|
Infamous
|
07-20-2005, 05:25 PM
Post subject: Manners VS Gain.
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 71
|
|
I would like to know people's opinion on what I believe to be good manners in checking down with another player when somebody else is all in. Ie somebody all in with 2 callers.
I have had people [badly] bluff me out of these pots and then end up doubling the short stack because I at take their betting as a "I'll handle this guy" nudge, but I find it rude. Is it an ethical play to bet into a side pot with somebody all in?
I can hold the nuts and will check it down. If somebody starts betting at me, then they're doubling me up/paying me off handsomely, as far as I'm concerned, but if they are happy to check down and eliminate a player with me then I will take that with the lost profits I could make.
Am I being too nice? Should I be taking the opportunity to increase my stack? Would it be considered different in SNG games from ring?
I imagine that a tournament situation would give this type of play more influence on the game but I would also consider it ruder than a ring game when there is no aim of a first place finish.
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Galapogos
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Loser's Lounge
Posts: 2,322
|
|
Are you ****ing insane? Are you looking for friends or money out there? Hell, tell him you won't call and THEN call even. When did the word "ethics" share a sentence with "poker" when that sentence didn't also contain "lack there of"?
You'll actually find it's kinda fun to have the whole table hate you sometimes too! :P
|
|
|
|
Infamous
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 71
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Galapogos
Are you ****ing insane? Are you looking for friends or money out there? Hell, tell him you won't call and THEN call even. When did the word "ethics" share a sentence with "poker" when that sentence didn't also contain "lack there of"?
You'll actually find it's kinda fun to have the whole table hate you sometimes too! :P
|
Fair enough.
I actually agree with you, even though I do it.
|
|
|
|
jobupoker
|
|
Straight
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 111
|
|
At first I thought you were referring to Tourney play. But it bacame clear you are also talking about Ring games.
I don't understand AT ALL why you would just check it down with the Nuts... Ever.
|
|
|
|
CrunchyNuts
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 436
|
|
Save the manners for when you lose.
|
|
|
|
storm75m
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 6MAX-NL - Houston
Posts: 401
|
|
This shouldn't apply to ring at all, cause you're not trying to eliminate someone.
But in a tourney, personally it pisses me off when someone tries to bet me out of a pot (bluffing with nothing!!!) when the only reason I called was to give the short-stack even worse odds of surviving. The only time you should bet is if you think you have the short-stack beat for sure. (Checking down with the nuts is pretty silly) I don't think it's about manners, it's just about being a fucking idiot and not understanding the basics of tournament poker.
|
|
Lack of Discipline and Over-Confidence... The root of all poker evil.
|
|
jmontis
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,296
|
|
side pot bluffing is a mortal mistake, people get furious over this in person.
Betting with probably the best hand is perfectly fine, if the other guy has a hand too, well he shouldn't be a pussy and needs to raise or fold.
|
|
|
|
evman150
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 269
|
|
You my friend, are welcome at my table anytime.
I don't think playing for fun and playing for keeps are mutually exclusive.
|
|
Light years ahead of the competition.
|
|
ChezJ
|
|
07-20-2005, 08:43 PM
Post subject: Re: Manners VS Gain.
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 1,456
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infamous
I can hold the nuts and will check it down.
|
hate to say it but you are a fish... unless this is some kind of trapping maneuver. from the rest of your post i gather it is not so my original assertion stands.
|
|
|
|
Infamous
|
|
07-20-2005, 10:00 PM
Post subject: Re: Manners VS Gain.
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 71
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ChezJ
hate to say it but you are a fish...
|
No argument from me. My poker career is in it's infancy. This wouldn't be a trap unless I was bet into, and in which case I'm playing that hand.
The overall response is that I'm an idiot. Coming from experience I have no room for argument and will have to take the comments with a pinch of salt, listen and improve my game.
The dilemma seems non-existent for most. Build your own stack without regard for the others at the table. If you have a hand to knock otu the shortstack with, then you can turn your attention to maximising the sidepot, or something of the sort.
|
|
|
|
straight167
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 62
|
|
dude.....UNLESS you are playing with your buddies/family members for fun. Checking would be A ok. BUT...with other people? Hell, take their wallets/car keys/whatever.
I checked to my flushes a couple of times because I was playing hands that I shouldnt be playing in the first place. This one time, I made a flush once with Jack, 3 and cracked this person's pocket aces ($3/6 limit) I made the flush on the river and I told him not to bet because I have him beat. He still bet so I raised him and he called. I was furious. Well, I should be too if someone with Jack, 3 beats me. But if the dudes being an ass....you konw what to do
|
|
make the RIGHT decision at the RIGHT time.
