Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

Not sure where to post this question, but it's about general behavior during online tournament play.

It's a small-stakes NLH SNG. There are four players left. One player built a sizeable stack, but left the game for some reason and has been blinding out. Player X asks if we could just blind the player off to guarantee money finishes (he also happened to be to the right of the player blinding out, and would get all the blinds...).

I kept playing my normal way and ignored the missing player completely. Was this a breach of internet gentlemanliness or something?

The other question stems from the same game. The short stack went all-in after I raised. I called, as well as Player X (the same one from earlier). After the flop, I raise, trying to push X out of the hand. He asks something along the lines of, "Isn't it common courtesy to check it down?"

Is it?

Thanks very much! I'm just wondering if I'm unintentionally acting like a complete jerk, or if I'm in the clear (as I believe I am), considering I haven't heard of either of those things before.

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

I wouldn't let that other stack blind off to the other guy, no way. Money is money and you want all of it.

In most cases, yes it does get checked down UNLESS one of the remaining players improves their hand. So if you ended up making that 4th A on the river, then you can feel good about betting it.

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

For the second question, it's called "implied collusion". It is somewhat common courtesy to check it down when both players have a third guy all-in, you should check it through...the thought being, when you knock him out, you both move up in real money, which is more valuable than the chips at hand. Exception: If you have a hand that is not really at risk of losing to the all in guy, some sort of monster, you can then ignore this, and go for the jugular of the other guy.

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

Checking it down is pretty common. You certainly can't ask for it to happen though, that's active collusion.

If you've got a killer hand, bet it. You see this on TV at times as well when someone makes a big hand. Not sure why they bother though, no one ever calls the bet because they know the other person has a huge hand [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

The reason for not betting when you have small guy all in is, that unless you have a good hand and you are betting for value, then it is of more value to you, if you lose the hand, but the small stack is eliminated, than if you push X of a hand, that would have improved and beaten the small guy .. but instead you pushed with nothing and the small stack triples up

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

Regarding the 2nd question...

I think this is often over-used in situations where it really doesn't apply, but yes - it is a common occurance. If you're near the bubble or an increase in payout, the value of knocking out another player is tremendous. But, if you're still at 427 players, the value is much less. A hand that CAN'T win would be stupid to bet, but I think just playing for maximum tourney chip EV is the best play.

Example:
Small stack goes all-in. You call 1/10 your stack on the button with 88 and the BB comes along for the ride.
Flop: 237 rainbow, 54T, etc.
With these flops, I would always bet this if checked to. I may not be ahead, but I don't want to give free cards to the player who might still take the pot from me. (Obviously if you're going to lose to the all-in player there is nothing you can do.)

MHO FWIW

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

Thanks for the help!

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

Don't know about #1...seems like other player would benefit too much. If the big stack was really gone or disconnected, just share his blinds.

The most extreme case of #2 I can think of happened to me a couple weeks ago. Six players left, top five got a seat in another tournament. One guy went all in for about 2.5x the blind. Everyone else called, everyone checked it down. No reason to bet since placing fifth is as good as first. Gang up on the short stack and bust him out. This happens most of the time I play SNG's, esp. with a bubble boy who goes all in for just a little bit.

ScottieK

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
unless you have a good hand and you are betting for value, then it is of more value to you, if you lose the hand, but the small stack is eliminated, than if you push X of a hand,

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. In the vast majority of situations, the value to you of eliminating the all-in player is negligible. The benefit is split among all of the players remaining in the tournament, and your share is rarely worth a sacrifice of equity.

It is silly to make a complete bluff into a dry sidepot. If you are sure you have no equity in the main pot, bluffing risks chips with no benefit. However, it is perfectly reasonable to make a protection bet into the sidepot without feeling you are a favorite over the player who is all-in, or a favorite when you are called.

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the second question, it's called "implied collusion". It is somewhat common courtesy to check it down when both players have a third guy all-in, you should check it through...the thought being, when you knock him out, you both move up in real money, which is more valuable than the chips at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Implied [or implicit] collusion" is something else altogether: it's the term coined by Roy Hashimoto and popularized by Lee Jones for the manner in which the presence of several players with a similar playing style makes that style more correct. E.g., against loose players who play lots of pots and chase draws, they give each other the pot odds to chase those draws.

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

Yeah, perfect example. If you are in a tourney, and especially at the final table, you want people GONE. Why not have him try to beat five hands instead of one? Had a Nimrod signal me with a raise when we had a guy all in, and his hand is actually worse than mine! Unless you have the nuts and are greedy for the chips, check it down.

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

With regards to #2 It is not common courtesy to check it down, it is collusion (which is against the rules). However, it is a sort of unspoken rule of thumb to check it down to increase the chances of busting the all in short stack. If one of you hits a big hand, you should bet, the other player gets out of the way.

