Bet after the All In Debate...

[liladypokerpro]

Okay personally when there are, lets just say 3 people in a hand, and One of them has moved all in pre-flop...I don't see the sense in betting after the fact when there's no way of knowing what the all in person is holding.

On the other hand, if you are sure you will win the hand, then it makes sense to try to push the other caller out, or get him to call you so you can get as much from it as possible.

My question is, is it generally a smart move to bet after a player has gone all in pre-flop?

My personal opinion is no, unless you know 100% that you will win with what you hold.

[Jarlsberg]

Depends on the size of the pot relative to your stack, but most of the time if I've got top pair or an overpair I'll try to get the other guy out of the way.

[TheyNeverLearn]

i dont ever bet after an all in player because like lady said u never know what they have and i have seen a lot of people bet after an all in player and then lose all their money because the all in player had something goofy and got lucky.

[Gothman]

I assume you are on about STT or MTTs. I check it down normally, although if I think I am ahead of the players range that is all in, I will bet to get the other guy out of the pot, at the end of the day, if there are chips up for grabs, I want them and don't want to let the other player draw cheaply. However, It would also depend a lot on the stage of the tourney, ie if its on the bubble, I would always check it down, same thing for satellites. I also look for tells on the other guy in the pot, ie if he checks it very quickly, you know he is likely to check it down. if he seems to think about it, you then have to be aware that he may bet you out of the pot.

[frob23]

It really depends on what I have, if there is already a side pot and where we are in the tournament. If it's early and the stacks are still deep after calling this all in and if my hand is fairly strong... I am value betting here and hoping to build a side pot that I am at least a favorite to win.

It also depends on the all-in player. If the all-in player is strong and ended up short-stacked because of a bad beat... I am more likely to check it down because I do not want that player getting chips and continuing to be a threat to me. I'll check it down in the hopes that one of us beats him. But if the player is weak and plays badly... and the live player in the hand is strong... I will be more likely to bet even if I suspect I am behind the range of the all-in player. I would much rather keep the weak player on the table than risk giving more chips to the strong player. The last thing I want is the strong player getting more chips. I know the weak player will bust out soon enough and give the chips back but he might give them to me or another weak player at the table.

I am not opposed to betting into an empty pot if that bet is likely to weaken the strong players even if is likely to give chips to a weak player.

[Vito_Nuccio]

The current crises would dictate course of action. In the exact same situation with same hand and same chip stacks, my decision would be based on the players in the game, my reads and feelings as to where I stand in the hand and game.

Thanks,

[Latrocinium]

I have to agree with Frob.

If it's early, then I want a pot to get another player out. So I'm more willing to check it down.

If it's late in the tourney or blinds are just up there in relation to my stack size. Then if there's a decent side pot. If everyone quick checks then I might just try to get it. Even if I'm behind the all-in player.

A. If I'm hurting that much, then those chips in that side pot will do me good.
B. After stealing a side pot like that. Just play tight, everytime you bet. They'll call.

But no, I usually don't bet the all in. Unless it's a value bet or a chase out. Then I usually have the best hand 85% of the time.

Unless you fold or you want some advertising value. You're showing your hand to that table. They can look up mucks on the river.(I do all the time) So it needs to represent the table image you want them to think.

[Rhythms]

depends on if the sidepot is worth playing... it the sidepot is dry and I have a fairly marginal hand I might check it down... if I have a decent hand like 2 pair+ I might raise to get value...hard to get value though

[liladypokerpro]

I agree in this case it can be very hard to get value because even if you place a value bet (in the case of 2 vs 1), the other person who called the all in more often than not is going to call the value bet too, simply because he has already committed himself to the initial all in pot. This is where I get a little mixed up because I'm used to watching betting patterns and using reads on the other players to help make many of my decisions in a hand.

When someone is all in, it takes the action away, and makes you feel a bit like a sitting duck. LOL Then when a bet is thrown out after the fact, you can't help but wonder "screw what this guy's got....does the all in guy have me beat?" Because once the all in is made, that player no longer has the option of action...so he could be sitting on a silent set or better, and the dumdum across from you bets as soon as an Ace hits the board, and forces you to either call / chase whatever you've got, or fold the potentially winning hand.

So I don't know...I guess I have to stick to what I previously said...in my case, if I'm going to play, it's gotta be a killer .