Forced check

to many times I see this scenario on here. small stacked is forced all in and everyone folds till get to the small blind. there is no other option, but to check, instead they just fold. few hands later, same thing would had happen if I had not called big blind preflop. what is point in folding? fold action should not be allowed in these type of situations.


I think the new tables give a second shot at it–pop up window asks, “Do you really want to fold?” when a check would work. It’s puzzling to me too.


yes, but still have the option to fold. I’m saying fold option shouldn’t be a option in first hand. 2nd hand if I had raised, then player obviously can do as they want. first hand it should just be a automated check. if forced all in player wins, get the chips anyway. if player just called and won, it would knocked out the opponent which is object of the game.


Hmmmm…What’s the practice in live poker games? Any idea if it’s the same as here?

Actually, in some circumstances, it’s really useful to be able to fold rather than check, so it wouldn’t be good to remove that option just because MOST of the time checking is better than folding. Sometimes, you can get an advantage without directly winning the.

Example: 3 left in a tournament where you are out of position in a pot against a big stack and a tiny stack, and you have absolute garbage. You know that you don’t want to play to win the pot because your hand is just so bad. Therefore, you fold and hope that the big stack stacks the tiny stack, so that you can place at least 2nd and “ladder” in the tournament.

Folding here allows the big stack to play more aggressively, which means that it’s more likely for the other players to go all-in, and therefore, for you to ladder. This is the case since they won’t fear that you’re checking to trap with a great hand, and will know that they only have to beat 1 player rather than 2 players.

However, this is only for tournaments, and I don’t really see the merit of it in cash games other than removing distractions of an ongoing hand while you play another table or do something else.

Ah sorry I think I misread your initial post. My post was regarding folding to no bet in general, but I didn’t realize you were talking about folding to no bet preflop.

In that specific case where the big blind is all-in and small blind doesn’t face any bet, there are rare situations where the small blind is a big stack, and wants to keep the tiny stack in so that they can apply more pressure to the middle stacks, who will play more passively due to the fact that there is a tiny stack who might bust before them.

This definitely isn’t common at all, although it happens sometimes, so the option should still be kept.

The one case where I think it can be removed is where the some people limp, the small blind folds, and then the big blind folds. In that specific case, the big blind folding has no benefits, since they could always see a flop and then fold since they act first anyways. However, sites probably don’t want to go to the trouble of implementing that for this specific scenario.

I don’t know, but I do know they not going to fold. forced all in player 580. other player already has him covered with 600 in pot. same with hand two. same player forced all in 760, small blind already has him covered with 900 in pot. thankfully I called in 2nd hand and eliminated the short stack. I think live might view it as chip dumping and tick off the remaining players for not trying knock out a opponent. I’m not saying player was chip dumping, but I know it ticks me off when don’t try knock out a player.


Simpler version of my earlier response:

There are cases where it’s better to not knock out a player. Therefore, the option should be kept.

1 Like

@wildpokerdude is talking about neither pre-action or action , folding to a check.

He means when the BB has the shortstack covered and all in by default, then decides to fold thus keep’n the other person in , when they have less than the BB and are forced all-in preflop.

There have been other threads on this, and I know @ bars, the dealer won’t allow that to occur. The dealer scoops the chips necessary, and runs the hand.

I think Replay’s rules allow this, as long as its not direct collusion.
Now there is a grey area in that the big blind by default is forced to bet defacto before the fact, even if they then are allowed an action… therefore I think because of that, they are forced to also call the forced all-in , because they have them covered and someone else did come into the hand, whether forced or not.



first of all, I don’t know what world of poker you live in that you don’t want to eliminate a player. only time want keep a player in a game is team play. I mean you knock that player out, your stack increases, now step closer to payouts or just got a pay bump for knocking that player out.

replay first hand, you’ll see what i’m talking bout. I just don’t think should be allowed to fold in that situation.


This is often a violation of the rules and will result in accusations of chip dumping. Penalties can include forfeiture of portions of one’s stack, being required to sit out for a certain number out hands while still paying blinds, and possibly even getting kicked out of the tournament.


