check down or not?

Macspower

Has the poker unspoken rule of checking down the all in guy gone or ignored or did it ever exist?

I was always one for checking down the all in player at a final table... but it has come back to bite me a few times lately....

eg: 6 players left paying top 5 . Blinds 1K 2K
Stacks me 30K
Small Blind chip leader 60K.
Big blind 8K.

I hold AK off suit.

I call UTG. Small blind Calls. Big blind goes all in. As I expected BB pushes.
I considered a RR but with the SB covering me I just called ,as did he.

Flop AA10. He acts first saying "checking down" I also checked.

Turn 2. Check check.

River Q. Small blind goes all in.........

You dirty rotter!!!! I said as I considered my next action

Opinions on what I should have done initally and then in this situation.

Mac.

JoeyJJ

If someone is generous enough to check it down to me and I think i'm behind i'll check it down but If I hit and think I'm ahead I would be very foolish to give free cards.

I would be betting the flop very heavily, what have you to gain by checking it down here with trip Aces?

5starpool

I used to be of the school of thought where you check it down all the time, but this is an inefficient concept I think and not something that is as black and white as I was led to believe years ago. Betting into a dry sidepot with rags as a bluff is still something I never do though and be annoyed about if it prolongs someones life when otherwise it wouldn't.

Take the first Se 200 game when someone bet into a dry sidepot with 9 high, got everyone to fold, but the all in HJ went on to win the tournie, but would have been knocked out if the guy with 9 high had any sense.

You are trying to win the tournie after all (unless it is a satellite with several equal prizes). In the hand above there is nothing wrong with betting into it, as if someone has you beaten they are calling, and if the all in player has you beaten then he has everyone else beaten too in most cases.

JoeyJJ

..

Macspower

Yeah agreed... should have bet the flop hard...... but then again I'm old school poker.... thought it was very bad form after him even saying "checking down".

Anyway I couldn't call and he turned up KJ...........

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

marius

Macspower wrote:

Yeah agreed... should have bet the flop hard...... but then again I'm old school poker.... thought it was very bad form after him even saying "checking down".

Anyway I couldn't call and he turned up KJ...........

Nice fold....I prolly go broke here more often than not.....

Did he actually type 'checking down'?

5starpool

marius wrote:

Did he actually type 'checking down'?

I'd imagine this was a live game, but then again he could have had a typewriter nearby :rolleyes:

marius

5starpool wrote:

I'd imagine this was a live game, but then again he could have had a typewriter nearby :rolleyes:

It's funny the assumptions you make....never even entered my head that this was a live game :eek:

I gotta get out more....

ntlbell

Once my hand improves I'm betting out.

WH BONNEY

As an aside, if I was the big blind and surrived my all-in I would have asked for both UTG & the small blind to recieve a penalty for collusion. That is assuming that you answered his "check it down" request. If you didnt answer his request I would have asked for the sb to receive a penalty.

Would anybody agree with this approach ?

ntlbell

WH BONNEY wrote:

As an aside, if I was the big blind and surrived my all-in I would have asked for both UTG & the small blind to recieve a penalty for collusion. That is assuming that you answered his "check it down" request. If you didnt answer his request I would have asked for the sb to receive a penalty.

Would anybody agree with this approach ?

He didn't say check it down

he said "checking it down"

WH BONNEY

Fair point.

Is there a difference ?

Scouser in Dub

Yeah in one you're making a statement of your intent the other you are asking for another player to collude

ntlbell

WH BONNEY wrote:

Fair point.

Is there a difference ?

I'm not much of an English teacher, but it looks like there is a difference yes.

WH BONNEY

ntlbell wrote:

I'm not much of an English teacher, but it looks like there is a difference yes.

Dont really give a fcuk about your abilities as an english teacher.

bubbleking

only bet out out if you have the nuts when a player is all in and 2 or more players are left in the hand.

i thought this was an unwritten rule of poker.

ntlbell

WH BONNEY wrote:

Dont really give a fcuk about your abilities as an english teacher.

OHHH MATRON!!!

ntlbell

bubbleking wrote:

only bet out out if you have the nuts when a player is all in and 2 or more players are left in the hand.

i thought this was an unwritten rule of poker.

I wouldn't say the nuts no.

I bet out if I feel I have the best hand.

phantom_lord

bubbleking wrote:

only bet out out if you have the nuts when a player is all in and 2 or more players are left in the hand.

i thought this was an unwritten rule of poker.

Remember that chief brody character bet heavy into the dry side pot...allowing me to go on and take down the last longer bet...ooh sweet...

tylerdurden94

I always thought the unwritten rule was that u both check it down if none of u make a hand but if one does make a hand then its good to bet it.

Waylander

tylerdurden94 wrote:

I always thought the unwritten rule was that u both check it down if none of u make a hand but if one does make a hand then its good to bet it.

I'd agree with this. If you hit a strong hand I think it is fine to bet into a dry sidepot, but if someone bluffed into a dry side pot I would be pretty annoyed at them.

RoundTower

bubbleking wrote:

only bet out out if you have the nuts when a player is all in and 2 or more players are left in the hand.

i thought this was an unwritten rule of poker.

lol no.