Current BR: $721 (not counting the initial $100)
I started with $100 on July 20, 2005
CURRENT PROJECT: "Im gonna get all of my $ I lost at the casino back"
|
|
Checkways
|
|
07-22-2005, 10:12 AM
Post subject: Re: Manners VS Gain.
|
#12 (permalink)
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 249
|
|
Call me a jerk, but in ring games I almost always build a side pot even if I missed. I want to kick out the other players and go heads up with the desperate all-in guy with my ace high. And many times, I win this way.
Other times, I will do it to protect my hand. And many times I do it just to build a side pot to win because I know the all-in guy is going to be drawing towards the nuts for free.
I don't play tournaments though and I think that's where your concern is in question.
In live play you will see a lot of, "Want to check it down?" Unless this person is truly a friend I will always be the jerk and say no. (My current excuse is, "I don't play enough hands to do that. Sorry.")
|
|
|
|
Aces
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 832
|
|
Not really the same thing, but I won't bet at pots if I've made a deal not to do so if somebody is "Away" and you're trying to blind him out by taking turns taking the blinds.
Otherwise in tournies I will generally check down without anything strong. If I have a hand, I'm certainly going to bet it. In Ring, play just like any other hand, just with one player that can no longer bet.
|
|
|
|
studboyjoe
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 130
|
|
the only time I have ever seen the "everyone check to the river" move has been at final tables, and that only rarely. I have also seen it once before, to remove an incredible jerk from the tourney by no less than three other players. It worked.
|
|
Sharky: I've got good news and bad.
me: what's the good?
Sharky: we all voted you Most Valuable Player!
me: what's the bad?
Sharky: It was at our weekly poker game!
|
|
BIGandRICH
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jazz Club
Posts: 419
|
|
I will deffinately bluff at side pots to eliminate players.. you may not be winning the main pot but why would you want to throw away the side pot(s) aswell. The aim is to take all you can from your opponents. Who cares if they get angry?!?! They can yell and scream, i dont care at all, hell, they can break shit if they want (aslong as its not a home game at my place). What does it matter if you are leaving with the money?
Quote:
|
"Think about what it's like sitting at a poker table with people whose only goal is to cut your throat, take your money, and leave you out back talking to yourself about what went wrong inside. That probably sounds harsh. But that's the way it is at the poker table. If you don't believe me, then you're the lamb that's going off to the slaughter."
|
If theres a pot there for you to take... take it
|
|
villain goes AI
i call with a set (i have him owned)
i win pot
villain: **** this, this site is bullshit, ******* rigged, suck out ****
|
|
journey075
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 725
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BIGandRICH
I will deffinately bluff at side pots to eliminate players.. you may not be winning the main pot but why would you want to throw away the side pot(s) aswell. The aim is to take all you can from your opponents. Who cares if they get angry?!?! They can yell and scream, i dont care at all, hell, they can break shit if they want (aslong as its not a home game at my place). What does it matter if you are leaving with the money?
Quote:
|
"Think about what it's like sitting at a poker table with people whose only goal is to cut your throat, take your money, and leave you out back talking to yourself about what went wrong inside. That probably sounds harsh. But that's the way it is at the poker table. If you don't believe me, then you're the lamb that's going off to the slaughter."
|
If theres a pot there for you to take... take it |
its considered bad etiquette for you to bluff DRY sidepots. and thats only for tourneys.
|
|
|
|
BIGandRICH
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jazz Club
Posts: 419
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by journey075
its considered bad etiquette for you to bluff DRY sidepots. and thats only for tourneys.
|
even if it is bad etiquette.. bluffing at a pot that has no money is a stupid thing to do. And i dont play tourneys anyway.. but i meant more if one guy bets into the side pot, then i may raise to eliminate anyone else in the side pot that may have called the smaller bet and be heads up, or just to take the now bigger sidepot as it is... but even for betting at the nothing pot.. if you know you're playing a flush chaser in this pot and you have nothing in your hand, why let him see a free card? Make him pay for the turn and river and fold when he misses. If its bad etiquette to do that then you're almost saying that if theres a side pot then anyone on a drawing hand is entitled to see the turn/river for free.
|
|
villain goes AI
i call with a set (i have him owned)
i win pot
villain: **** this, this site is bullshit, ******* rigged, suck out ****
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poker is not for you. Consider becoming a teacher.
