Checking it down...

Lafortezza

Was talking to a guy last night at the 100euro game. He is fairly new to the fitz and had won a ticket to the last big 250 euro game.
He said he was down to the final two tables and on the button. A player in early position went all in for about 4000 on 500-1000 blinds and was called by 3 people before it reached him. He had bullets. He reraised all-in and got a bollicking from
several old hands at the table for not calling and checking it down to knock out the player all-in.
He was a bit put out as he didn't realise that this was the 'custom' and apologised.
As it turns out the all-in player had pocket 6's.
The flop came A 6 x and the all-in player hit his one-outer quads on the turn.

With 2 tables about 14 players remaining would you do the same with AA on the button and one player all in or
would you abide by the 'knock the all-in player out' rule by checking it down?

On one side you have AA and are a big favourite over whatever the all-in player has. You want to win the blinds/all-in/calls.
On the other hand by simply calling you increase the likelyhood that the all-in player won't beat everyone but your chances of being
outdrawn for the pot are much much bigger. What to do, what to do...

Kelter

When last I checked poker was not a team sport. I'd go with the all in, every time

Hyzepher

Protect yourself first - then think about knocking the other guy out.

If I had a drawing hand then I would definitely check it down but with a made hand - especially AA or other pair I would be getting as many of the other guys out as possible.

Hyzepher

DeVore

All in!

You need to separate that fish from the herd, corner him and beat the delicious chips-of-goodness out of the little **** on your own.

If you were a school bully nicking his lunch money you'd corner him somewhere dark and beat sh*t out of him... its pretty much the same theory...
Oh yeah, and what Hyzepher said.

DeV.

TwoShedsJackson

Over on twoplustwo they regard checking it down as pretty unethical it seems. I would have reraised all in and bollocks to those old fogies - you have a right to try and get their chips too

Krusty_Clown

It would have made no difference in this instance, right?
The 'All-in' picked up a poker of sixes, so he had everyone beat anyway..

Trip Aces might have bought the player a side-pot, had anyone gone with them, so maybe an All-in call was too high a bet.. If he kept the bet low, he wouldn't necessarily have earned the wrath of the other players, and might have earned a few chips.

Team-play only when it's in everyone's interest, i.e. 4 players remaining, three tickets.. You can be damn sure they wouldn't have been checking down AA if they were holding it..

<Having said that, I made exactly this mistake when playing in the Heat 3 qualifier this month. MarQ was all-in, with both myself and Amp playing (four players remaining, 3 places). When I hit a pair of Kings on the flop, I pushed Amp off the pot, which was a bit dumb.>

MrPudding

I have mentioned this before and it really pisses me off. The old timers give you sh1t for raising when a player is all in except when it is one of them doing the raising. I have seen this several time. This double standard thing really fcuks me off. Young players must allow it to be checked down regardless of what they hold, whereas, the old timers can raise if they think they have the best of it. I, like most of you I’m sure, will check it down when it suits me but get my chips in if I think I have the best of it.

MrP

Marq

The only reason that you check down a pot to get someone out is because you're not sure if you have them beat, and there's a stronger chance of that player going out if there are multiple callers in the pot. But what if you're sure that you have the player who is all-in beat? In this situation, why shouldn't you raise? you believe that the aim of knocking out a player is already accomplished, and now you've got to play as you normally would, and try to win some chips. If the other guys are folding, they probably weren't going to win the pot anyway, so they've no reason to be complaining about you raising and them having to fold, so fuq the old-timers, they'd do it to you in a flash.

pokertroll

All-in is the right move in this situation with AA, the old-timers are just looking for a cheap flop. you do not want too many players with this type of hand. I would have no problem telling them to F*** off. If they've got the goods they can call.

However, please don't confuse it with the following situtation:

Never ever bluff/semi bluff on the flop or turn when another player is all-in before the flop. This is my absolute pet hate and a mistake made by a lot of inexperienced and bad players. Mostly it amounts to nothing (as there is no side pot) and serves only to offer protection to the all-in player - we are going to see your bluff when there is a showdown.

