Poker Ettiquitte . . Checking Down

[Stylin_Fish 0]

I had to learn to do cashier at my job, the only + about it is if there's a hot chick, I can run up to the front and say , "I can check you out." and then proceed to ring her up and then head back to my department.

[NoSup4U 0]

Look, if there's no sidepot, you're a jerk and not smart for betting. Even if you have the 3rd nuts, the guy allin could have the 2nd nuts and you may, by betting, have pushed out the river-nuts on the flop. It's bad strategery.

Love that somehow you're a jerk now for betting at a dry sidepot, like its just morally wrong or something. You know why you think someone is a jerk? Because you don't care about winning. You JUST care about moving up in the money. That is why you feel this way. And thats just fine, nothing wrong there. But lets not all act like we're really trying to win when we all believe bluffing someone out of a pot BECAUSE THEY MIGHT HAVE THE WINNING HAND is a bad idea....???????Betting at a dry sidepot is bad strategy if what is most important to you is moving up in the money. If you care about winning the damn thing, you will do whatever you think will increase your chances of getting all the chips, including pushing someone out of a pot that could potentially beat you.Mark

[TheCorporation3 0]

I had to learn to do cashier at my job, the only + about it is if there's a hot chick, I can run up to the front and say , "I can check you out." and then proceed to ring her up and then head back to my department.

LMAO, When I worked for ACE hardware like 4 years ago I had a similar thing I said too. "Would you like me to stick it in a bag for you?"Meh, not as good, but you get the drift.

[jowest 0]

Love that somehow you're a jerk now for betting at a dry sidepot, like its just morally wrong or something. You know why you think someone is a jerk? Because you don't care about winning. You JUST care about moving up in the money. That is why you feel this way. And thats just fine, nothing wrong there. But lets not all act like we're really trying to win when we all believe bluffing someone out of a pot BECAUSE THEY MIGHT HAVE THE WINNING HAND is a bad idea....???????Betting at a dry sidepot is bad strategy if what is most important to you is moving up in the money. If you care about winning the damn thing, you will do whatever you think will increase your chances of getting all the chips, including pushing someone out of a pot that could potentially beat you.Mark

WHY WHY WHY do people keep saying this. Don't you realize it is the same damn thing!!! You can't win if people are not eliminated. You have to think about best ways to eliminate players to win! COME ON! USE YOUR DAMN BRAIN BEFORE TYPING RETARDED POSTS LIKE THAT!Now in answer to OP's questions:1no2noKeep in mind that the term is "bluffing a dry side pot" not "betting when I have a made hand into the dry side pot" There is certainly nothing wrong with the latter.

[Pug_Fugly 0]

When the BB raised after the SB was all in the button should have realized that the BB wasn't interested in "checking it down".

[quadaces 0]

1. No2. No

I agree, while playing in tournies I will check it down if I dont have a great hand ie. straight/ flush / boat etc. ....I actually got bounced from a tourny where 1 player was all in and I was 2nd in chips at the table and floped a Q high flush. The other player pushed all in and I called and lost to the nut flush , so you cant just assume people will check it down if a player is all in.

[NoSup4U 0]

WHY WHY WHY do people keep saying this. Don't you realize it is the same damn thing!!! You can't win if people are not eliminated. You have to think about best ways to eliminate players to win! COME ON! USE YOUR DAMN BRAIN BEFORE TYPING RETARDED POSTS LIKE THAT!

Its not the same thing. Winning = having all the chips last time I checked. By checking it down, you are INCREASING your chances of losing the pot, while decreasing your chances of knocking out a player. You trade expected chips for expected money. (which I would argue isn't even true because in the long term by playing to win you increase your monetary expectation)By your logic, you should just fold all but untra premium hands because then other players will get eliminated and you can win right? Thats what you're saying: Lets just let other players get knocked out, and not try and get chips that are available to us....I for one will ALWAYS try and do whatever I can to get all the chips at the final table, even if it means bluffing out a hand that would have knocked out a player, (AGAIN, ONLY IF I think there is a chance my hand beats the all in guy. Nobody is saying bluff with 54o or something that has no show down value) and costing me huge amounts of money at a final table. If you don't play that way or think thats the best way to win, I hope you're at my table and try checking it down with me :)Gl everyone,Mark

You have to think about best ways to eliminate players to win! COME ON! USE YOUR DAMN BRAIN BEFORE TYPING RETARDED POSTS LIKE THAT!

