Taking Out the Shortstacks...

[jakethebake]

Twice last night I saw players bluff other players out of pots when a short stack was already all-in. Once was with 5 players left. The other time was on the bubble. I couldn't for the life of me fuigure out what these idiots were doing.

The first time the player had second pair. He ended up winning the pot and knocking out the short stack, but it was just dumb to chase out the other player given the circumstances.

The second time, some guy chased out another player and then revealed A high. He ended up losing the hand and doubling the short stack.

What are these guys thinking? Is this common? Am I the only one with problems with this?

[Grivan]

[ QUOTE ]
The first time the player had second pair. He ended up winning the pot and knocking out the short stack, but it was just dumb to chase out the other player given the circumstances.

The second time, some guy chased out another player and then revealed A high. He ended up losing the hand and doubling the short stack.


[/ QUOTE ]

In the first scenario it is important that the guy with second pair bets, so that the other player does not draw out on him. If the shortstack has any kind of a hand he is probably going to beat both players anyway, and it is 5 handed so knocking people out does not really matter.

In the second scenario relative chip stacks become very important, so it is hard to comment on the play.

[luvrhino]

I don't have a big problem with betting second pair. At times, it can be the right decision to get overcards to fold. But yes, i see this a lot when there is no side pot. You must realize that these are the same people you're throttling the rest of the game, so they aren't thinking...or at least, not thinking correctly...

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
In the first scenario it is important that the guy with second pair bets, so that the other player does not draw out on him. If the shortstack has any kind of a hand he is probably going to beat both players anyway, and it is 5 handed so knocking people out does not really matter.

In the second scenario relative chip stacks become very important, so it is hard to comment on the play.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I'd disagree with this. I'd rather have the ss out and be playing on the bubble than possibly win one small pot if the ss happens to have nothing.

Please explain why stack sizes would justify isolating on the ss with no idea what he has when you have nothing.

[Grivan]

In the second scenario, if you have a large stack relative to everyone else it is beneficial to you to keep the bubble going. This is because you can steal all you want and will almost never get called (as long as your not stealing from the shortest stack).

[dogsballs]

Little point letting someone else knock out the ss when it would just mean your 4th with the tiny stack.

I've had a long running debate about a play I made like this with one of the good players on Stars. He just refuses to see it might be better sometimes to take the risk of letting the ss survive rather than the risk of letting a third player overtake you if you're best; ie, it's all about how important the chips currently in the middle are to you vs knocking someone out.

fwiw, my situation was 5H, I'm 2nd smallest by a margin vs tiny ss and 3 healthy stacks. Smallest stack goes all-in, one big stack (the good player) calls in SB and I call in BB w/ junk. I flop a pair of 5's and bet out after GP checks the baby rag flop. I needed those chips in the main pot more than I needed the ss out of the game.

all-in has two big cards so I'm good until he spikes one - that's when GP goes off about how I should have let him stay in cos he'da won..!