.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

LOL if you win a specific hand.. then you've won money. I use "Equity".. yes it is "Expected" value.. I just personally use "Equity"..

I use "Elephant" value, because you can use money to buy elephants!

 

[twizzybop]

LOL hey if Elephant works for you.. then more the power to help you remember.. lol ironic.. remember and elephant in the same sentence..

But still you explained it the best as to why the villian could make the bet.

 

[Kenzie 96]

Very nice thread you started here Buck. The subtleties of this game continue to amaze & fascinate me. Would you believe that in considering this particular situation elephants never once crossed my mind. Manoh man, do I have a ways to go.

 

[buckster436]

Very nice thread you started here Buck. The subtleties of this game continue to amaze & fascinate me. Would you believe that in considering this particular situation elephants never once crossed my mind. Manoh man, do I have a ways to go.

Thank You Kenzie, well by allinking betting he gained NOTHING, but lost on 2 counts, he lost chips and he kept in a Very tough player by tripleing him up, Is that really worth making a bet on the river after he checked on the flop and the turn, then he bets on the river with only Ace high, and i fold, I just cant see the logic in betting with Ace high, like i said before if JL had ANY card on the board he was beat, so why take that chance, he had plenty of chips already, I consider it one of the most stupidest moves ive ever seen.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buck:hello:

 

[robwhufc]

Buck, I agree with Dorkus and Fish really, there's a time and a place for checking down, and that was just too early in the game. You should have bet post flop with your 4's to get Allinking out, and go H2H with JL who was all-in. I agree with you that the final bet with Ace high against someone who wont fold is probably a mistake, but it stopped you from winning the pot, and even if all the play did was to get you in a strop, it was still a success in part if it got you on tilt. And "why take that chance?" - cos he had a big stack, didn't stand to lose many, and would have more than tripled up on the bet - and "he had plenty of chips already?", don't get this, are you saying once you've reached a certain amount you shouldn't try and win more?

Again, i'm just repeating what Fish and Dorkus said, and I wouldn't have made the bet, but I dont agree this is the worst play i've ever seen, and I do believe you should have made a proper stab at winning the hand earlier yourself.

 

[robwhufc]

Err, I read through the thread a bit more - should have done this first. From the hand history Chris posted, he didn't bet post river, he bet pre-river. With 2 people in a pot with 8,000 stack each, a 600 stack player is an irrelevance - I wouldn't check and let YOU hit a hand, bet, and have to decide whether your hand was better than mine (if i'd made one too). His bet was fine in my opinion, to either get you out of the hand, or to build the pot if he does hit.

 

[Scouse]

There is a time and a place- normally i found it on the final table - but please correct me if i am making a mistake here.

otherwise if you hit the nuts - of course, you HAVE to bet - only question is how much to milk out of the foo.