Semi-bluff Into Empty Side-pot

[Chris Callahan]

This is a hand I observed from the rail a couple of days ago after being knocked out of a Hold'em no-limit tournament.

There are six people left. 1st pays $19,000, 2nd $11,000, 3rd $6,000, 4th $4,000, 5th $3,000, and 4th $2,400. There is 430,000 in chips on the table. The blinds are 3,000 and 6,000. UTG is the shortest stack by far and goes all-in for 18,000 with A3-off. Cut-off (61,000) calls with AT-off and so does the button (80,000) with AQ-off. The three of them take the flop which comes JT9-rainbow. Cut-off checks and the button moves all-in. Cut-off folds.

What do you think about the all-in move? Also, were the hands otherwise played well?

--- Chris Callahan

[M.B.E.]

Interesting. Since I know the other players held AT and A3, the all-in by AQ seems brilliant. Forces the AT to fold, leaving AQ as the best hand, likely to win the main pot. If the AT had called the all-in, the AQ still has 11 outs.

But let me guess what happened to motivate this post. The AT folded, and a 3 hit the board so the all-in player won the main pot with A3. That tripled him up, moving him ahead of the player with AT and roughly equivalent to the AQ-guy. The guy who had folded AT went ballistic. Am I right?

[Chris Callahan]

The AT guy didn't go ballistic, and he wouldn't have won the pot (A3 caught miracle 3's on the turn and river). However, after the tournament he said to me he thought AQ made a bad play. The main reason I posted the hand is that I'm not so sure about that.

(I shouldn't have revealed UTG's hand in my post, but that's too late to correct.)

--- Chris Callahan

[Whistler]

It was a bad play....at least according to Danny Negraneau. I forget the exact article but take a look at fullcontactpoker.com.

[Nottom]

I think this line of play is fine for the AQ player. The big difference here is the fact that AQ could easily be the best hand. If for some reason the button had called here with 86s and went all-in on the flop then it would be a terrible play.