You're a Bunch of Factors

Was playing a game the other day and the scenario was as follows: Blinds 1000/2000 - I had A 10. It folded to me in MP and I called the BB. It folded to a player who went all in with about 3.5k The BB says to me "Check it down" to which I agree and both of us call the all in.

So we both keep checking to the river and then all of a sudden he min raises on the river. So anyway this really pisses me off and I asked him why he bet in the chat box and he says "because he made a FH on the river".

Now I knew he had rags in the BB but the point of checking down is that the all in player has more chance of surviving against one opponent than two and so checking down to the end would have meant he had to beat two hands.

I could have isolated preflop with A 10 but I didn't because we had agreed to check it down. He did have a better hand than me in the end but I personally think that is irrelevant. If you agree to check it down you should check down.

Was he in the wrong here?

You were both in the wrong for 'agreeing to check it down' in the first place.

Agreed, you were BOTH in the wrong there.
As I mentioned in another post, "checking it down" is pretty much an unwritten poker rule, if the 2 players left have knowledge of the game, they will both know the situation and probably check it down.
The moment someone actually says something along those lines and the other player agrees, you have just colluded and that there can and probably should see you kicked out of the tournament.
You need to be super careful about that stuff.

a) you believed what another 'poker player' said.

b) you both colluded.


There's not a lot more to say unfortunately

As I put in the chatbox at the time, there is a section in the 888PL pdf that deals with this.

If you wanted to play AT more aggressive, then raising before the bloke went all in was the way to go. The all-in might've even folded to your raise, and you could've taken the pot right there.

I understand "your word is your word" but "there are no friends at the poker table". If you were truly worried about integrity of your word, then you would never bluff a hand.

to be honest, you broke the integrity of the game by explicitly agreeing to check it down.

i am not sure why chat isn't banned when someone is all in ono 888, it is on the other sites i have played

Yup. You're both in the wrong for colluding, and you get that special feeling of knowing you got played too

rcon wrote:Yup. You're both in the wrong for colluding, and you get that special feeling of knowing you got played too

I dunno if he got played Maffau.. If I had a full house, I'd probably bet, no matter what I said.

lol. A poker player told him something, trishan acted upon it to his (perceived) detriment, other player didn't keep their word. trishan subsequently feels like he got short changed. played.

lol yep u got played. probable runner runner full houses FTW