i dont even think he understood he was the BB and had him covered or was playing several tables, multitasking, etc. and just hit fold trying to conserve his chips and didnt realize it. I looked at his profile and he just joined replay 2 months ago and has 150k ish chips…so he might just be totally new to poker and did a snap fold not being in a final table ever or in that same SB,BB,Covered Chips scenario/situation before, or was multitasking and didnt even notice it. he also could have accidentaly hit the fold button too. He has 1 friend and its not the small blind player. the small blind player has zero friends so looking at all that i dont thing there was any dumping going on, just an over sight on Mr.BB, however u know it happens now and then in live or online but i deff dont think in this case it was at all. if that was the case i think they would be playing each other at a heads up table and not a fluke 1 time situation in a tourney with so many left at the final table. also i dont know why a player with 150k chips would need to do that to a player with over 40 mill chips, but it could be just a trying to help stay in the tourney type thing, but not in this case. i have seen it happen many times here at rings and tourneys with 5 or 6 players in the hand sooo. i just assume they are new to poker or they accidently clicked fold button or have the Fold to any Hand Button clicked while they sit out awhile cause they had to go do something didnt wanna play hands for a bit and risk a loss until 1 or 2 players get knocked out. so there are many reasons that could/would happen ( thats my opinion considering all those things ) Cheers

1 Like

not accusing them chip dumping. I just suggesting folding option be taken away in situations like this.


Another possibility is he had pre-clicked “fold” expecting someone to bet ahead of him, but they all folded before he could “un-click” his fold. I did that, once when in SB, so it can happen.


the BB even on the beta tables, currently, cannot [x]- fold (only), they can only [x]- fold/check. I have ask’d for pre-action [x]- fold (only) options, so far no go. If that is checked, they will call that all in. Yes, Alan… the SB can pre-fold, but not the BB as in the case here. The SB always has an option to fold to the BB, but the BB should never have the option to fold if someone else enters the hand (bets all in, forced or not) with an amount less the BB.

Its kinda like the action loophole. When a player goes all in but cannot make a legal raise, thus re-opening the betting action for the whole table, those players who have already acted can only call, but cannot re-raise.

The blinds are Forced to enter action kinda, duhh they’re the blinds. Now if another player enters the hand (goes all in but cannot pay blinds), then the BB should be forced to call, anyone entering the hand with less chips, and should NOT be allowed to fold.

Its why Coder pointed out… many times its a rule violation, and why I said that the dealer doesn’t let the BB fold in a live setting… they scoop the need’d chips and run the hand.


I just watched both hands again. timer ran, so he didn’t have the fold button pre checked.

Definitely agree here, BB should never be able to fold there. I think in wildpokerdude’s case, the SB was the one who folded even though BB had less than .5bb left

Yes you are correct … in this case, the SB had the BB covered, I meant when the BB was in for more than the SB, then the SB can always fold. I can see strategic reasons to fold as the SB did, and they should get thier “action”. As I said… in betting there is already a loophole for “min bet to reopen betting action”. Why therefore isn’t there a loophole for the blinds ( 1 or both depending ) to play the hand against a smaller all in ??

I can see this both ways, I just have never seen it Live where the dealer didn’t just scoop the need’d chips, and run the hand. Because I do see potential strategic reasons to fold, I err on the side of current rules, thus allowing the fold… as long as there is not direct collusion. Just cause someone is on my friends list, doesn’t prove I am soft-playing or colluding. I should have the right to cut someone a break @ any time, as long as I was not ask’d to do so, or prodded in any way to do so.

Take the following example :
Im SB in for 1k, BB is in for 400(all in), next person has 1900 but folded … blinds are 1k/2k. Lets say everyone else folds. Now if I play the hand and win, BB gets knocked out and that next player skips the BB and is SB which they can then pay, possibly folding and see’n a whole nother orbit ( w/o antees ).

So by folding … the person to my left has 1400 and pays 1k as SB ( still very SOL )… the person on they’re left is forced all in with 1900, and the whole table can attack both @ once, knowing they are in blind.
That is very strategic, but just like the loophole previously described ( min bet to re-open betting action ) players are stopped from making further strategic actions, if the betting action is not opened back up. But, in those situations all players correctly got thier 1 shot @ performing an action, so why take that away from the blinds ?? Shouldn’t they get that same option? Thier basic right to act or not, as it currently is ???


If BB has 400 to start the first hand, he can only double-up to 800. As a result, if you lose this hand, you’ll be in the same situation as described, with both blinds all-in on the next hand. However, if you win this hand, then yes, the current UTG player would only be the small blind and would still have less than half a big blind behind… but you’d have laddered up, since there would be one less player in the tournament. Knocking that bottom rung out of the payout ladder is significantly better from an ICM perspective than keeping a short-stack around just to potentially knock both players out in a single blow.

It’s come to my attention that there was a typo in @sassy_sarah’s post. The original all-in big blind was supposed to read 600, in which case doubling up would NOT make them all-in as the small blind the next hand.

I still think it makes more sense to try and knock this person out essentially for free than to guarantee doubling them up. :man_shrugging: