Check Down on All In?

[SapphireStar]

I am curious if checking down when a player goes all in is an actual poker strategy or just something I learned from games played in person with neighbors. I was told that we increase the odds of takin a person out if we do not bet against one another when a player has gone all in. However, I have lost winning hands by checking down til the river in Op66 tourneys.
I am curious to know your opinion. Is checking down a good strategy or just a strategy that should be played with those that do the same?

[chipjones]

you do run a better chance of takeing the all in person out. they now have to beat more then one hand.i have seen it where someone has bet got the other person to fold just to lose to the all inner.

[Ausangel]

A dead pot/locked pot when a player is all in. Most players will check it down as its usually uneconomical to bet into a dead pot and there is also a risk of chipping up another low stack player.

With that being said if your hand improves and there is a good sized side pot and some some good chips to be earnt from other stacks in the hand then some times its good to keep betting for value if you have the nuts

There are some good articles on dead pots and play sapph ...try google and check some out, if you feel like a read

Here is one I copied from the web....

Betting into a Dead Pot
Charles Mousseau


As every seasoned poker player knows, every decision in poker - be it raise, call or fold - is a function not only of the cards you hold, but the players you are facing in the pot. When the player betting into you hasn't missed an opportunity to put his chips into the pot over the last half an hour, calling looks a lot more promising than it does against a player who hasn't played a hand since breakfast. Likewise, when up against a player who hasn't folded on the river in recent memory, and just finished a showdown against a pair of sixes that he lost to, if I decide to bet, I'm going to make sure I have a hand.

How about when a player runs out of chips in the middle of a hand? Well, at this point, he is considered to be all-in, and while all of the other players will be able to bet against a side pot, the main pot will no longer grow, and the all-in player cannot be bet out of it. Such a pot is said to be a dead pot, and like the previous examples, this is a factor that should seriously affect your betting decisions.

The major decision that this will influence is your decision to try and run a naked bluff, like the one you see in Westerns all the time, where the hero convinces the villain to lay down his ace-high flush, simply by betting the ranch - undoubtedly relying on the fact that said villain is thinking back to his last movie, where his pat full house got snapped off by a cat-hop to a straight flush.

Simply put, if one of the players is all-in, resulting in a dead pot with little or no side pot, then the naked bluff is not just a bad play, but a truly horrible one, and one which you will virtually never, ever see experienced players make.

In order to understand exactly why, think about what a bluff is - a bet with a hand that has no realistic chance whatsoever of winning a showdown. Obviously, when you decide to try to run a bluff, you are hoping that every other player will fold, and you will win the pot by virtue of being the last player standing.

How, then, is that supposed to happen if you don't just suspect, but know for a fact, that one of the players will be there for a showdown?

It won't happen at all. What will happen is that you will make a strong bet with your Royal Sampler, every other player will fold, and the all-in player will turn over some measly pair, one he surely would have folded had he been required to call your whole bet, that winds up winning the pot.

However, this is not to say that one should never bet into a dead pot, as there are a couple of very good reasons why one would want to.

... Because you suspect you have the best hand. While this is the truest and bluest of the reasons one might bet, one of the common caveats people sometimes seem to forget is that the this bet only works if you can win more often than not when you are called. Now, one of the major motivators for being called is that lovely combination of natural curiosity and Sherriff's Syndrome known as "keeping 'em honest". However, when you have a player all-in, they are more likely to fold marginal hands that they would otherwise call with, confident in knowing that they will be able to see the hand they were up against. Accordingly, you should be slightly less willing to bet into a dead pot when you have a marginal hand that you might otherwise bet.

... Because you want to isolate the all-in player. Technically speaking, a rainbow flop of 8-4-2 doesn't improve your ace-king in the hole, but you know that one player in the pot went all-in with his last chips in the big blind, so he could literally have anything, including a lot of hands which your ace-king is ahead of at the present time. A well-timed bet might make the one remaining player lay down a small pair, especially because he can be confident knowing an imminent showdown will satisfy his curiousity, meaning that you go from having a draw to having the best hand.