I just have to quote this one more time since you said I was so retarded. Don't you see how foolish this statement is? [You have to think about the best ways to eliminate players to win] Eliminating players will happen on its own. Guess what? If you bust out first, all the players will still get eliminated.The point is, eliminating players does you NO GOOD WHATSOEVER. Gathering chips is what helps you win. If you are playing a 100 person tourney, and you let 98 players bust out, and you have 10 chips vs the other guys 100000 chips, guess what? You've done a great job allowing other players to be eliminated. And you're about to come in second.Mark

[SPADES21 0]

The point is, eliminating players does you NO GOOD WHATSOEVER. Gathering chips is what helps you win. If you are playing a 100 person tourney, and you let 98 players bust out, and you have 10 chips vs the other guys 100000 chips, guess what? You've done a great job allowing other players to be eliminated. And you're about to come in second.Mark

well how much does second place pay??

[nopunk 0]

Its not the same thing. Winning = having all the chips last time I checked. By checking it down, you are INCREASING your chances of losing the pot, while decreasing your chances of knocking out a player. You trade expected chips for expected money. (which I would argue isn't even true because in the long term by playing to win you increase your monetary expectation)By your logic, you should just fold all but untra premium hands because then other players will get eliminated and you can win right? Thats what you're saying: Lets just let other players get knocked out, and not try and get chips that are available to us....I for one will ALWAYS try and do whatever I can to get all the chips at the final table, even if it means bluffing out a hand that would have knocked out a player, (AGAIN, ONLY IF I think there is a chance my hand beats the all in guy. Nobody is saying bluff with 54o or something that has no show down value) and costing me huge amounts of money at a final table. If you don't play that way or think thats the best way to win, I hope you're at my table and try checking it down with me :)Gl everyone,MarkI just have to quote this one more time since you said I was so retarded. Don't you see how foolish this statement is? [You have to think about the best ways to eliminate players to win] Eliminating players will happen on its own. Guess what? If you bust out first, all the players will still get eliminated.The point is, eliminating players does you NO GOOD WHATSOEVER. Gathering chips is what helps you win. If you are playing a 100 person tourney, and you let 98 players bust out, and you have 10 chips vs the other guys 100000 chips, guess what? You've done a great job allowing other players to be eliminated. And you're about to come in second.Mark

Do you not understand that what you are talking about is not bluffing?(AGAIN, ONLY IF I think there is a chance my hand beats the all in guy. Nobody is saying bluff with 54o or something that has no show down value)There.This is the signal that you've realized you are a tard and are subtly trying to shift the direction of the argument.People say don't bluff into a side pot. What do you do? Immediatly and emphatically disagree.Later, perhaps after a tasty sangwich, you realize your error.Instead of typing half a page of arguing in which you are actually agreeing, just say "I was wrong, sorry guys."It will make you look a ton better.

[jowest 0]

Do you not understand that what you are talking about is not bluffing?(AGAIN, ONLY IF I think there is a chance my hand beats the all in guy. Nobody is saying bluff with 54o or something that has no show down value)There.This is the signal that you've realized you are a tard and are subtly trying to shift the direction of the argument.People say don't bluff into a side pot. What do you do? Immediatly and emphatically disagree.Later, perhaps after a tasty sangwich, you realize your error.Instead of typing half a page of arguing in which you are actually agreeing, just say "I was wrong, sorry guys."It will make you look a ton better.

Wow thank you for helping me prove my point to Mark.Now MARK,'Your logic is in fact retarded. The fact I have to explain why proves you are retarded.Tournament play is a happy medium of building chipstacks AND eliminating players. If you notice the point of the thread (as reconfirmed by nopunk) is why you should NOT BLUFF at a side pot. I stated in my rebuttle that it is different if you feel your hand is the winner against all in.Is this making sense to you?If you don't understand why you should also be worried about eliminating the field AND building chipstack than I would rather not explain that to you and instead invite you to play in every tourny I am in.Thank you very much.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Its not the same thing. Winning = having all the chips last time I checked. By checking it down, you are INCREASING your chances of losing the pot, while decreasing your chances of knocking out a player. You trade expected chips for expected money. (which I would argue isn't even true because in the long term by playing to win you increase your monetary expectation)By your logic, you should just fold all but untra premium hands because then other players will get eliminated and you can win right? Thats what you're saying: Lets just let other players get knocked out, and not try and get chips that are available to us....I for one will ALWAYS try and do whatever I can to get all the chips at the final table, even if it means bluffing out a hand that would have knocked out a player, (AGAIN, ONLY IF I think there is a chance my hand beats the all in guy. Nobody is saying bluff with 54o or something that has no show down value) and costing me huge amounts of money at a final table. If you don't play that way or think thats the best way to win, I hope you're at my table and try checking it down with me :)Gl everyone,MarkI just have to quote this one more time since you said I was so retarded. Don't you see how foolish this statement is? [You have to think about the best ways to eliminate players to win] Eliminating players will happen on its own. Guess what? If you bust out first, all the players will still get eliminated.The point is, eliminating players does you NO GOOD WHATSOEVER. Gathering chips is what helps you win. If you are playing a 100 person tourney, and you let 98 players bust out, and you have 10 chips vs the other guys 100000 chips, guess what? You've done a great job allowing other players to be eliminated. And you're about to come in second.Mark

well how much does second place pay??

