Is Checking It Down Really Correct?

[shipitfish]

In a low-limit satellite tournament, I recently had a player berate me for betting into a dry-ish side pot. I had raised from the button when the action folded to me and the big blind was all-in for 350 chips, less than the value of the blind (400). The antes had started, so there were 775 chips out there. The small blind was tight and even in chips with me (about 9,000). He was pretty tight and I felt he'd fold most of the time, assuming I had a hand to show down with the all-in player.

I held 23s, which (I believe) is only around 30% to win against two random cards, so the odds were about 15% against me, even if my instincts were right and the SB folded. But, I was also hoping to use the play to set something up later, as the blinds would be going up soon. Against loose players, I noticed tighter players were calling a lot of all-in bets with bad hands in this tournament, and they seemed to only need a small reason to call big preflop raises for all their chips. I was hoping to give them a reason in my case — by risking less than a BB, with some small equity to win a pot full of blinds and antes, and be “forced” to show that I'd raised with a terrible hand. I hoped it would induce action later, and the blinds were going up fast so getting called by dominated aces to double up in the next round would be a big help.

I was not too happy when the SB called the 775 bet, making the main pot 1,475 and the side pot 850. The flop was QJ2 with a two-flush and the SB checked. I really felt I had the best hand at this point. Given what I'd seen of this player, he would have bet out with either a Q or J; he had not check-raised once since we'd started the tournament. I decided to make a feeler bet of 500. If he called, I was wrong on my read and he had likely a J. I would then have five outs on the turn to win, and I might get a free river card, too. Betting 500 to win 2,325 therefore seemed right to me here.

My 2 was good, he folded, and it beat the all-in player. His anger was focused in the argument was that it helped me more to check it down than it did to bet, because it was the best shot to “eliminate a player”. I thought a lot about this argument and I don't buy it. We were still seven seats from the money, and one more player with an emergency stack wasn't going to change much. I theorize that the player was more angry that he would have hit a pair on the turn or river (although he never said specifically what he had).

I know my preflop raise was very questionable, and that its primary value was to have the better players at the table see me as a “loose raiser” and get action as a favorite (with weak King-highs, for example) when I would inevitably move all-in within the next 20 minutes. But, was it so questionable that I should have just folded and let the SB call and show down with the all-in player? And, was my bet on the flop a suicide bet? Is he right, is checking down right? (If he was right, it was for the wrong reason, of course.)

I've read a lot lately that seems to indicate that game theoretically, bluffing into a dry(-ish) side pot can often be a correct play. Am I taking that too far, though?

As it turned out the ploy seems to have worked. I got called all-in preflop holding QQ about 20 minutes later by a very tight player (who had earlier joined the discussion of my “bad play”). However, he knocked me out when he flopped an ace.

But, being careful not to assume I'd done the right thing, I should ask the question if I did. What do you think?

Comments

[shunny.livejournal.com]

I personally don't agree with the "checking it down" theory when a guy is all-in. There's a guy in the Friday night home game I go to who has basically instilled in everyone that whenever someone is all-in you should check it down to eliminate a player. He's pretty much the second best player in the game (behind me of course) and he's a book-smart, strong player, who however plays a little too loose-aggressive, or too Phil-like, if you know what I mean.

Some quick reasons why you might not want to check it down...

You would prefer for the all-in player to survive rather than let your opponent would win the pot. I've never done this but if someone is all willing to fold mid or top pair to a bet when someone is all-in for a small amount, why not tilt him and move him off the hand?

You are ahead of the all-in player but your opponent in the hand could still win the pot if he hits his hand. Example : The hand that busted Tex Barch at last's year WSOP. I believe Paul Phillips wrote about how sick it would have been if Steve Dannenman had taken Hachem off his JJ and won the whole pot while still knocking Tex Barch.

The pot is large against the all-in player and you have a good enough hand that you'd prefer to knock out your opponent and secure your equity in the main pot.

