Checking it down

[sdplayerb]

When at a last table and you and another stack have a third player all in. Do you check it down?
Obviously if you don't hit my hand i do.
What about when having an over pair?
What about if you hit the nuts at the end?

Just want to hear some others thoughts.

SD

[Ed Miller]

Umm... if you have the nuts, then what value is there in checking it down? The whole idea about checking it down (a very dubious idea at that) is that you don't bluff the better hand out and then have the bluffing hand lose to the allin. If you have the nuts... is the allin going to win?

Except maybe if you are down to the last three, this is a dubious strategy, IMHO.

[ohkanada]

Assuming there is no side pot, there is no reason to bluff on the river. On the flop/turn there is more value in bluffing or betting weak hands since with 1 less opponent there is a better chance for you to win the pot. I think you also need to be aware of the opponent who is all-in. You probably don't mind a weak player staying in but would rather bust out a very good player.

Certainly with top 2, a set, flush, straight, overpair I am going to bet early and often.

Ken Poklitar

[Bozeman]

The value of checking it down depends strongly on the stack sizes, the side pot size, and, as mentioned above, the quality of the all-in player.

Craig

[DaVoice]

In a 3 handed situation if the all in player is a strong player who you'd rather eliminate at that moment, and you don't have the nut hand, checking is a good way to go. If you have the nuts there is no point in checking. The reason to check down would be to allow two of you to draw against the all-in and eliminate him immediately if possible. If you have the nuts, the all in can only tie you, so why not bet?

[Martin Aigner]

If there is a sidepot of at least some mediocre size (e.g. player A raised, B called for less all in and you had to call A´s bet) I recommend betting even not so strong hands (but no bluffing hands). The value to get the sidepot oftens equals the risk not to loose the all in player. Especially when the other player for the sidepot is someone who can lay down strong hands since he thinks you must have the nuts when you bet out against an all in player. This is esp. true at the beginning of a final table (assuming 9 players get paid), where the difference between 9th and 8th, 8th and 7th etc. in price money isn´t a big deal. Threehanded, where the payoutsructure is something like 35%, 18%,9% it´s something different. In this case there is a huge benefit in loosing 1 player.

Regards

Martin Aigner

[Myrtle]

For sure this is another one of those "it depends" situations…….

As other responders have already pointed out, there are a number of things to consider:

· How many players left (there is a significant difference between 3 handed and 9 handed)
· Relative stack sizes of players involved.
· Strength of the allin (plus the strength of your opponent).
· Payout structure of the tournament.

My point of view on this is the concept of "check/check"ing the allin works only if it is to YOUR advantage. There are so many variables that come up in this situation, it would be very hard to cover all of them, but, the whole idea is still to play +EV poker.

That being the case, if on the flop I have a hand, I will value bet it as appropriate. There have been rare cases where I have flopped the mortal nuts and checked it down, in an attempt to induce a bet from the 3rd party.

Sometimes the level of play of the 3rd player will determine what you do. The trickiest situations (in my experience) are when the 3rd player is not very experienced and they are liable to make a play at YOU with cheese (figuring that they are better off with you out of the pot!). I find this happening quite often in online play. It therefore behooves you to know the level of the 3rd player's play.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Keep in mind the reasons for checking it down, and for NOT checking it down. As long as you stay aware of those, you can probably make the right decision.

Of course you shouldn't bluff. Don't bet a draw that is presently nothing, unless maybe it's such a big draw that you would actually WANT to get called. Those draws seldom occur escept in Omaha.

The reason to check some kind of made hand is you don't want to chase out the live player. It is possible that you will lose to the all-in, but the other player would've knocked them out. Keep in mind that this is not terribly common. It would most often occur if the flop were medium/small cards (e.g., J94), and you held a pair like 88. While it is rather possible that you currently have the best hand, it is a very vulnerable hand. However, what you would not want to have happen is to learn that all-in held QJ, and the live player held AK, and by betting you get the AK to fold. Your chances of improving to beat QJ are very small, but AK has 3x the chance of doing so. By betting out the AK, you've cut the odds of QJ gettign outdrawn by ~75%, and gained no equity in the pot at all.

On the other hand, you do not want to give a free card to a hand like AK when you are ahead of it, and ahead of the all-in as well. In such a spot, checking it down will cost you the pot MUCH more often than it will help eliminate the all-in. What are the chances of both of them catching up and beating you, while at the same time the live player beats the all-in? Statistically, it just won't happen a lot.