No kidding, Spades.NoSup, I can see why maybe if there was a HUGE pot that you wanted the other guy out of, betting might be a good idea, although I highly doubt you'd get your opponent out of a huge one unless he completely whiffed with a mediocre hand.Think about the consequences of betting into a dry sidepot with someone allin:You bet. Opponent folds. River comes, you have better hand than allin, you win pot. You bet. Opponent folds. River comes, allin has better hand, you don't win, allin still has chips, you have fewer. And the same amount of players in.You check down. Your hand is best, you win the pot, allin is gone.You check down, opponent's hand is best, he wins pot, allin is gone. You check down, allin wins. Same result as if you bet with the losing hand.Essentially, whether you win or not, when you check down, you get (2) positive outcomes (winning the pot or an elimination) for every (1) negative outcome (allin wins). If you bet, the outcomes even up. So, +EV to check down. Right?

[NoSup4U 0]

No kidding, Spades.NoSup, I can see why maybe if there was a HUGE pot that you wanted the other guy out of, betting might be a good idea, although I highly doubt you'd get your opponent out of a huge one unless he completely whiffed with a mediocre hand.*snipsnip*You check down, allin wins. Same result as if you bet with the losing hand.Essentially, whether you win or not, when you check down, you get (2) positive outcomes (winning the pot or an elimination) for every (1) negative outcome (allin wins). If you bet, the outcomes even up. So, +EV to check down. Right?

jowest and nopunk, you guys are donks If you read my first posts carefully, you'll see I never said bluff if you have no shot of beating the all in, I specifically said don't do it. But what about if you have AK and the board reads QT5? Firing at the dry side pot is still what most people consider bluffing the dry side pot. But in that case, you have a very real expectation that your AK could be beating the all in, but lose to the other dude. Or you have JT and the board reads KTr, or you have 55 and the board reads KT3, etc etc. DonkSlayer, thanks for at least making a decent argument here and not sounding like a 12 year old I definitely understand the logic behind checking it down. It isn't wrong. And its +EV if you want to move up in the money. But if you want to win the tournament, at any point where you would care enough to check it down to bust someone there will almost for sure be enough chips in the pot to make a difference to you. Its just so crucial at those late stages to get those chips. But for everyone that just wants it check it down, thats cool too. You'll defininitely make friends with the rest of the table at least :)Mark

Your logic is in fact retarded. The fact I have to explain why proves you are retarded.Tournament play is a happy medium of building chipstacks AND eliminating players. If you notice the point of the thread (as reconfirmed by nopunk) is why you should NOT BLUFF at a side pot. I stated in my rebuttle that it is different if you feel your hand is the winner against all in.

Well, I stated in my first post in this thread, long before you were involved, that 'if you think you might be ahead of the dead money and can get the other guy out' that is when you bluff at the dry side pot. So nyah nyah nyah. And tournament play is about eliminating players and chipping up? Heh, I hope everyone I play against thinks like that. The only time you should care how many players are left is near any money bubbles. (Again, just assuming your goal is to win, not move up in pay) How many players are in or not in means almost nothing to your chances of winning. If you're ever at a final table and someone wants to assess your chances of taking the thing down, they're going to ask you one thing first: HOW MANY CHIPS DO YOU HAVE??This thread is making me soooo 14 years old. gl if you want to argue it more. Mark

[The Nuts 0]

1. No2. No

[Teffy 0]

Gl everyone,MarkI just have to quote this one more time since you said I was so retarded. Don't you see how foolish this statement is? [You have to think about the best ways to eliminate players to win] Eliminating players will happen on its own. Guess what? If you bust out first, all the players will still get eliminated.The point is, eliminating players does you NO GOOD WHATSOEVER. Gathering chips is what helps you win. If you are playing a 100 person tourney, and you let 98 players bust out, and you have 10 chips vs the other guys 100000 chips, guess what? You've done a great job allowing other players to be eliminated. And you're about to come in second.Mark

YOU SIR, ARE AN IDIOT.

[NoSup4U 0]

YOU SIR, ARE AN IDIOT.

