I was under the impression that when an all-in faces 2 other players (especially after the bubble when position matters), it was common knowledge that the best thing for the other 2 players to do was check down to the river. I thought this was due to the fact that 2 players have a better chance to beat out the single player the one...and getting that guy out should be a priority. Is this not the case?

__________________
Trons
JstTrons
Toyotatruck

Usually in tournaments yes, especially if the pot is not that big relative to their stacks. This happens usually when the elimination of a player is more critical than taking a few extra chips off the other guy (and risking yours). It really depends on the hand though. If you really dont have much, then you should check it down, Bluffing into a dry side pot is very "rude". But if you got a strong enough hand that you don't want out drawn, then a smallish bet to give the other player the hint that he is not welcome anymore is fine. If he plays back, then it is no longer a dry side pot, and all bets are off (or on as the case is). Your bet just ensures it you will take the main pot alone, and if the all-in guy wins it, well, you weren't winning it even if the other guy was along or not.

__________________

bringing this up reminds me of something that happened a month or so ago, and i was wondering if you guys though i had a right to be upset...


I was playing a $10 game at a local college with one of my friends, and got shortstacked somewhat quickly. (stack sizes, blinds, etc... are all irrelavent)


Anyway, I built up a little back, and found myself with AA UTG. There was a player who had raised literally all but one pot preflop, and that was just because he had to answer a phone call. Well, he was back at the table, so I limped in, planning on maximizing my potential winnings. It folded the rest of the way to him, and sure enough, he raised about 4x the BB. The SB called, BB folded, and I reraised, allin, for about 5 or 6x over what his raise was. He thought for a moment and called, as did the SB.


The flop was X-X-J. The SB started to reach for chips when Mr. Raise said to him "etiquette says we check this down". The SB looked puzzled but checked. A 6 came on the turn, and a blank fell on the river. The SB flipped up AJ, I turned over my aces, and Mr. Raise reveals a set of 6's.


This pissed me off because had Mr. Raise kept his mouth shut, A-J would have bet, probably forcing a fold, and I would have taken the pot, tripling up.


Do you agree I have a right to be angry here, or was I just annoyed my aces got cracked?

__________________
www.myspace.com/sixyearsilenceband

You are right to be annoyed.

Betting into a dry side pot with AJ to a Jxx flop is exactly what Marm is describing above and is to be expected as otherwise it's giving a draw to the other guy for free, which is exactly what happened.

It's the idiots who would bet it with KQ that are the dumb ones.

you should be annoyed that the fools said "chek this down"

__________________
I get more ass than a toilet seat. All shapes/colors/sizes.

caution:
http://girlvideos.blogspot.com/

lol, it's even funnier that the guy refused to bet his set of 6's to eliminate you.

It's BLUFFING at an empty side pot that is frowned upon. If you have a solid hand, then bet all you want... but forcing out what may be a better hand when you have a poor chance of winning what's allready out there (since you can't force out the all-in) is retarded.

__________________
-You may not know this, but poker is a game of incomplete information.

yeah the thing i was really pissed about was him saying that in the middle of the hand...hypocritcal a bit no? preaching etiquette...



ah fuck, only $10 :good:

__________________
www.myspace.com/sixyearsilenceband

This is called collusion, and is completely against the rules. Two players who openly collude against a third player should immeidately have their hands forfeited (and frankly they should be kicked out of the tournament).

If two players independently decide to check it down, that's fine. If they discuss, signal, or in any way actively agree to check it down, this is collusion.

Checking it down is a standard play at the end of tournaments in these situations to eliminate a third player and ensure both win more $. When I'm in these situations and the other guy bets, I say "Nice bet into a dry sidepot, you'd better have the nuts." Most times of course, they're morons who I guess think by bluffing me out they'll win something. Of course you can't bluff out an all-in player.

I've seen a couple of times where the moron later gets busted by the player they could have eliminated if they had checked it down rather.

So, why couldn't the all-in player not demand that the loud mouth fold his hand right then and there? It would increase his chances to win by about 25% with one less hand in the pot and would be the correct poker action - the same as raising to force out a player when you don't have the chips to bet since you are all-in?
'Etiquette' does not trump the 'rules of the game' and talking to influence another player is a violation of both! Besides which "Poker is not a team sport!"
Getting someone eliminated from a tourney may be a lot more difficult and disruptive than getting the guy to fold and forfeit his chips in the pot. Another post from yesterday had a guy not even in the hand, influenced the play by telling an active player that he laid down a K-6 with 2 Ks showing on the flop! That too is collision and the loud mouth should be demanded to cover any loses to the other active player!

Coming to a verbal agreement about actions is collusion.