Last night playing on a single table tourney on PP.

Blinds: 50-100
small blind had approx 3500
big blind had 240
UTG had approx 2000
UTG+1 had about 850
Button - me had about 1500

UTG limps in, UTG+1 folds. I raise to 250 with A,J suited. Before anyone comments on me playing that hand, It was a semi tight table and figured it was 50-50 that everyone would fold, and if not, I had position.

Small blind folds, Big blind calls (going all in) and UTG calls.

Flop: 10, K, rag (maybe an 8) with one spade. UTG checks. I checked not liking that flop. Turn was another K. UTG checks. I raise 200. UTG folds.

Cards flip and big blind has 10, Q. River is a rag and Big blind wins the pot of 790 chips.

Immediately, UTG starts screaming and complaining that i pushed him off and he would have won. His point was that there would have been one less player.

My reasoning. the big blind said he was drunk and was playing like it. UTG was playing well. I decided if I was not going to win the hand I would rather the big blind did than UTG. I would rather only have one large stack and two small withtwo of us in the midddle than two large stacks one small and me in the middle.

I figured the first scenario would be better for me strategically in the long run?

What do you all think?