Please don't do this.

Can't sleep, so I decided to get some frustration off my chest and make a list of kind requests to all you poker players out there. I post this in the beginners section as it should apply mainly to beginners. Feel free to chime in and add to the list.

1. Please stop bluffing empty side pots.
It's borderline bad etiquette and achieves nothing except helping the player who is already all in by removing another player from the pot. If you have a draw and are semi-bluffing, then you just bluffed out the one player who could pay you off.

2. Please don't brag if you win a pot.
It's bad etiquette. Some might say they do it for tactical reasons, to put other players on tilt. However, in my experience, the players who do this are often the ones who stand least to gain from having people play back at them.

3. Please don't leave the table immediately after winning a big pot.
It's poor poker etiquette to go south and it only proves that you're playing above your skill and/or bankroll level. Also, it's always easier to play good poker after winning a big pot than after losing one. If you were planning on quitting anyway, excuse yourself.

4. Please don't talk about an ongoing hand unless it's heads up and you are one of the players involved.
It's a direct violation of the rules (and utterly pointless).

Thanks.

nice post

the exception to rule 1 is tournaments. It may be desirable in some cases to help the short stack; for example if you have a large chip lead and want to preserve the bubble to bully your opponents

as for point 3, I would suggest "going south" if winning a pot puts you in an unfamiliar situation or at positional disadvantage. i.e. if you double up with 150 bbs and the player on your left has 600 bbs and is a competent aggressive player then you certainly don't want to muck around.

Fuck etiquitte. I play to win. Salsa already explained #1, as for #2, If I can tilt another player in anyway shape or form, I will do it. personally I don't brag, but I would if I thought I could get others off their game. And #3, I leave when I want to leave, and I don't care, it's my money now. If the sites want to do something about this then fine, but it is within the rules, and it doesn't bother me when others do it.

#4 is against the rules and should not be done.

Ettiquitte is for weak minded players, don't worry about what they are doing, just beat them for stacks.

Double post FTW!!

Ya, I have been in a situation where I was planning to leave after this orbit and then I stack 3 suckers. Not my problem.

It could even be argued, if you care so much about the guy taking some money off you and leaving, that you are playing too high up.


As for 1, by bluffing the side pot and folding everybody else out you increase your chances of winning the pot so it isn't a bad move (as is explained in another thread).

And also, I have won a good amount of money off people who are tilting. You don't necessarily have to be a complete idiot about it, but even saying 'lol' after you win a big pot can send somebody tilting like crazy. The only down side is if you are doing something like playing heads up and piss everybody off and nobody will play with you anymore. If you don't want to be laughed at and tilted, then don't screw up I guess.

Originally Posted by larsmars

1. Please stop bluffing empty side pots.
It's borderline bad etiquette and achieves nothing except helping the player who is already all in by removing another player from the pot. If you have a draw and are semi-bluffing, then you just bluffed out the one player who could pay you off.

I couldn't agree more with this and fail to see why people do this. I know it increases the bettor's chances of winning (so maybe I see one reason), but it still puzzles me when he bets AQ on a 952 rainbow, makes me fold something like 88 (figuring he has a higher pp and wouldn't bluff an empty side pot), and then lose to the AI player's unimproved AK.

Originally Posted by JinxT4

Originally Posted by larsmars

1. Please stop bluffing empty side pots.
It's borderline bad etiquette and achieves nothing except helping the player who is already all in by removing another player from the pot. If you have a draw and are semi-bluffing, then you just bluffed out the one player who could pay you off.

I couldn't agree more with this and fail to see why people do this. I know it increases the bettor's chances of winning (so maybe I see one reason), but it still puzzles me when he bets AQ on a 952 rainbow, makes me fold something like 88 (figuring he has a higher pp and wouldn't bluff an empty side pot), and then lose to the AI player's unimproved AK.

But there are also the cases when he bluffs you off your 8s and wins against unimproved AJ. So good move for him because he would have lost otherwise.

Since when is betting a 952 rainbow board with A Q a bluff? Why in the hell would I stop playing poker just because some short stack playing with 20 bbs already has all of his chips in? Why would I let worse hands stay in the hand for free to out draw me?

