aq utg

[ed cooper]

do we always obey etiquette here and just check it down? are there any instances where we act to the contrary?

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, 6.5 Tournament, 25/50 Blinds (9 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

MP1 (t220)
MP2 (t2375)
MP3 (t1870)
CO (t1245)
Button (t1505)
SB (t1850)
BB (t1355)
Hero (UTG) (t1550)
UTG+1 (t1530)

Hero's M: 20.67

Preflop: Hero is UTG with ,
Hero bets t150, 1 fold, MP1 raises to t220 (All-In), 5 folds, BB calls t170, Hero calls t70

Flop: (t685) , , (3 players, 1 all-in)
BB checks, Hero checks

Turn: (t685) (3 players, 1 all-in)
BB checks, Hero checks

River: (t685) (3 players, 1 all-in)
BB bets t350

(i couldnt shove pre, i could only call)

[baudib]

yeah, you don't check it down when you want to win the pot.

In cases like this, especially if ss just lost a big pot, try to bet only enough that if he goes all-in and there are cold callers behind, you can reshove to isolate.

[Fielmann]

Checking it down is not a matter of etiquette, it's a matter of profitability. Since it's impossible to win the hand by forcing everybody to fold, it only makes sense to bet if you can bet for value.

Edit: Having thought about it I guess we can actually increase our chances of winning the pot just by forcing some others to fold except for the all-in guy. So ignore what I previously wrote.

[drmcboy]

def bet flop

[baudib]

btw basically just ignore checking-down etiquette. there are rare times when eliminating a player is in your interests (on the bubble when you are not the big stack) but the benefits of letting the shortstack survive while 8-handed vs. increasing the chances of winning a pot that will increase your stack size 50% is minimal.