Should we ever "shoot it"?

i always heard "check it down" or "run it" never "shoot it"

as a rule i don't do it outside of blind vs blind limp and chase high hands but have on occasion done it when the preflop action constitutes at least 50% of stacks and the requester is a fun rec

I think it's kind of a dick move to only check it down when you judge it to be +EV (other than the accepted practice of chasing high hand promos). I wouldn't go so far as to say it's violating any unwritten rules, but it has the potential of creating situations where people get mad you won't check it down this time when you did it last time (or with another player). It's also clearly collusion and runs the risk of alienating fish if they feel like regs are soft playing each other and targeting them.

agreed, the odds of me accepting a check it down request go up enormously if it's a bad player who is good to have at the table

I would never offer to do it because it reveals too much about my hand and it lets (hopefully) inferior opponents off the hook. The fact that they offered says a lot about their hand.

I suppose you could try asking a competitive LAG to try to get them to blast off into you. That could backfire though if they think you're competent (as it's typically a fish asking), and it would only work once.

In conclusion, I would not do it unless there is a whale at the table that I'm trying to keep happy. It's an inherently selfish request, so there needs to be some kind of benefit to me.

Haven’t seen much of this. When a couple of players are in a hand with a short stack all-in, it’s kinda standard to check it down and see what he’s got. But not all players don’t do it.

A tight player wouldn’t dislike this much. If it’s happening regularly, I might open my ranges some - as it certainly reduces risk.

I don’t think this will catch on like the straddle, because turn and river is where the skill makes a difference and is kinda the essence of this game. Without the big bets, might as well play Limit Hold’em.

Yeah, all my original early thoughts on the matter were with regards to EV of the play. Only at the very end did I consider that maybe (?) this is a dick move.

Still not 100% convinced (and I don't think it's really the same as checking down the blinds), especially if I'm never the one doing the asking.

GcluelessshootingnoobG

Yeah, never really considered that negative, although to be honest I'm guessing most opponents who are asking won't be aware enough to figure out which bucket my range falls in given my answer.

Still, a polite / jovial "lol, sorry man, no offense, but I never shoot" (which is still my standard reply) might be best overall.

GcluelessshootingnoobG

Yeah, not really the same thing tho. The others are checking it down not to see what shorty has; they're checking it down because they realize the pot is protected and they can't bluff to win the pot, so the only bets must be for value (and most don't bet for value thinly enough to begin with).

GcluelessprotectedpotnoobG

In the end, I thought about the actual hands we happened to have: me with TT, the whale with KQs (he's not folding if I decline the shoot, imo).

The flop happened to come Axx, so maybe he puts me in some bad spots (although my guess is he probably just sigh folds to a 1/3 PSB cbet).

I win his stack on K/QxT.

I don't protect my equity at all on 9 high flops.

I prolly (?) don't lose more than a bet or two on K/Qxx flops.

I'm mean, so far I've only ever shot once every 500 hands, so not too terribly concerned about it. And maybe I'll do it again in a very similar overall spot another 500 hands from now. But I think in the end I've decided it probably doesn't make EV (and perhaps even ethical) sense to do it on any kind of semi-regular basis.

GcluelessshootingnoobG

Assume it's almost always +EV for GG to "check it down", given preflop ranges. If it's more +EV than playing post, who knows.

I think you can easily argue that it's fine to do it sometimes (Eg. both players are about to leave the game).

FWIW I've always declined, due to a weird moral code that says it's unfair to the other players who already folded. ¯\_(ツ😉_/¯

Yes, I've wondered about this too. The last guy to react is the only one who gets the opportunity to ask for the shoot, which no one else does.

GcluelessethicalnoobG

Yeah, I think this was mainly what I was trying to figure out: whether there were some cases where accepting to shoot was likely more EV than playing post.

GcluelessEVnoobG

Honestly think your scenario is the only reason to ever do it. I'd do what ever it takes to keep huge donators in the game. I've surely accepted some unconventional requests before from whales. One of them was doing edibles at the table, I love edibles but not when playing poker. Was probably one of the most fun nights I've had though.

I'll do essentially anything a whale wants, especially a friendly one.

It's not unfair to the other players because it makes the game better.

It is also a minor courtesy to someone who knowingly donates tons of money to the game.

It's not only foolish and short sighted to deny these players their little fun spots, it's a bit rude.

If you had a wonderful business client who was a pleasure to work with and you took him out to lunch, but he ordered a couple beers, would you make him pay you $12 or whatever for the beer?

What if I replace "pleasant whale" with "douchebag difficult player"? The other reasons (OOP, difficult player, ~difficult hand, mental health maintenance regarding going into last orbit with huge winstreak on the line, etc.) are all still applicable.

