tournament ethics/strategy question

[sfcard]

The following took place in a tournament I recently played:

4 players left. 3 make the money. UG calls, button calls, SB moves in for about 2X big blind more, BB folds, UG calls. Button now moves all in. Button shows 7's.

The outcome is unimportant. My question is whether the button should just call and check down with UG, or if he should make a play to get it heads up since what was in the middle represented a significant % of the chips in play. I remember a similar hand on PSI 1 where TJ moved in and Howard Lederer seemed less than pleased. Please don't critique the rest of the hand (I was the BB). My initial sense was that it should have been called/checked down, but I want to hear what others have to say.

Card

[Kevin K.]

Post deleted by Kevin K.

[Kevin K.]

It's iffy. The right thing to do and "friendly" thing to do is to check it down. Depends on what's at stake and whether or not you know/like these people, I guess.

With a significant percentage of the total chips at stake and holding 77, I don't think you can be criticized too much.

What was the prize difference between 1st and 3rd?

[gulebjorn]

Why is checking down right and friendly?
What happens if you're being right and friendly, but you're not-so-nice opponent bets the turn or river?
Don't see what's wrong with being a shark, this is poker. Especially at the final table of a tournament.

[Schwartzy61]

That's the play for him to make preflop. I don't think there is any etiquette or unwritten rule for play preflop.

When someone is all in and two others see the flop it is generally accepted in tournament play that you should check it down unless you have the nuts to maximize the chance at eliminating the short stack.

But since this occurred preflop I don't think there is anything wrong with how he played it.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

When someone is all in and two others see the flop it is generally accepted in tournament play that you should check it down unless you have the nuts to maximize the chance at eliminating the short stack.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the same sense, it is generally accepted that
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif AKo loses value in multiway pots.
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Flush draws win 3 (http://twodimes.net/h/?z=915207) 5 (http://twodimes.net/h/?z=915208) % (http://twodimes.net/h/?z=915209) of the time.
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif You just can't beat bad players!

Oops, those are all wrong. It is just a fallacy that you should check it down when someone is all in. You should avoid bluffing into a dry sidepot. It is all risk with no reward. However, you should often bet into a dry sidepot with far worse than the nuts, even if this may push out a hand that would have beaten the all-in player.

It is not your duty to knock players out. The benefit is minimal, and is spread out among the many survivors. If you fail to value bet or to protect your hand, you bear 100% of the cost of your mistake.

[splashpot]

If your goal is to make top 3, check down. If your goal is to win, you should do anything and everything that increases your chances of winning that pot.

[ACW]

Suppose SB has AQ and UTG JTs. Why should the two sevens be forced to dodge Jacks and tens as well as aces and queens, when he can halve the danger to his hand by moving in. If JTs folds, he now only has to dodge 6 cards. If JTs calls, he now isn't so worried about Aces and Queens as he can still win the side pot, so he's still only dodging 6 cards. If he doesn't raise preflop, he's got to dodge 12 cards to win.

Not moving in with 77 here looks like a big (and costly) error to me.

Proviso : The payout structure is of course a factor. In a satellite, with every place but the next paying the same, of course it's right to check it down.

[sfcard]

Thanks for all the input thus far. First place paid 3x third. It was a friendly game, to the extent that it was among friends. However, it is understood that everyone will do everything possible to win within the confines of ethical poker. I agree that if the button wanted to win, then raising to shut out may have been the play. However, I felt there were a couple of more considerations. First, the button was the next shortest stack at the table. By knocking UG out of the hand, he probably putting himself to a coinflip that if he loses may cost him cashing. This may not be optimal play, but I know the button cared about third money. Second, by moving all in UG was now getting a huge overlay on his money. I probably didn't make it clear enough how high the blinds were. It seems the button was likely to just force UG into calling with 2 overcards or maybe even 1 when they could have seen the flop much cheaper. Just so noone thinks this is sour grapes, UG called with 22(like I said huge overlay), SB showed two overs and the button went on to take the pot. Thanks again.

Card

[OrangeKing]

If the player going in is the next shortest stack, is one spot away from the money, and has a decent (but not great) hand like 77, calling and then checking it down might be best for him here...but it's certainly not something you do just because you're supposed to, or because it's what everyone thinks you should do. People like to check it down way too often, when they should be more concerned with winning the pot for themselves.

[Schwartzy61]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

When someone is all in and two others see the flop it is generally accepted in tournament play that you should check it down unless you have the nuts to maximize the chance at eliminating the short stack.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the same sense, it is generally accepted that
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif AKo loses value in multiway pots.
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Flush draws win 3 (http://twodimes.net/h/?z=915207) 5 (http://twodimes.net/h/?z=915208) % (http://twodimes.net/h/?z=915209) of the time.
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif You just can't beat bad players!

Oops, those are all wrong. It is just a fallacy that you should check it down when someone is all in. You should avoid bluffing into a dry sidepot. It is all risk with no reward. However, you should often bet into a dry sidepot with far worse than the nuts, even if this may push out a hand that would have beaten the all-in player.

It is not your duty to knock players out. The benefit is minimal, and is spread out among the many survivors. If you fail to value bet or to protect your hand, you bear 100% of the cost of your mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I think you have some serious problems with the English language. As soon as you can understand where I was coming from with my post, perhaps then you can post a reply to it that makes some kind of sense. Not to mention you go on to basically prove my point. What good is protecting your hand against the other big stack when the All-in has you beat? What point is value betting if it knocks out the other big stack and you win nothing because the All-in has you beat? The extra chips from betting aren't worth as much to you as another slot in the money.

