Am I out of line here or does this bother you too? You are down to four players in a SnG. The shortstack has to go all-in and you call as well as one other player. No side pot. The flop comes, you check and the other guy fires a big bet at you to force you out of the hand.

Doesn't it make sense to check that hand down and give both players the chance to knock out the short stack? Then we are all ITM and can get down to knocking each other's brains out.

I have even seen times where the other player was bluffing. Now THAT I don't understand at all.

Am I missing something here or is it just because I play $5 SnGs? I see this maybe half the time I am in this situation, maybe more.

Well ... I guess it depends on if your philosophy is to just try to get into the money or to go for the whole enchilada. I have no problem with the tactic you described. I'm always trying to accumulate chips whenever I have the opportunity.

its useless to bluff into an empty side pot. You only should be if you got something and you are pretty much saying "I got something to knock him out."

OK. Clarification. I don't disagree that bluffing into an empty side pot in this situation is dumb. However, if I'm certain I have a better hand than the all-in short stack, I want his chips and I want you to go away.

Help me understand your thinking Telemachus and Flafishy when you say you will bet for value here if you hit a hand. If my opponent fires out with a big bet, I am going to believe him when he is saying "I can take this one" and fold. But unless you have the stone cold nuts, isn't this a -EV play? For example, and this happened to me yesterday, short stack went all-in and I called with AJo. The flop was A76. I checked and my opponent bet the pot with 76s - two pair (of course I didn't know this until the showdown so I folded). An A came on the river and the short stack showed A8o to hit his trips. Now he has tripled up when he would have been gone had my opponent mearly checked it down.

I don't see the value in betting out in this situation. I'm not going to call unless I have hit a big hand also, in which case you are now in trouble. If I fold to the bet, you have made no more chips and now run the risk of being out drawn. I just don't see the value in betting out here - if I hit a big hand I am going to win the same amount and I want that extra insurance in case of a suck out. My goal in this situation is to knock out the fourth player and make sure I am in the money. Then I will go after you.

If you're still around, now I have two people who could outdraw me instead of just one.

It really goes to whether I'm desperate to knock that fourth player out or whether I'm safe enough to start targeting first place. You can't assume that everyone's goal is to just finish in the money just because that's your goal. Unless I'm in serious trouble with my stack, my immediate goal is to make sure I get as many chips as I can when I can and go for the win.

And further: Sometimes, if I'm in the chip lead or in second with some distance from third and fourth place, it's to my advantage to keep that fourth player in for awhile to keep the table tight.

Ok Flafishy - I see your point. You will use the strategy of keeping in the fourth place with the intent of stealing some more pots at a tight table. That makes sense. I have been using Nashvegas' strategy of making sure you get in the money since 60% of the money is now distributed and then you are just playing for the final 40%. But then, I may not fully understand NV's strategy. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

I find that if I can make it to the final three, I have a good chance of finishing better than third, even when I am the shortest stack at that time. My record is about even, 1st - 2nd - 3rd. Unfortunately I have too many 4th place finishes in there. That is where my focus is right now.

To set the record straight, NV was quoting a recent article that Howard Lederer wrote for Full Tilt. I think the essence is that your first goal always should be to get into the money. I don't disagree with that.

But I also think that once you're confident you're going to be in the money, you should adjust your strategy to take advantage of the extremely tight play of those who are fighting for the last money spot.

If I'm fighting for survival at the bubble ... say I'm in third place and trying to find some way to get one more person out ... and that fourth player goes all-in, then yes, I do want some help in eliminating that guy. So if you and I both call that all-in, I'm checking it down hoping that you do the same.

But if I'm in first or second place by a comfortable margin and that fourth guy goes all-in, I want his chips and I don't want anyone else to have them. So I'm going to do what it takes to get them. It's not that I want him to stay in. My point there was that if he does stay in, that's OK because play will stay tight and I'll have a couple of more opportunities to steal. But it's not like I intentionally want him to stick around.

But at that point, I'm willing to take the risk that he'll draw out on me because it's not critical to me that he's eliminated on that particular hand. But I don't want two people with a chance to draw out on me.

Am I going to try to push you out with a stone-cold bluff? Nah, that's too over the top and just not a smart thing to do at that point. But if I have the cards to beat the all-in guy, I want you to get the hell out of the way.