So, if you've got a reasonable lead on both players (of course you can't know that, but you feel it is likely), you should bet to protect yourself, even though it does add a small chance of the all-in surviving. Usually, though, it takes top pair or better to be sure you're in the lead.

I don't think the strength of the opponents is that big of a consideration. What is a big consideration is the size of the main pot, as well as any side pot. If the side pot is a large fraction of the main pot, or bigger, you should be MUCH more inclined to bet anytime you think you are ahead, or if you think there is an excellent chance the other live player will fold. On the other hand, if there is no side pot, and the main pot is relatively small compared to the stack sizes of the live players, be MUCH more inclined to check it down. Losing this small pot won't be that big of a deal, as compared to eliminating the all-in.

As others have mentioned, the number of players is also a big factor. I've seen quite a few experienced but weak tourney players who think it's correct to always check it down unless you hold the nuts. They even think this way when half the field is still in action. When you're not in or near the money, chip equity is all that matters, so you should even bluff to get rid of an opponent, as long as doing so will have a significant impact on your chances of winning, and you are very sure they will fold. I mean, if you can increase your chances of winning from 5% to 15% by bluffing, and you're almost 100% sure the other player will fold, you've nothing to lose by bluffing. Who cares that the other player might now survie 85% of the time instead of maybe only 50% of the time? You've increased your chip equity by the bluff, and that's all that counts right now.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Toro]

It is surprising how many players adhere to the misconception that you should automatically check it all the way to the river in these types of situations. I had a situation about a year ago in a weekly limit tourney where one player was all in and myself and a lady both had chips. I hit top pair on the flop and kept betting the hand throughout and she kept calling until she was all in after the last bet on the river. When I turned over the winning hand to win both the side pot and the main pot she was absolutely livid and told me that I didn't know the first thing about tournaments, that I was supposed to check it all the way down. It was real tempting to get into it with her but what would have been the point!

[sdplayerb]

Thanks everybody for the comments. It helped reinforce much of what i thought and helped me think of new things.
I purposely left it pretty open to hear many different sides.

I do agree people check it down way too much, particularly when not late in a tournament. Also if you are a big chip leader, why do you care if a small stack gets knocked out. I got yelled at for betting in such a situation, of course I won the pot.

However, I do think if a great player is all-in, i will check it down more as I really want them out (so Greg, if you are in, i'd be checking down a very strong hand). They are just too dangerous if they hit a draw (such as Ax hitting and A and A-high folding).

SD

[Myrtle]

Greg,

I was a bit surprised with your comment of "I don't think the strength of the opponents is that big of a consideration."

I have to admit that my mind was in the "NLHE, final table stage" of a tournament when I responded to the original post, and that perhaps has colored my perception of importance of strength of opposition.

With the above situation in mind, I will lay out 2 different scenarios for your comment:

#1 - YOU (Greg) are the allin. In this particular case, I am more likely to play the "checkdown" game, unless I have a real monster. Why? It is my feeling (correct or incorrect??) that when there is an opportunity to take out a very strong player (and ALSO advance one place in the money at the same time) that one should do exactly that. Doesn't the combination of those 2 facts outweigh simply winning the pot from the remaining moneyed player. Comments?

#2 - You (Greg) are the remaining moneyed player. NOW, life gets more difficult for me. Not only do I have to be concerned about your stack size, but I MUST be aware that you are capable of making various different plays in this situation! Because of this, I must now play this pot as if I were H/U with you, which in effect, I am.

Therefore, in both above cases, it seems to me that the strength of the opposition does indeed have some bearing on how I play the hand.

If my thinking here is either incomplete or cloudy, please forgive me, as I am up very early on Saturday morning waiting for daybreak so that I can get outside on the tractor and clear the foot plus of snow that's in the driveway! Ain't winter in New England great?

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Here's what I was thinking.

If it's late in the tourney, then skill isn't that different anyway. At this stage, it's pretty much all-in or fold, and therefore even the best player won't have that big of an edge over the field. So, it's not a big factor, at least compared to the other factors.

If it's not late, then all I really care about is increasing my chip EV, and I will play this pot accordingly. I don't expect the presence or absence of one player at my table to be a big factor. But, maybe I'm wrong here.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Myrtle]

Good answer.........hmmmmmmmmm......maybe I'm over-valuing skill level in this situation.

Gotta re-think this one........

Time for nap anyway.....got all the snow off the driveway & whipped!