So fine versus pleasant whale if they ask, but play it straight versus everyone else? Keeping in mind pretty much everyone else is also a losing player in various degrees?

ETA: Clarification above: I've now shot once every 500 *sessions (not hands).

GcluelessshootingnoobG

Would never do it vs anyone else. Just don't see the reason for it.

I'm not going to allow anyone other than a whale to angle me with this.

However, I'm generally in favor of all fun gambly stuff. Let's take a flop without looking at our cards. Let's just check it down some times. Bomb pots, straddles, whatever.

The game will be more profitable and more fun.

Random thoughts...

1. When I've put in a raise, and someone asks me if I'll agree to check it down before they call, my answer is always no. When I was asked, it was usually by someone I didn't recognize, so there wasn't any reason to consider how good the person asking may be for the game. I don't think I'd agree it a reg asked me before calling.

2. Once or twice in the past few years, I did agree to check it down with another reg. But the agreement to check it down was made AFTER my opponent called, not BEFORE they called. It's mostly not a thing - I don't ask, I don't often get asked, and I'd usually decline.

3. If I deemed someone to be VERY good for the game, I MIGHT be persuaded to agree to check it down, but they'd have to catch me in the right mood. I'd have to be up a lot, running over the table, having fun, the person asking is very likable and stuck piles, etc. I'd be much more inclined to check it down if they asked AFTER they called, rather than BEFORE.

I think whether the agreement to check it down happens before or after someone calls makes a difference. Before they call, there's a chance they'll fold, and I think it's higher EV to decline the request on that basis.

I've never considered the fairness to other players who folded, because I only agreed to check it down after my opponent called, so I'm struggling to see how someone who'd already folded could find a reason to feel cheated.

I suppose someone who folded could suspect collusion, but I look at it somewhat like agreeing to run it more than once after someone jams. It's an agreement made between the opponents still in the hand, as a way to decrease variance or just keep things friendly.

Checking it down, especially with another reg, can be unfair to the other players because they have been pushed out of the hand due to some form of aggression, now you guys agree to minimize your risk and just take your equity.

e.g. I fold 88 pre because of the action. AK and JTs then agree to just check it down. Now that you've pushed me out of the pot, you're basically just chopping up my money. Why do you two regs get to realize your equity uncontested, while I have to face pressure?

It's not nec. a big deal and it is almost always mediocre players who want to do this. Most of the time it is done more informally, where 2 regs who do not think they have a skill edge vs one another will push a 3rd player out of the pot, then soft play each other to reduce variance.

Logically, if you folded, your money is lost, regardless. What difference does it make to you if I get it, or the other guy gets it, or the two of us chop it up? You're not affected by the outcome.

It would be collusion if we had a prior agreement to always check it down once a 3rd opponent folds in those spots.

If one reg calls another reg's bet, and then they agree to check it down, yes, they both get to realize their equity. But they're both also forfeiting their opportunity to win the whole pot by pressuring the other to fold. They're also forfeiting their opportunity to win more from their opponent.

If you folded already, none of this should matter to you. Why would you care about any of it? You're not affected in any way by the outcome of the hand after you fold.

Again, I look at it like two players getting it all in and agreeing to run it more than once after the other players all fold. What difference does it make to those other players if the board is run once or more than once? They're not affected by the outcome.

The simplest way I can put it is that you and the other reg are using aggression to push this player out of the pot. However you are soft playing each other. I mean, you can't soft play more than by just checking it down.

Again, this is not that big a deal, especially when one or more are weak players who don't even understand what they are doing.

I agree with you regarding it mattering whether they ask before or after they call, but regarding why it is collusion...

What you're saying might be true if it happened one time in a vacuum, but usually the players who do this do it repeatedly. So there's sort of an implicit agreement beforehand.

So there're lots of scenarios where one player 3-bets and the "victim" is monkey in the middle and has to fold facing a raise with another player still to act, or something like that.

I also agree it's usually mediocre players doing this and the intention isn't typically to collude, but that's what is effectively happening.

So... I am aware of a pair of young Asian women in my local card room who got a reputation for colluding, beyond just checking it down. Obviously we should all see that sort of planned collusion as problematic.

The occasional ad hoc agreement made between two random players who want to check it down seems less problematic to me. But it may be that I'm comfortable enough in the game to not feel threatened when others do it, which may also make me somewhat oblivious to how others may view it when I've done it.

If I saw two players doing it a lot, I'm sure I'd feel differently. Once in a blue moon, I don't think about it.

Personally, I'm much more annoyed by the frequent and extended tanking by opponents in spots where it seems unwarranted, or the regs who build chip towers to the ceiling, making it difficult to estimate how much they have, and the hallway monitors who become sticklers for the rules at inopportune times.