You obviously have trouble with what you're trying to do in this situation. Knocking the player out of the tourney maximizes your chances of winning the whole enchilada, not that one little taco of a pot.

However, it mainly applies to postflop play. Preflop I think you still play your hand as you normally would to maximize a chance at winning. The situation doesn't apply when you have to call to maximize the chances at knocking out a short stack, only when you need to check it down.

But then after the flop you should be checking through the river if it's more than heads up with an all-in.

But of course not everyone follows this principle or even knows about it, so I wouldn't expect someone online to do it.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
The right thing to do and "friendly" thing to do is to check it down. Depends on what's at stake and whether or not you know/like these people, I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you serious? If your play depends on "whether or not you know/like these people", then chances are your play is unethical. Search the archives. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/dosearch.php?Cat=&Forum=All_Forums&Words=soft-play&Searchpage=0&Limit=40&where=bodysub&newerval= 100&newertype=w&olderval=&oldertype=&daterange=1&b odyprev=1&Name=)

[Gbob]

I wouldn't call it an ethical question, but I do question the intelligence of the idiot who tries to bluff the side pot when an elimination is at stake. Personally, even if I flop the nuts it's in my intrest to check it down just avoid a suck out that might keep me out of the money. I wish everyone would, but sometimes when you play you're stuck with people who have no common sense whatsoever.

[ACW]

But there IS a point to knocking the other big stack out of the hand if you're ahead of the all-in hand but the big stack has a draw to beat you.

[Black Aces 518]

I think this depends on the stacks involved. If the allin was a very short stack, I'm going to play it as normal, b/c 1)they likely don't have that much, and 2)even if they win, it's likely no real danger to my overall chances.

I also will play it as normal if I and the other non-all-in player both have deep stacks. I'm not going to piss away the opportunity to get at those chips, that will help me win the tournament. Example I have 99, other nonallin has AQ. What a crime if we check down a 9-A-Q board. I could have had his whole stack. Why would I bypass this type of opportunity? I'm not going to bluff at a dry sidepot, but if there are many more chips to be won on the hand, I'm gonna win em.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Well I think you have some serious problems with the English language.

[/ QUOTE ]
When someone points out that you are wrong, it is not necessary to respond with a pointless ad hominem attack. By the way, I'm confident that my command of English is far better than yours, and that this is reflected in our posts.

[ QUOTE ]
As soon as you can understand where I was coming from with my post, perhaps then you can post a reply to it that makes some kind of sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
You posted a tired old fallacy that has been refuted many times by me and by others. I'm sorry you didn't understand my response, but I'm afraid that is your fault, not mine. Maybe you should think about it more.

[ QUOTE ]
What good is protecting your hand against the other big stack when the All-in has you beat?

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't know exactly what the all-in player has, so you don't know that the all-in player has you beat unless you are bluffing, not protecting your hand.

[ QUOTE ]
What point is value betting if it knocks out the other big stack and you win nothing because the All-in has you beat?

[/ QUOTE ]
"Value betting" means you are ahead on average when called. That means you get called by the other big stack, and win the side pot.

[ QUOTE ]
The extra chips from betting aren't worth as much to you as another slot in the money.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a common misconception. Have you done the math? I have. So has Mike Caro (http://www.poker1.com/newsmanager/templates/mculib_articles.asp?articleid=59&zoneid=6). See the section in the linked article titled, "One of Tournament Poker's Worst Pieces of Advice Revealed." Both of us concluded that it is rare for knocking someone out to be worth much.

[ QUOTE ]
Knocking the player out of the tourney maximizes your chances of winning the whole enchilada, not that one little taco of a pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, in the commonly accepted models, your chance to win is proportional to the chips you have. Checking it down instead of protecting your hand does not maximize the expected number of chips you have. See the examples I have analyzed numerically in the tournament forums.

[ QUOTE ]
However, it mainly applies to postflop play. Preflop I think you still play your hand as you normally would to maximize a chance at winning.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your speculations are worthless. The same logic applies in both situations.

[ QUOTE ]

But then after the flop you should be checking through the river if it's more than heads up with an all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]
How about this: You keep misplaying that way, and I'll keep playing correctly. Try not to whine too much when I correctly bet you out of the pot, and I'll try not to laugh out loud when you fail to protect your hand and lose a huge pot you should have won.

[Misfire]

I think you have to do whatever is in your own self interest. If 1st and 3rd pay the same, it's in your best interest to check it down to maximize the chance that the all-in will be eliminated--this is not to be nice, it's to maximize your chance of making the money. If the other player in the pot has such a huge stack that you tripling up doesn't really improve your chances of getting better than 3rd, I think it's also in your best interest to check it down and play for third. If your stack is good relative to the other guy's and you have a real shot at 1st if you win this one, push it.

Would you pull your punches in a boxing match just because you like your opponent? Of course not. Be nice after you bust everyone out. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Schwartzy61]

And then I'll laugh my ass off, when I had to fold the best hand, the all in triples up because of it and goes on to win the tournament.

One other thing, certainly chip stack has a correlation to your chances of winning but couldn't you also say that your chances of winning a tournament improve as the number of opponents decreases?