|
|
|
|
BIGandRICH
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jazz Club
Posts: 419
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by iopq
Poker is not for you. Consider becoming a teacher.
|
Was that directed at me? If so.. why?
|
|
villain goes AI
i call with a set (i have him owned)
i win pot
villain: **** this, this site is bullshit, ******* rigged, suck out ****
|
|
dalecooper
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,107
|
|
There's no etiquette when it comes to side pots/main pots in ring games. If you think there is any profit in chasing someone out of the pot, you do it. If you made bottom pair or just have high cards and think you can bluff someone else off a similar or better hand, and by doing so even slightly increase your EV... do it. Tourneys are a different matter though. Eliminating players increases your EV most of all, so you always do whatever is most likely to eliminate the short stack - which often means checking when the sidepot is dry and your hand is weak.
|
|
|
|
biondino
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Putney, UK; Full Tilt,Mansion; $50 NL and PL; $13 and $16 SNGs at Stars
Posts: 3,170
|
|
I don't get this. I have a very high regard for correct etiquette in poker, but as far as I can tell, whether you're playing for a main pot or a side pot, you're playing poker, for money, against someone else. The rules haven't changed, the prize hasn't changed, you started the hand hoping to take everyone else's money - what's changed?
I would be genuinely grateful if someone could explain to me WHY it's considered by some to be bad etiquette to fight just as hard for the side pot as for the main.
|
|
|
|
Jimmy Mac
|
|
Full House
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Drinking your milkshake.
Posts: 950
|
|
I remember I was shortstacked in a $10 & $1 sit and go on VC Poker. I went all in with pocket 3's and both blinds call. First guy bluffs the second off the flop with his Ace high and I win the pot. The table goes apesh!t, I double up and go on to win.
|
|
|
|
dalecooper
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,107
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by biondino
I would be genuinely grateful if someone could explain to me WHY it's considered by some to be bad etiquette to fight just as hard for the side pot as for the main.
|
It comes from tourney play where the sidepot is dry and someone is up for elimination. That's all. If there is a player short stacked who goes all in, and two players call - meaning there is no sidepot yet, just the main one - it's bad etiquette (and dumb play) to bluff on the flop and force someone out who might have made a better hand than the short stack. This logic doesn't apply to cash games, although it's still of questionable value to bluff into a dry sidepot when your hand is weak.
|
|
|
|
biondino
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Putney, UK; Full Tilt,Mansion; $50 NL and PL; $13 and $16 SNGs at Stars
Posts: 3,170
|
|
But but if you have a decent hand you don't let yourself be bluffed! Like the rest of the time!
So what you're saying is that it's worthless for someone who will almost certainly lose against the short-stacked player to knock the other player out of the hand.
I can see some logic in that, but I can't see how it's in the (evil, manipulative, selfish) spirit of poker. As far as I've always played it, the side pot is like another hand - you try to win in the same way.
|
|
|
|
CrunchyNuts
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 436
|
|
Quote:
|
I can see some logic in that, but I can't see how it's in the (evil, manipulative, selfish) spirit of poker. As far as I've always played it, the side pot is like another hand - you try to win in the same way.
|
We're talking about a dead sidepot, where there's no money to win if you bluff them off. In a tourney, bluffing at an empty side-pot only serves as a denial, to deny the chips to the person you're bluffing off. I'm not sure if there's any cases where that's +$EV compared to eliminating someone...but I guess if your purpose is to be a dick, it suits just fine.
|
|
|
|
drmcboy
|
|
DrButtInski
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,602
|
|
OK I skimmed a few in the middle so I'm still not sure if we're takling CG or tourney, but people who bluff dry side pots in tourneys (or bet with a very beatable hand) should be killed.
Last night 4 left in SNG, SS has 200 at 100/200 25, everyone calls the AI. flop is J32 all spades. Dude tosses in 400 chips with A3 - and NO SPADE!!!! The funny thing is he and the other dude with a nice stack were obviously afraid to play anything until the SS busted, so once he quaded up I proceed to clean the table with them.
|
|
|
|
Zangief
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 370
|
|
The check-down move is usually only done in a tourney when:
1. Eliminating a player significantly increases the pay-out to the remaining players.
2. The amount of chips at stake is insignifant compared to the increase in pay-out.
3. Neither player has a very strong hand.
4. The sidepot is either "dry" (empty) or very small.
This produces a situation where it makes sense for players to try to increase the chances of eliminating another player. The only way to increase the chances of eliminating an all-in player is to check the hand down so that the all-in player has to showdown against multiple hands that could have produced a winner by the river.