You sir, don't win tournaments.Ok, thats my LAST 14 year old whiner flame war comment on this thread, I almost promise.Mark

[Teffy 0]

You sir, don't win tournaments.Ok, thats my LAST 14 year old whiner flame war comment on this thread, I almost promise.Mark

Re-read your previous post that i quoted, then stab yourself in the eye. You MAKE NO SENSE. stop trying to explain it. Also, attempt to find someone else who agrees with you.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Why do people attempt to talk strat in general.The answer to the "check it down" question for side pots is:IT DEPENDS.It depends on a lot of things, but the two most important are the strength of your hand (obviously) and the payout structure and the current position of the payout structure (as in are we near the bubble or is it the beginning of the tournament, etc).The general rule is that it is not a good idea to bluff into a "dry" sidepot, which is a sidepot with no money already in it. This is only a GENERAL RULE of THUMB, not a law. One could conceive of exceptions to almost every rule in poker if they tried hard enough and were so malicious. Arguing one way or another is stupid without a specific example.

[NoSup4U 0]

Re-read your previous post that i quoted, then stab yourself in the eye. You MAKE NO SENSE. stop trying to explain it. Also, attempt to find someone else who agrees with you.

You know why it doesn't make sense to you? Because you care about moving up in the money. Not about winning.Not having the masses agree isn't a problem for me.Mark

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Essentially, whether you win or not, when you check down, you get (2) positive outcomes (winning the pot or an elimination) for every (1) negative outcome (allin wins). If you bet, the outcomes even up. So, +EV to check down. Right?

No, this makes little sense. Some events are more probable than others. Simply counting the number of unfavorable amounts and comparing it to the amount of favorable events has no meaning. One would really need to have a concrete example and assign percentages to different scenarios to determine whether something has a positive expectation value or not.When I use the term EV here, I refer to money, not tournament chips. This makes the calculations more difficult because one has to come up with a good way of determining tournament winnings from chip standings, and again an approximation for this would depend on tournament structure.

You know why it doesn't make sense to you? Because you care about moving up in the money. Not about winning.Not having the masses agree isn't a problem for me.Mark

See my post above. All we care about is CASHMOOONEY! But we can approximate tournament equity from chip structure and payout structure.

[Teffy 0]

You know why it doesn't make sense to you? Because you care about moving up in the money. Not about winning.Not having the masses agree isn't a problem for me.Mark

Who are YOU to tell ME what i care about. Based on your statements, its safe to assume that the following statements are true:1. I have played poker for longer than you.2. I have made more money playing poker than you.3. I have won more tournaments than you4. I will continue to do #'s 2 and 3 for the rest of my existence.

[jowest 0]

You know why it doesn't make sense to you? Because you care about moving up in the money. Not about winning.Not having the masses agree isn't a problem for me.Mark

Ok here is the absulute easiest way to make my point. I hope I was able to dumb it down enough for you:You can not win the tournament without players being eliminated.

[NoSup4U 0]

When I use the term EV here, I refer to money, not tournament chips. This makes the calculations more difficult because one has to come up with a good way of determining tournament winnings from chip standings, and again an approximation for this would depend on tournament structure.See my post above. All we care about is CASHMOOONEY! But we can approximate tournament equity from chip structure and payout structure.

Totally agree. I think you need to factor in long term equity as well though. For instance, just because making a certain move in one tournament might net you some extra money, if you make that same move over and over, do you expect to win more or less? I think that is where a lot of people disagree on this issue.Mark

[wax120 0]

Who are YOU to tell ME what i care about. Based on your statements, its safe to assume that the following statements are true:1. I have played poker for longer than you.2. I have made more money playing poker than you.3. I have won more tournaments than you4. I will continue to do #'s 2 and 3 for the rest of my existence.

I would definitely argue that at least #2, #3, and #4 of the statements above are incorrect as they apply here. I think Mark pwns you lifetime and will continue to do so. How many POY points do you have? I agree with Mark, so saying that NO ONE agrees with him is incorrect.

[NoSup4U 0]

Ok here is the absulute easiest way to make my point. I hope I was able to dumb it down enough for you:You can not win the tournament without players being eliminated.

Ok here is the easiest way for me to make my point:You can not win the tournament without having all the chips.And I can say: You can lose the tournament if players are eliminated. But you can't say: You can lose the tournament with all the chips.So while a lot of people might make a lot of arguments against my thoughts on this issue and be right, you I beat hands down here.Mark

[Teffy 0]

I would definitely argue that at least #2, #3, and #4 of the statements above are incorrect as they apply here. I think Mark pwns you lifetime and will continue to do so. How many POY points do you have? I agree with Mark, so saying that NO ONE agrees with him is incorrect.

wow, you just volunteered for the idiot club.anyone else care to join?