Now, the above cases refer to cash games, where expected value is easier to calculate, because the chips have a constant cash value. In tournaments, however, the value of chips fluctuate, and especially near the end of the tournament, they can rise drastically in value as other players are eliminated and you move up the prize ladder. For that reason, the math is not always as cut-and-dried, since your chips can increase in value even when you don't win the hand.

Consider the very common tournament situation where one player is all-in for a dead pot, and you are left against a seasoned tournament player. For the most part, you should still be willing to bet normally as described above, yet the value of eliminating a player also requires consideration. Here's an example:

Let's say that you are in a small three-way dead pot late in a tournament, and the flop is 8d 7c 2h. You have Ts 9h, giving you an open-ended straight draw with two overcards. The all-in player has Qc 4d, and the other player in the pot is presently in the lead - although he sure doesn't know it! - with his 3d 2c. Should you bet?

Well, if your bet gets called by the pair of deuces, creating a side pot between the two of you, you will actually have slightly the better of it, with a 1.8% advantage, so your bet has some value since you - technically - have a better hand despite not being presently in the lead. If the pair of deuces folds, you have isolated the all-in player and increased your chances slightly; only needing to beat a higher overcard instead of a pair increases your chances of winning by 1.7%.

On the surface this looks like a good bet, but this is precisely the type of hand which a saavy tournament player will simply check. Putting a lot of chips on the line with a small advantage is something to be avoided in tournaments to begin with, but these tiny percentages pale in comparison to the huge jump in value your chips will take when you eliminate a player late in the tournament.

Now, all of this might seem completely moot the next time you are the all-in player, and you might feel sore that two experienced players aren't betting into the pot, but remember, experienced players are not going to bet naked bluffs or marginal hands in this situation, so in fact, you should feel relieved; after all, if one of them did bet, you could likely stand up and put your coat on right then and there.

[roo27]

id say in this position you should cheack it down .
but saying that if you have a made hand but run the risk of being out drewn
eg your holding QQ and the flop comes Q j 7 your hand is now a strong 1 that your prity shour will take out the all in player
yet this is one of them time where you should be betting to stop others from out drewing you if thay have a hand like A K for exarple the last think you want is them staying in the hand for free so thay can hit a 10 on the river

so realy id say it is ok to contiue to bet into a dead pot but what you should never be doing is Bluffing into 1
(or even semmy bluffing with hands like 9 10 as you may satisticly be leading the hand with a open ended st8 drew you would still be losing to a hand as low as k 2)
as this will not only lose you chips but will run the risk of doulbeling or tripleing up the all in player by alowing them to winn with a weeker hand than someone that you pushed out of the pot.
meaning not only have you lost some chips in that 1 hand but you have also lowwed your chances of winning the torny by keeping a player in that would uther wise of be alimanated.

[Xtreem1]

the general rule is - unless your hand greatly improves, check it down. I have ALWAYS done this in tourny play except here. people here NEVER seem to use that stratogy so it does me no good, they always bet or bluff into a "dry pot" which makes almost no sense. but in order to win you have to play it the same way, or give up the (what should be checked down) pot to the person betting.

[fabhastoplay]

Originally Posted by Xtreem1

the general rule is - unless your hand greatly improves, check it down. I have ALWAYS done this in tourny play except here. people here NEVER seem to use that stratogy so it does me no good, they always bet or bluff into a "dry pot" which makes almost no sense. but in order to win you have to play it the same way, or give up the (what should be checked down) pot to the person betting.

I too have been in this situation and as we're checking down, a large bet will come in. I assume they've hit but sometimes it's a bluff and the all in player wins as others fold because of the bet. Very poor play in my opinion and happens a lot on this site

[Ausangel]

Originally Posted by fabhastoplay

I too have been in this situation and as we're checking down, a large bet will come in. I assume they've hit but sometimes it's a bluff and the all in player wins as others fold because of the bet. Very poor play in my opinion and happens a lot on this site

I agree, its frustrating and usually bad play.