Check Republic

Here's a common tournament situation: One short-stacked player pushes all-in and is called by two or more larger-stacked opponents. Among experienced tournament players, there's an unwritten rule that both of the bigger stacks will just check the hand through all the way to the river-maximizing the chance of the short-stacked player being eliminated, because he's competing against two other hands at the showdown, instead of only one.

In practice, this sort of thing happens all the time during tournaments. There is some question of whether or not this unspoken agreement to "check it down" anytime a third player is all in might actually be a form of implicit collusion. In a sense, the two checking players are ganging up on the all-in guy, which technically fits the definition of collusion. But unless these two players actually discuss the action of checking it down between them, for all practical purposes they are simply pursuing a time-honored tournament strategy. It's a strategy so commonly embraced among tournament players that anybody who doesn't follow this practice-who decides instead to bet and push the other live player out of the pot-might find himself on the receiving end of some angry comments and nasty looks from the rest of the table. Especially if the all-in player ends up surviving as a result.

This debate boils down to what matters most to you as a tournament player-the chance to eliminate an opponent from the competition, or the chance to win whatever chips are in the pot? The actual merit of this play depends on the specific situation, and several factors play a role here.

First, how far along is the tournament? Has it gotten into the money stage yet, or even close to it? If the answer is yes, then eliminating opponents takes on a far greater importance than it does when the tourney is still in the early stages. Early on, it's all about surviving and building up your chip stack. Knocking out opponents is a secondary consideration. But once the tourney gets into the money, every eliminated player guarantees more cold hard cash for each player who remains. And that's almost always worth more than any single pot of tournament chips.

Something else to consider is how many chips, if any, are in the side pot-the pot the two remaining players are competing for. If there's nothing in it, or next-to-nothing, then there's little point in betting at it just to push the other live player out. The main exception would be if you actually hold a good hand which you are reasonably sure will beat the all-in player at the showdown. Now you're betting to protect your equity in the main pot, so the other live player won't draw out on you.

Even here, there's mucho disagreement among tournament players as to what "good" hand would in fact be good enough to merit a bet in this situation. Some players feel that only the nuts-a hand that is virtually an iron-clad guarantee to beat Mr. All In-can be bet here. While others feel that a hand as weak as second pair would be worth a bet, as long as it gives the bettor an improved chance to win the main pot. This standard varies all over the place, depending on the individual and the particulars of the situation.

The one universally-agreed-upon Unforgivable Deadly Sin in tournament poker is to bluff at an empty side pot when a third player is all-in. This is a bet which carries a huge downside-it gives the all-in player a much greater chance of surviving, since the bluffer, by definition, has nothing-and no upside either, since there are no chips in the side pot. Of all the unwritten rules in tournament poker, this is the one you do not want to break.

Barbara Connors is a sucker for classic old movies, science fiction, and the St. Louis Cardinals. Her life's ambition is to figure out the unusual behavior patterns of that unique breed of humans who call themselves poker players. Contact her at fyreflye222@yahoo.com.