As for #1 The big stack sitting out, this happens, just play as normal but be more aggressive when he is posting a BB.

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

I agree with pzhon (as usual).

I think more clearly with specific numbers. To keep it simple, assume you think you have an even chance heads up against the short stack, and another player has a four flush after the flop. If you check, all three of you have 1 chance in 3 of winning.

If you raise and tall stack calls, you clearly gain. If you raise and he folds, your chance of winning the pot goes up by 1/6, from 1/3 to 1/2. However, the short stack's chance of winning also goes up by 1/6. For you to forgo the raise, you have to say that moving a chip from the short stack to the other high stack is worth more to you than getting a chip yourself. That's crazy. So raising is good if tall stack calls, good if he folds.

You could change the numbers in two ways. In ScottieK's extreme example, you don't care about getting chips yourself at all, all that matters is taking them away from the short stack. So it would be correct to call in that case. Or you could create a situation in which the other player is much more likely to beat the short stack than to beat you; for example, if tall stack is holding an Ace King to short stack's Ace Queen, while you have a pair of Nines. If you get him to fold, your chance of winning goes from 47% to 56%, but short stack's go from 19% to 44%. It could be worth 1 chip to you to move 3 chips from short stack to large (although only near a big kink in the payoffs). But there's no way you'd recognize something like this at the table without everyone exposing their hands.

My other objection is that this has nothing to do with courtesy, common or otherwise. It's strategy. One of the great virtues of poker is it does not tolerate whining that other people's strategies are discourteous; leave that to cricket.

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
unless you have a good hand and you are betting for value, then it is of more value to you, if you lose the hand, but the small stack is eliminated, than if you push X of a hand,

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. In the vast majority of situations, the value to you of eliminating the all-in player is negligible. The benefit is split among all of the players remaining in the tournament, and your share is rarely worth a sacrifice of equity.

It is silly to make a complete bluff into a dry sidepot. If you are sure you have no equity in the main pot, bluffing risks chips with no benefit. However, it is perfectly reasonable to make a protection bet into the sidepot without feeling you are a favorite over the player who is all-in, or a favorite when you are called.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post makes the point that I believe most people don't understand when betting.

If 2 players call an all-in by a 3rd, this leaves only the main pot with a 0 side pot. If you bet into an empty side pot, you risk tripling up the all-in player and winning 0 chips for your bet.

You can see a perfect example of this on the hand that The Mouth knocked out The Sheik at this year's WSOP. 2 players called his all-in and checked it down until Mike made the nuts and then bet. The other player knew that Mike had made his hand and congratulated him before he even saw his cards.

Don't bet into empty side pots!

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

Okay, first post here...

I say, if anyone tells you that something in POKER is common courtesy, tell them to get lost. If they feel that checking after calling an all-in is common courtesy, then they're stupid. You're looking to win the hand - all you have to do is do what it takes without injuring the other player. Don't worry about courtesy, especially with something so personal as betting style.

As for your other situation, I'm not quite sure I understand the circumstances.

Gabe

P.S. - Does anyone know what the deal with siggnatures is? Is it bad to type in like, your e-mail, or your website at the end of a post?

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

I've always looked at it this way. If there are mulitiple callers of the short stack all-in. Why would you want to drive out the hand that may possibly knock out the short stack. When that happens, as is metioned previously the short stack doubles or triples up, and instead of moving up in the money, you've just empowered another stack that might felt you on the very next hand (a reach, I know but still entirely possible). It's not so much courtesy as common sense.

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is perfectly reasonable to make a protection bet into the sidepot without feeling you are a favorite over the player who is all-in, or a favorite when you are called.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post makes the point that I believe most people don't understand when betting.

...
Don't bet into empty side pots!

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, it sounds like you missed my point after all.

Don't bluff into empty side pots.
It is often right to bet into empty sidepots.

Re: Question on Behavior in Tournament Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. In the vast majority of situations, the value to you of eliminating the all-in player is negligible. The benefit is split among all of the players remaining in the tournament, and your share is rarely worth a sacrifice of equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, but to be clear, in the example here -- 4 players left in a sng -- the value of eliminating a player is not negligible.


As far as #1 goes, you're not violating any unwritten etiquette. If all 3 of your stacks are relatively equal, it would generally be to all of your best interests to agree to it (preferably alternating who steals the BB), but there is no assumed obligation to do so. But if someone has a chip advantage he'd be foolish to accept the terms. A.) because the chips the other players would get would be relatively more valuable, and B.) because his advantage to use his stack on the payout bubble would be lost.

In fact, working off an away player's stack could be viewed as collusion. Even though he is away, he still has equity in the tournament. Working together to ensure that no one busts before this stack slides into the money or the player has time to return really is not much different than collusion in its more usual form.