|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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]. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|