A ridiculous thought?

[the_main]

So I was playing a tournament, as I usually do. And there is a huge donk at the table, as there usually is. He's spewing chips calling down with bottom pair, and I'm hoping for a hand to bust him with.

About 20 hands in I raise his BB with JJ. He calls and we get 10 high, rainbow flop. He had me covered, but I doubled through him as he called my all in on the turn with a gutshot. This left him with 200 or so chips with a t50 BB.

Anyhow, he rebuilt his stack getting lucky until we both hand about 3k. Then, I get involved in another pot with him. I have TPTK and have him covered. He calls me all the way down to the river, leaving himself with only t400 behind.

So I think to myself - Why not let him keep these chips and hopefully he can build up again. He can possibly take out better players doing so, and also accumulate more chips which I can take. So I check and he checks behind, mucking bottom pair (he held 3-5off).

How ridiculous is my line of thinking here?

The actual result, if it means anything: Turns out he did indeed rebuild, catching some good cards and I took about 50% of his average stack before he busted for good.

[Exitonly]

i can't see how you'd make mor ethan 400 chips on average later. Most likely he's just going to give the 400 to someone else. And even if he does rebuild, you won't necesarily be the one to take them from him.If this was very late in a tournament, and you had a very large stack, i might see something to this.

[yvesaint]

dude this is just cruel

but whats to stop him from giving it to other players with an equal % chance? do you have some sort of real special read that no one else has? if you did, and you knew no one else picked up on it, you might be able to make a case for this

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
How ridiculous is my line of thinking here?

[/ QUOTE ]

On a scale of 1-10, I would say about a 9.9.

First off, there's a very real possibility that a fish with only 400 chips will push any two next hand, and in all likely hood you will not be the one they are shipped to.

Second, you're ignoring the possibility that you bust him, and his seat is then taken by another fish (the sea, she is overflowing) with more chips.

Third, you're committing a cardinal sin by not extracting maximum value.

Fourth, fifth, sixth, .... and so on.

Basically, take every chip another player is willing to donate without hesitation or remorse.

P.S.
Seventh, you will be giving the donk a nearly insurmountable advantage... he will be IN THE RED ZONE!!
...heh, couldn't help myself.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
Seventh, you will be giving the donk a nearly insurmountable advantage... he will be IN THE RED ZONE!!
...heh, couldn't help myself.



[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, beat me to it.

By definition, a bad player has a -EV in a tournament. That means that just sitting at the table is costing him money, and over time, his stack will on average dwindle. Less than 50% of the time, he will take money from a good player, and about 11% of the time (assuming you are one of 9 good players at the table), you will be the one to take those chips from him. More than 50% of the time, he will donk away those last 400, and again, you'll get them about 11% of the time. Or, you could have a 100% chance of taking them now.

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How ridiculous is my line of thinking here?

[/ QUOTE ]

On a scale of 1-10, I would say about a 9.9.


[/ QUOTE ]
that is being v generous.

[schwza]

not trying to discourage discussion of new ideas or anything, but this is totally stupid.

[LearnedfromTV]

Let me try to be constructive in my response:

You are wanting to keep this guy around because he is more likely to give you chips than the rest of the table later. But to do that, he has to take them from the rest of the table, which he is less equipped to do than you. So while it's true that it will be easier to get chips from him at some point in the future, that fact is mitigated by the fact that he doesn't have them yet, and it will be harder for him to put himself in that position and to then give you those chips rather than someone else than it will be for you to just get the chips from the rest of the table directly.

I could see this being a neutral play (not a good one, but at least not a bad one) if it were a final table (no new player will come in) and the relative chip count was much lower (the equivalent of 15 or 20 chips here). But even then, the likelihood that you would benefit later is so low.

[the_main]

Thanks for the responses - I was just trying to think 'outside the box' a little bit. I've never thought to do something like this, but after nearly doubling through the same guy twice, it popped into my head. I'll never do it again, I promise. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

However, I would still be interested in hearing why some people believe this move is better suited for something like the final table. I would think the benifit of knocking a player out (assuming a top heavy structure) would far outweigh this.

Any additional thoughts and criticisms on this topic are welcomed and encouraged.