All In Courtesy????????

to me it depends on if it is a knock-out tourney or not.

I think it's always disrespectful to bluff at an all-in pot with no side pot, well maybe disrespectful is the wrong word... stupid sounds more correct. If I find myself in a situation where I have a strong hand and think my opponent will feed me some chips (or think I can build up and win a sizeable side-pot) I'll put some money in when a 3rd or more player is already all in.

If you're in the money and one opponent bluffs at the pot while a shortstack is committed,. then it's just common sense to know that this is 'usually' just a really dumb move.. cuz you're giving the shortstack a great oppurtunity to triple up here... so why do it?.. there's virtually no sidepot to be won so what do you have to gain from it??? What would be the motivation to bluff at the pot when shrtstk is allin?? Makes no sense at all.

If it's early in a tourney.... doesn't really matter.

There are times when you'd be wanting to keep the shortstack alive. If say there's four of you left and you are C.L. then keeping the shortstack alive can aid in attacking the other mid-sized stacks, as they'll be laying down stronger hands cuz they'll be wanting to make it into the money.

4 of you left in sng when top 3 pays*

Generally, I would say the prevailing logic dictates that knocking someone out of the tourney is more important than winning the pot. That changes, though, if you've got such a strong hand that you can make a lot off a side pot without worrying about the KO. Usually that means you have the nuts...so you're gonna win the main anyway. I love when some moron with 2 overcards pushes after the flop and then loses the hand...especially when the turn would have given someone else the hand. But, such is poker. Also, it's illegal to talk about checking it down in a live tourney...if you want to do so, go ahead, and hope the other players do so as well. I don't think it's diesrespectful to bluff, just stupid. The point, after all, is to win the hand. If you bluff others out, and then lose, you've gained nothing more than you would have by checking it down, since you were going to lose anyway.

Quite often if situation warrants it (a move up money ladder for example, or on bubble of a satellite), I'll call 3rd or 4th from blinds with just about any two cards, in an effort to check it down to eliminate short stack from game (within reason,.. not if it's costing alot or affects my stack in anyway.. in case shorty quadruples or something).

Did someone get mad at you when you bluffed at the pot with short stack allin and there wasn't even a sidepot? (and maybe this allowed shorty to stick around for awhile??). I would've gotten mad at ya too... lol

The point of poker is to accumulate chips and win right? I think if you have a legitimate chance to win the pot outright you bet. If not you check it down in hopes to eliminate a player.

No i usually check down or make a small bet after the river if i hit abig hand. I have seen a few people bet me out of the pot in tourneys with junk against an all in after the flop, and i thought they would play to eliminate the short stack.

It is correct to bet, if you have a legitimate hand, but to bluff in this case, is a fools action !

....play on ...Tc....

There are no agreements at a poker table, gentleman's or otherwise. That is known as collusion, and is frowned upon.

There is, however, enlightened self-interest. In general, you will maximize your equity in a tournament if you don't bluff into a dry side pot near or after the bubble. If you have a hand, go ahead and bet. But bluffing out someone who could eliminate another player is generally -EV.

Poker is not a team sport, it is VERY clear going in that the one single goal of everyone at the table is to take every single chip from every single player.Poker even goes as far as to make lying(Bluffing) and trickery ( acting like you have a better or worse hand then you do to trick other players into making the wrong decision)
There is NOT only no agreement to cooperate but technically two or more players agreeing to do anything that is mutually benificial is by definition Collusion. ( I am NOT saying that anyone would or could ever treat a check down as Collusion, just that the Rules go alot farther towards supporting not doing it then they do towards do it)
If you are NOT doing what ever is in YOUR best interest then your not really playing poker. A lot of times that may mean checking down, But when you have the cards and the chance you'd be a fool not to get every chip in the pot you can.
I am just saying

Discussion of a Check Down is strictly against all poker site rules and is Collusion.

Having said that, however, it is always in your best interest NOT to bluff at a pot when someone else is all in. Look at it this way: The player going all in has NO option to fold to your bluff. Assume that you bluffed all other players out of the pot and isolated you and the player all in. You DON'T hit anything and double the all in player who then goes on to bust you at the Bubble. Think you made a mistake there when all it would have taken is a check to get you ITM?