It f*** wrecks my head when I see players do this. I'll provide you with an example which should illustrate my point.

I was playing in a satellite for the WPC last week in the Merrion. We start off with 1000 chips so you are under pressure from the start.

I found a pair of 10s in medium position and made a pot sized raise to 250 (pot limit)

The player to my right called and the next player went all-in for 450 (not enough for me to go over the top). I called and the other guy called. (I now had about 500 chips left over). The flop was Ak5. I checked, the other guy (lets call him muppet) went all-in. Of course I couldn't call with a pair of 10s.

So there is a showdown between muppet and the other all-in player. Muppet has J6 (nothing), other all-in player has a genuine hand (AK) for 2 pair.

River is a 10 so I would have made a set.

There is no side pot so the all-in player survives and takes the lot with 2 pair.

Marq

I must admit to once making a very similar mistake to "muppet" one night in the merrion to send me crashing out of the tournament absolutely ignominiously. i was BB with blinds at 300-600 and one person in middle position had called as had the SB. with 2-5 off I smelled weakness from the other two and raised 3000. I hadn't noticed that the middle position caller only had about 1700 left in chips (really small stack at that late point in the tounament), which he threw all in now that he was essentially pot-committed. Small blind calls with 9 10 for value. This put me in the position where the only way that I could make any money was by betting small on the flop, and then betting big to get rid of the SB, as I'm pretty sure that I'm going to lose to the all-in. Far and away the most faulty logic that's ever run through my head, as the SB hit her 9 on the flop and called along with me up to my all in on the turn to put me out. Absolutely needless. I wandered around town kicking lamp-posts for the rest of the night.

Lesson learned: never bluff when a player is all in, and more importantly, if you're going to bluff out before the flop, make sure that none of the players that have flat-called have dangerously low stacks, as they're likely to call.

I get mad at myself just thinking about that hand. Ugh.

DeVore

My sole concern is *my* benefit in these situations.
I'd never ever bluff if there was no side pot or a small side pot but
if it was (say) 2-3 times the size of the other pot I might well have a go at it. I dont give two sh*ts if theres a guy all in or not, I'm purely optimising my "best" outcome. If that means checking the guy down then I'll blatantly do it as the flop comes down. If I can benefit more by being aggressive, then I'll do that.

Playing the big game the other night, two guys went all in and I and Simon Trumper both called (I had AK). Flop came 10-high and Trumper bet all his stack on JJ's and pushed me off the side pot. He was lucky to beat the other two as well! There wasnt a word said about it on the table and Norman was playing on the same table... not a peep out of him. So it would seem if the pros do it its fine but if its us then we get spanked!

Their argument is that if losing a player benefits every player by X then at a 9-handed table game the benefit is "9X" when the checked-down player is beaten.
By killing the pot you might benefit say, 3X but the rest of the table risks the player having a better chance of surivival in which case they benefit nothing (hence you've risked their "X" benefit). so swapping 9X for 3X doesnt seem like a good move for the table.

Thats fine if you look at things that way but from YOUR pov you've risked their X "benefit" in order to increase your benefit... that (and being denied a cheap flop) is why they are whinging.

Also, this kinda thing is more for last and second last table then early on (and certainly uncommon in rebuys unless there is no side pot and no strong hand).
Why anyone with a strong hand would check down a player during the rebuys I dont know.

DeV.

careca

I did the opposite one night. One player was all-in and bohsman and myself were checking it down. An ace came on the river to pair me and bohsman made a large bet, putting me all-in. I thought he was bluffing to steal the pot and stupidly called. Why would he have bluffed when there was someone already all-in and no more raises ? I asked myself that question a hundred times, ON MY WAY HOME.

gerire

Im convinced if its them in your position its ok for them to bet but its a moral sin for someone else to have a go at winning a pot, its pure tunell vision on their parts, and can make someone who is newish to the game very uncomfortable.