tournament ethics/strategy question

[sfcard]

The following took place in a tournament I recently played:

4 players left. 3 make the money. UG calls, button calls, SB moves in for about 2X big blind more, BB folds, UG calls. Button now moves all in. Button shows 7's.

The outcome is unimportant. My question is whether the button should just call and check down with UG, or if he should make a play to get it heads up since what was in the middle represented a significant % of the chips in play. I remember a similar hand on PSI 1 where TJ moved in and Howard Lederer seemed less than pleased. Please don't critique the rest of the hand (I was the BB). My initial sense was that it should have been called/checked down, but I want to hear what others have to say.

Card

[Kevin K.]

Post deleted by Kevin K.

[Kevin K.]

It's iffy. The right thing to do and "friendly" thing to do is to check it down. Depends on what's at stake and whether or not you know/like these people, I guess.

With a significant percentage of the total chips at stake and holding 77, I don't think you can be criticized too much.

What was the prize difference between 1st and 3rd?

[gulebjorn]

Why is checking down right and friendly?
What happens if you're being right and friendly, but you're not-so-nice opponent bets the turn or river?
Don't see what's wrong with being a shark, this is poker. Especially at the final table of a tournament.

[Schwartzy61]

That's the play for him to make preflop. I don't think there is any etiquette or unwritten rule for play preflop.

When someone is all in and two others see the flop it is generally accepted in tournament play that you should check it down unless you have the nuts to maximize the chance at eliminating the short stack.

But since this occurred preflop I don't think there is anything wrong with how he played it.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

When someone is all in and two others see the flop it is generally accepted in tournament play that you should check it down unless you have the nuts to maximize the chance at eliminating the short stack.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the same sense, it is generally accepted that
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] AKo loses value in multiway pots.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Flush draws win 3 5 % of the time.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] You just can't beat bad players!

Oops, those are all wrong. It is just a fallacy that you should check it down when someone is all in. You should avoid bluffing into a dry sidepot. It is all risk with no reward. However, you should often bet into a dry sidepot with far worse than the nuts, even if this may push out a hand that would have beaten the all-in player.

It is not your duty to knock players out. The benefit is minimal, and is spread out among the many survivors. If you fail to value bet or to protect your hand, you bear 100% of the cost of your mistake.

[splashpot]

If your goal is to make top 3, check down. If your goal is to win, you should do anything and everything that increases your chances of winning that pot.

[ACW]

Suppose SB has AQ and UTG JTs. Why should the two sevens be forced to dodge Jacks and tens as well as aces and queens, when he can halve the danger to his hand by moving in. If JTs folds, he now only has to dodge 6 cards. If JTs calls, he now isn't so worried about Aces and Queens as he can still win the side pot, so he's still only dodging 6 cards. If he doesn't raise preflop, he's got to dodge 12 cards to win.

Not moving in with 77 here looks like a big (and costly) error to me.

Proviso : The payout structure is of course a factor. In a satellite, with every place but the next paying the same, of course it's right to check it down.

[sfcard]

Thanks for all the input thus far. First place paid 3x third. It was a friendly game, to the extent that it was among friends. However, it is understood that everyone will do everything possible to win within the confines of ethical poker. I agree that if the button wanted to win, then raising to shut out may have been the play. However, I felt there were a couple of more considerations. First, the button was the next shortest stack at the table. By knocking UG out of the hand, he probably putting himself to a coinflip that if he loses may cost him cashing. This may not be optimal play, but I know the button cared about third money. Second, by moving all in UG was now getting a huge overlay on his money. I probably didn't make it clear enough how high the blinds were. It seems the button was likely to just force UG into calling with 2 overcards or maybe even 1 when they could have seen the flop much cheaper. Just so noone thinks this is sour grapes, UG called with 22(like I said huge overlay), SB showed two overs and the button went on to take the pot. Thanks again.

Card

[OrangeKing]

If the player going in is the next shortest stack, is one spot away from the money, and has a decent (but not great) hand like 77, calling and then checking it down might be best for him here...but it's certainly not something you do just because you're supposed to, or because it's what everyone thinks you should do. People like to check it down way too often, when they should be more concerned with winning the pot for themselves.