All-In Check Down Etiquette ???

[LottaNirvana]

Small MTT - Final Table
8 handed (Only Top 7 get $$$)
Blinds are 2K / 4K

mid Position player All in for 9000

2 callers before me.
I'm in the BB, I call for 5k more with Qh - 9s

Flop Js - Th - 7d
check, check check

Turn - 3d
check, check check

River
8h

check, check ....
I bet 10k

Call, Call

All-in had Kh - Td
caller 1: Ad - 7h
caller 2: Jc - Th

.
...
After I take the pot, caller 1 says, that my betting on the river was "a "Dickish" move., very Dickish"

I say, "I'm sorry" but I thought the idea of checking down a hand is to have every chance of knocking out the All-In player. You're not trying to be nice to the others, you're just trying to help each other with a knock out. Once that is assured, I saw no reason not to try to win the rest of the hand.

When I hit my straight, I couldn't think of any hand that could beat me. so I value bet knowing that it didn't matter if any of the others folded.

Was it really a "Dickish" move?
(And was it the wrong thing to do?)

[daryn]

it's fine. play your hand.

[mrkilla]

[ QUOTE ]
it's fine. play your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

darynisrite, your smallish bet shows them you have a hand , them calling is retarded, if you flip over something like 9 high then maybe thats a little dickish but only slightly

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
darynisrite, your smallish bet shows them you have a hand , them calling is retarded, if you flip over something like 9 high then maybe thats a little dickish but only slightly

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'd say a pure bluff into a dry sidepot would be very dickish. If you can't win, a bluff like that is a lot like chip dumping--you're protecting the all-in shortstack with no possible gain for yourself. Seriously dickish.

My own rule in such situations is to use betting to indicate to my fellow players if I have anything. If I flop two pair or better, I'm betting it. I'm telling 'em I have something I'm pretty sure is good, and I can no longer just check it down and wait to be drawn out on by one of the others still active. Nobody's ever expressed unhappiness with me over this. And if someone plays back at me, the game is back on ferreal--I'm now in a battle for a serious pile of chips and may be able to do damage to two opponents instead of one.

[mo42nyy]

No, I'd say a pure bluff into a dry sidepot would be very dickish. If you can't win, a bluff like that is a lot like chip dumping--you're protecting the all-in shortstack with no possible gain for yourself.

Thats not always true
Hypothetically:
10 people left
9 pay but 4-9 pay almost the same (but a significant some say 50 k for 9th)
Blinds 100/200
Stacks are b.w 1000 and 1500 except I have 20k

Why on this planet would I wanna knock anyone out?

[NevadaKaz]

Personally, I think it is a little off to bet the nuts on the river. A river you only got to see due to the 'collusion' happening at the table.

I have no problems with betting the flopped nuts, or a very strong hand, but I think once you enter into the 'collusion pact' the hand should just be checked down.
However, if somebody decides to try to take advantage of the 'check down collusion' then their stack becomes a fair target.

Must say, reading this thread, I am suprised that my idea is in the minority.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think it is a little off to bet the nuts on the river. A river you only got to see due to the 'collusion' happening at the table.

I have no problems with betting the flopped nuts, or a very strong hand, but I think once you enter into the 'collusion pact' the hand should just be checked down.
However, if somebody decides to try to take advantage of the 'check down collusion' then their stack becomes a fair target.

Must say, reading this thread, I am suprised that my idea is in the minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the point is that you don't enter into a "collusion pact" that would be against the rules. What you do is act in a way that benefits you, and hope that the other players recognize that they will be equally benefitted by acting likewise that is not the same as entering into a pact (And as others have pointed out in this thread it is not always true that you or the other players are benefitted by eliminating the all-in player).

Players who enter into a pact are cheaters.

[LottaNirvana]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
darynisrite, your smallish bet shows them you have a hand , them calling is retarded, if you flip over something like 9 high then maybe thats a little dickish but only slightly

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'd say a pure bluff into a dry sidepot would be very dickish. If you can't win, a bluff like that is a lot like chip dumping--you're protecting the all-in shortstack with no possible gain for yourself. Seriously dickish.

My own rule in such situations is to use betting to indicate to my fellow players if I have anything. If I flop two pair or better, I'm betting it. I'm telling 'em I have something I'm pretty sure is good, and I can no longer just check it down and wait to be drawn out on by one of the others still active. Nobody's ever expressed unhappiness with me over this. And if someone plays back at me, the game is back on ferreal--I'm now in a battle for a serious pile of chips and may be able to do damage to two opponents instead of one.

[/ QUOTE ]


YES

That's why I Bet 10,000 into a 33,000 Pot....
It was an "I HAVE A HAND THAT CAN KNOCK OUT THE BUBBLE, SO GET OUTTA THE WAY OR GIVE ME YOUR MONEY" bet

But, I must be honest, I do like some of these "keep the bubble in, and/or try to win the side pot" arguments.... true food for thought.
and here I was just worried about being a Dick.
(Maybe the most Dickish thing, is to worry about being Dickish")

[Toro]

The guy who said dickish move knows absolutely nothing, less than nothing. Dickish move for him to say that.

And in the future, don't ever feel compelled to explain.

[nowags]

I hate players that think this is etiquette. You're playing to win. bet your hand.