Checking down when player is all-in

[Matt770]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This guy had earlier whined about my $7000 bet into a $4000 pot with pocket aces.


[/ QUOTE ]
First, you may not want to show. Second, he should thank you for warning him to get out of the pot, so he didn't lose more money when you had a strong hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't show, he was just mad that I overbet the pot. He mumbled something about me probably not having anything. After getting calls on pot-size bets by flush and straight draws, pretty soon it's tempting to go all-in with any premium hand.

[cheburashka]

Harrington has a small chapter on this topic in Vol 2.

The short answer seems to be that checking down an all-in short stack makes sense in a lot of instances to increase the chances that someone will pair up and put the short stack out. However, at the end of the day it's every man for himself, and if you think it's to your benefit to bet (e.g. had you picked up your draw), then you have every right to do so.

[DQuadfather]

Think you also have to factor in the payout structure. If only top place scores, then I'm betting my draw with AK here. Why give someone else a chance to beat me as well? I'd usually check this down, but in some situations, I think it may actually be disadvantageous to do so (i.e., here, where chips are sooooooo valuable).

[rubixxcube]

While in many situations i will check it down, as someone noted when i am weak anyway and can't win the hand i don't mind it.

I do get rather annoyed when people become upset with me for not checking it down when a player is all in. I think at many times you can take advantage of this. For example, when a player is all in many other players see this as their opportunity to see an entire hand for free since they assume it will be checked around and call very wide preflop.

If i flop bottom or middle pair i have no problem betting. If this bet forces out someone that would have rivered a better hand oh well, however when i bet my bottom pair, the o ther guy folds and he would have turned/rivered a higher pair and he would have knocked the person out instead of me then this was a good bet on my part.

lastly i don't like the fact that people get mad at this way early in the tournament. I played in a tournament with 750 players. 1 hour in with well over 600 left someone was all in and i bet and thrid player folded, All in player won the hand but thrid player that folded would have won on the river. He got mad that i didn't check and let him stay in to knock the person out.

When there are 600 players left and 72 get paid, whether 1 more player is in the tournament or not in level 3 has no bearing on me and my actions.

I think its silly to bluff at not side pot with no hand, example if player had no pair no draw and 5 high then i think it is a silly bet.

[AbreuTime]

I don't think you should have bet the dry sidepot when you had no showdown equity against the all-in player, unimproved. You had J high at the time of your bet, and you needed to improve to win. Take the free card. A semi-bluff is silly when a player is all-in. If you can beat the all-in player's likely holdings (Big facecards/ace high/small pair), bet. Don't bet your Jack high.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The main thing wrong with betting into a dry side pot with a weak hand or draw is that you only get called when you're behind.

[McGrain]

Forget it. You are entitled to play if you think that's the right thing to do. I don't actually agree with the bet, but you are entitled to make it if you feel like you want to in my opinion.

[Matt770]

[ QUOTE ]
Forget it. You are entitled to play if you think that's the right thing to do. I don't actually agree with the bet, but you are entitled to make it if you feel like you want to in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. At the time I made a snap judgement to try to force him out, obviously not having the benefit of all the brilliant insights I've just read here. Next time in the same situation I will these posts and make a smarter decision. That's the whole point of my joining the game in the first place, to learn and try new things. This guy was acting like he wanted to take it outside and brawl over a damn hand of free poker.

[Eucrid]

I don't mind someone betting into a dry side pot if they've a decent hand. Someone said you'll rarely get called on that but I don't even mind that because they want to get the chips for themselves while they still have the best hand.

Now betting without the best hand is another matter. I think you made a bad play yes but it was no reason for this guy to have a go at you. Not every player a local game understands the idea of implied collusion and you were only there to learn. He should have just had a quiet word later on and explained the concept to you.

[That Jekke]

Bluffing a draw into a dry side pot is pretty useless except in very specific situations with very specific players--specific enough that I can't imagine ever doing it.

If you benefit more from the all-in player being eliminated than you would from winning the pot, checking down is a clear choice. But, there are plenty of circumstances where you would want to keep betting: When it's too early in the tournament for one more elimination to make much difference, when winning the main pot isn't really going to help the all-in much, when you flop a strong, but fragile hand, and when you'd be crippled by losing the pot and think you can chase out the other live opponent on the flop all come to mind.