Dry Pot?

There's a discussion going on RGP right now about betting into a dry pot in tournaments. Obviously, it has something to do with a many players in a hand with one of them all-in.


Can someone (a) define "dry pot" correctly for me and (b) explain why it might be bad form or even "unethical" to continue the action with another player who still has chips to pay. Of course, (b) is based on my poor understanding of (a).


Regards,


Troy

TroyD,


Here's my answers:


a) A dry pot refers to everyone just calling the all in bet.


b) Don't really understand your question. But, here's an example. If you are playing a super-satellite at Binion's and they will give away 8 seats and there are 9 players left. Now, a player goes all in with his last two chips, it is correct strategy to just call the all in and all the players involved should check it down to the river to eliminate him. In a normal tournament where the most money goes to the top places, you should try to maximize your chances of winning that pot by creating a side pot.


Good Luck


Mark

Hmmm. In the conversation on RGP that got me wondering what a dry pot is, the post refers to "betting into a dry pot" - obviously applicable only if another non-all-in player is still in the hand.


The question is whether this is unethical or strategically unsound.


In your example it makes good sense not to bother continuing the action. But I don't understand how it could be bad, in the normal course of things, to continue the action after the third player is all-in if you have the hand to play it.


Thanks for your explanation.


Troy

Ok lets say player A and B each have 100 chips, and are the 2 blinds. Player C has 5 chips. Player C moves all in and Player A and B both call.


Now there is 15 in the middle which any of the 3 players can win. There is NO sidepot until someone bets. So you cant bluff, well you can but if A bets on a bluff and B folds, A gets nothing unless he beats C as well, who of course can not fold.


Think of betting into a dry pot as betting into an empty pot when a third player is all in and cant fold.


In and of itself it is NOT unethical, although may or may not be the best play. The ethical problems are based on intent.


If I am player A and Player C is a friend of mine, and I bet to get B to fold and increase C's chances of winning, this would be unethical.


If I am player A and SAY to player B, lets just check it down (ie if you dont bet into the dry pot I wont either) this would be collusion and unethical as well.


It is often presumed that players know what they are doing. If the flop came AKQ and A bet holding 3-2 and B folded 77 and C wins the hand with 66, it is going to look as if A was being unethical betting into a dry pot to get B to fold to benefit C. It may have just been an incredibly bonehead play only A really knows.


On the other hand if you have the second nuts or better on the river it is never a mistake (with regard to the all in) to bet into the dry pot. The reason is that if the other live player has you beat the all in is busted anyway, and if the all in has you bested he would have won regardless of your bet.

Nothing would surprise me on RGP but people have a confused idea about ethics if they think it is unethical NOT to give the other live opponent a nod and a wink and check it down all the way.


Andy.

Thanks, Russell. That is an excellent explanation that makes the situation much more clear to me.


Regards,


Troy

Which is why I wanted to ask the question here.


Regards,


Troy

I may be getting lost in the double/triple negatives here. Please tell me whether you think it is OK to have an 'agreement' to check it down. If you are saying that, are you also saying it is unethical to bet into the pot.


Danny

Hard to do this without multiplying up the negatives but ...


A lot of players view it as common practice to check it down when a third player is all in. Although accepted, this is a minor form of collusion IMO.


Every now and then one of these players will get upset when someone does bet when a third player is all in. If they use the word "unethical" in their garbled complaint, that's just nonsense, don't you think ? That's what I'm saying.


Andy.