Also note that AFAIK you are not supposed to talk to the other player about checking a hand down when you make this play in a tournament because then it can then be considered collusion.
|
|
|
|
Sed
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wastin' away again in margaritaville....
Posts: 1,102
|
|
screw manners...
My golden rule of poker is to play intelligently to maximize my profit .
If that means checking it down with a small stack all-in in a tourney, then you check it down. Otherwise, all's fair in love, war, and poker.
- sed
|
No fear, go deep or go home!
|
|
ChezJ
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 1,456
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zangief
The only way to increase the chances of eliminating an all-in player is to check the hand down so that the all-in player has to showdown against multiple hands that could have produced a winner by the river.
|
thank you for this explanation which finally makes it clear why checking it down makes sense under CERTAIN circumstances.
ChezJ
|
|
|
|
Infamous
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 71
|
|
This is my take on it. Perhaps I over exagerated checking down the nuts.
With two people in a pot vs an all in player, both gain more by checking down and [hopefully] eliminating said player. This moves them one step closer to the payout if not gaurenteed a higher payout.
Why bet with a marginal hand and force out another player only to lose your hand to the player all in? To me it makes more sense to keep the third person in and hopefully reduce the odds of the all in player by doing so. Sure, you want to win the main pot, but by forcing the third player out doesn't mean you will, and may result in doubling or even trippling up a player and possibly missing out on the money down the line because of this.
I don't mean to sound like I will intentionally miss an opportunity to win money for myself, but I feel that tournament play is a situation where more can be gained by doing nothing.
Considering bad ettiquette to bluff into side pots, that leaves only betting on made hands and strong draws, thus eliminating the purpose. I feel you will be called by a better hand or folded to otherwise, thus giving no real gain to betting it, and really a lose-lose situation. You either lose more money to a better hand or gain nothing to a worse hand.
Perhaps I feel it's just fair for being allowed to draw cheaply to whichever hand I have to use it for eliminating a single player and incrseaing my chance of success. For someone to bluff me out of the side pot and/or push their top pair only for the all in player to turn over top pair and double up when I would have had a better hand would annoy me no end.
I feel this is a way which gives me a better chance of winning, some people appear to think differently.
I must say that a ring game would be completely different and a lot [most] of this ideology would not apply.
|
|
|
|
biondino
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Putney, UK; Full Tilt,Mansion; $50 NL and PL; $13 and $16 SNGs at Stars
Posts: 3,170
|
|
Just to continue being a devil's advocate for a second...
So, if it's so gentlemanly to not bluff a dry sidepot, what about your manners towards the short stack? You are colluding, implicitly or explicitly, with the single intention of forcing out this player at minimum risk to yourself. Hardly a level playing field.
As for bluffing, well, a) the short stack may not have made a hand anyway, so your king or ace high could win the main pot, and b) if either you or the other guy don't have the cards to make a decent stab at winning, what the arse are you doing in the hand in the first place??
|
|
|
|
CrunchyNuts
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 436
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by biondino
Just to continue being a devil's advocate for a second...
So, if it's so gentlemanly to not bluff a dry sidepot, what about your manners towards the short stack? You are colluding, implicitly or explicitly, with the single intention of forcing out this player at minimum risk to yourself. Hardly a level playing field.
As for bluffing, well, a) the short stack may not have made a hand anyway, so your king or ace high could win the main pot, and b) if either you or the other guy don't have the cards to make a decent stab at winning, what the arse are you doing in the hand in the first place??
|
It's not a matter of gentlemanly-ness, it's a matter of +$EV that just happens to look gentlemanly.
|
|
|
|
LeFou
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,361
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by biondino
As for bluffing, well, a) the short stack may not have made a hand anyway, so your king or ace high could win the main pot
|
What's more likely to beat the shortstack: a mediocre hand or 2 mediocre hands?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by biondino
b) if either you or the other guy don't have the cards to make a decent stab at winning, what the arse are you doing in the hand in the first place??
|
What you are doing is using the fact that YOU are not shortstacked to maximize your profit. i.e. for small risk you might hit w/your 87o and beat the poor guy who had to push w/ducks.
The flop comes 67J and opp bluffs w/her unimproved K4s? You lay down, assuming she beats a couple sevens, and short stack doubles up. Maybe knocks you and the other player out a bit later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BIGandRICH
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by iopq
Poker is not for you. Consider becoming a teacher.
|
Was that directed at me? If so.. why? |
No, that was directed at the original poster.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