So yes, I agree with you and I follow your arguments regarding not checking it down. I actually think it's a great play and the image you're trying to attain is perfect.

My only problem is that the feeler bet you made smells so weak if it wasn't for the all-in player and the guy respecting your bet thinking you had something, you probably would have been taken off the hand.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

I agree the feeler bet was a bit weak. I wasn't trying to put him off a J; I expected he'd call any bet up to the pot size with middle pair. I expected him only to fold Ace-high or weaker. I didn't need to make a pot size bet to get him to fold that (I think that's probably what he folded), and I didn't want to commit more chips if he had a J. He was passive enough that he'd check again on the turn unless he improved to two-pair or better, so I was a favorite to see a free river if I was drawing live.

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

This is one of those situational things. If I'm sitting there with nothing then I'm happy to check it down in the hope that I'll catch on the turn or river and make my contribution to busting out the short stack. No problem there and I suspect one of the most common reasons behind a mutual check-down is that both players are in this situation (the other being that they both slavishly follow "convention").

If, on the other hand, I have something that I think has a chance of winning now, and I think that reducing the field will increase that chance, then why not bet? If it has the side-effect of changing my table image to one that I can exploit later, then that's good too.

I don't think I'm too bothered about maximising the chance to eliminate an opponent 7 places off the money, though: the blind structure is going to make that happen soon anyway. I can't see much change in your $ expectancy from an elimination point-of-view. On the bubble it may be different. And remember that checking down gives the all-in player a chance to catch as well...

[patty-bush.livejournal.com]

He's all-in, he'll catch regardless.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think I'm in agreement with you. The more I review this situation, the more I think I did the right thing.

[patty-bush.livejournal.com]

I think what it comes down to, is do you think you'll lose to the other player in the hand? If you do, and he wins the pot, does that put him in a chip position that makes it hard on you? Also is the all-in player going to be dangerous if he gets more chips?

If you're better than the other player, letting him win more chips shouldn't bother you too much, and if the all-in player is a very solid player, and allowing him to triple up, and then potentially then double up would make your life miserable, then check it down. It's better to eliminate the dangerous all-in player.

Now if it's reversed, and the all-in player is short stacked, because he's a bad player, and the small blind is a very strong player that you don't want to be to your left with a lot of chips, then by all means, get him to fold and make a donation to the all-in player.

One thing that is unique to this situation is that both players are to your immediate left (which I'm guess doesn't occur often in this situation very often) which means that both have position on you, and if gives you the ability to try to dictate which player gets more chips.

So going with the assumption that you'll almost certainly lose the hand, bet into the pot when the all-in player is the weaker of the two, check it down when the other player is weaker.

does any of that make sense, sorry, I kind of just thought of something and went with it....

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

First of all, this is a $24 online tourney. There are few dangerous players in the field. In fact, I would say there were basically none at my table. The question in these low-limit tourneys is are they absolutely terrible or just ok players?. I would say the all-in player was absolutely terrible and the player with chips was ok. I wasn't afraid of either of them if they got more chips.

BTW, they didn't have position this hand, because I was on the button and they were the blinds.

In retrospect, I like the bet because it did help confuse my table image and helped get me paid off later by a bad hand (calling a 10 times the BB reraise with A3o is really a bad play, and good for me when I had QQ), and I did pick up some chips.

If the guy with chips was a strong player, I'd be more likely to make the play, because it's less likely he has a Q or J than the bad player, and he wouldn't just check-and-call. He'd probably lead, and I would have folded bottom pair in that case.

simpleton's analysis

[tmckearney.livejournal.com]

Because it's been a while since I played (life got in my way), my first instinct on this topic is that this reminds me of superstitious people in BlackJack who get pissed when someone hits when they're not "supposed to" and the dealer doesn't bust like (s)he was "supposed to".

Hey... it's a game. There are many players. Don't get irritated because different people play different ways.

People can get surprised and think you are foolish for doing certain things, but they shouldn't get upset.

T