Checking down a dry side pot......

[Scotty]

The 'ettiquite' side of checking down an empty side pot, as far as i see it, is moreso relating to the people left in the hand, not the all-in player. Hence the reason not to bluff with air. This leaves everyone who is still live playing 'best hand wins' so to speak.

[Des]

you are giving the person thats all in more chance to lose by checking it down, so its not really etiquette for the person all in is it.

Checking it down also gives yourself more chance to lose because you're giving the other live bettor free looks at cards. Better for you to only have to beat one other player.

But you have to have a hand that can actually win... betting someone out of a pot when you dont have a pair or better is pointless as the guy who is all-in cant fold.

Thats what im trying to say... if you have a good hand (Top pair(good kicker) or better), then its ok to bet.. but if you're weak or a draw its correct to check it down

[Scotty]

Yes. The 'ettiquite' doesn't mean you should be checking down if you have hit the board pretty hard, of course you should be trying to extract more chips here.

[bennymacca]

That confuses me

i have obviously misread the whole argument and confused everyone else, and myself

why should it be best hand wins just because someone is all in?

why not deal them face up then?

but if you're weak or a draw its correct to check it down

play your draw as you normally would - if you hit, then all good - if you lose, then so be it.

[BigPete33]

Des - I'ts only my opinion but I don't completely agree with that. Let's say you have AK and you don't have either the allin guy or the other live bettor as having actually made a hand as yet, or they maybe have bottom pair on a board with mid to high numbered cards. I'd possibly opt for pushing out the other live bettor and taking my chances against the guy who's allin (situation dependant tho). I find it hard to agree with it being 'correct' to check it down just because you may not have hit yet.

[bennymacca]

this is my point too pete - better use of the english language to get your point across though

[David]

There is not ettiquite in strategy.

Simple

[Des]

im just explaining why its done, im just the messenger

i understand why its done, and i agree with it, but i really dont have the time to explain it

and your example has a lot of holes in it, as you would never know if the all-in person has hit or not as he has no more action in the hand

[BigPete33]

I didn't imply that I knew what they had, moreso what I put them on.

Until I'm enlightened, I can't see a reason to treat the side pot any differently to a normal pot.

[Des]

Maybe one day, you'll bet a dry side pot... and the all-in guy will win with a crap hand again you, then he will knock you out and you become the bubble boy

then you may understand why people check down side pots instead of bluffing or semibluffing at them

anyway, if you have AK and havent hit... and the other person is checking, it still gives you the chance to draw out on them