Since when is betting a 952 rainbow board with A Q a bluff? Why in the hell would I stop playing poker just because some short stack playing with 20 bbs already has all of his chips in? Why would I let worse hands stay in the hand for free to out draw me?

Since when is betting a 952 rainbow board with A Q a bluff? Why in the hell would I stop playing poker just because some short stack playing with 20 bbs already has all of his chips in? Why would I let worse hands stay in the hand for free to out draw me?

Originally Posted by pankfish

Why in the hell would I stop playing poker just because some short stack playing with 20 bbs already has all of his chips in?

Game theory. If three players, Reg1, Reg2 and Shorty, find themselves in this situation repeatedly, both Reg1 and Reg2 will benefit from soft playing each other in the long term, at the expense of Shorty.

Originally Posted by larsmars

Originally Posted by pankfish

Why in the hell would I stop playing poker just because some short stack playing with 20 bbs already has all of his chips in?

Game theory. If three players, Reg1, Reg2 and Shorty, find themselves in this situation repeatedly, both Reg1 and Reg2 will benefit from soft playing each other in the long term, on the expense of Shorty.

If the shorty is all in and beating me I'm losing the money in the pot no matter how many people are in the pot. Why would I care if the short stack gets my money or if reg 2 gets my money? Why would I allow an extra hand that is worse than mine stick around for free?

Originally Posted by larsmars

Originally Posted by pankfish

Why in the hell would I stop playing poker just because some short stack playing with 20 bbs already has all of his chips in?

Game theory. If three players, Reg1, Reg2 and Shorty, find themselves in this situation repeatedly, both Reg1 and Reg2 will benefit from soft playing each other in the long term, on the expense of Shorty.

This makes no sense to me...

Originally Posted by pankfish

If the shorty is all in and beating me I'm losing the money in the pot no matter how many people are in the pot. Why would I care if the short stack gets my money or if reg 2 gets my money? Why would I allow an extra hand that is worse than mine stick around for free?

Because nobody likes short stacks? Seriously, though, if you're not winning anyway, then it doesn't really matter if a worse hand sticks around for free. If you know shorty has you beat, but you don't know what the other guy has, then it's fairly obvious why you shouldn't bet.

Originally Posted by pankfish

Since when is betting a 952 rainbow board with A Q a bluff?

It's not, but there's little value in betting it in these spots and it's bad for metagame. However, unlike betting 34, which is just retarded, there is an argument for betting AQ.

Originally Posted by shazbox

Originally Posted by JinxT4

I couldn't agree more with this and fail to see why people do this. I know it increases the bettor's chances of winning (so maybe I see one reason), but it still puzzles me when he bets AQ on a 952 rainbow, makes me fold something like 88 (figuring he has a higher pp and wouldn't bluff an empty side pot), and then lose to the AI player's unimproved AK.

But there are also the cases when he bluffs you off your 8s and wins against unimproved AJ. So good move for him because he would have lost otherwise.

And next time you bluff him off his 8s and you lose to shorty's unimproved AK, so as a general strategy it's a bad move for you and the other guy to keep doing this. In fact, if you are equally skilled, the best thing for you two would be to always just check it down. I'm not saying you should check a good hand all the way through, though, because I wouldn't trust the other guy to do the same, and hopefully you have an edge.

Originally Posted by larsmars

Originally Posted by pankfish

If the shorty is all in and beating me I'm losing the money in the pot no matter how many people are in the pot. Why would I care if the short stack gets my money or if reg 2 gets my money? Why would I allow an extra hand that is worse than mine stick around for free?

Because nobody likes short stacks? Seriously, though, if you're not winning anyway, then it doesn't really matter if a worse hand sticks around for free. If you know shorty has you beat, but you don't know what the other guy has, then it's fairly obvious why you shouldn't bet.

Originally Posted by pankfish

Since when is betting a 952 rainbow board with A Q a bluff?

It's not, but there's little value in betting it in these spots and it's bad for metagame. However, unlike betting 34, which is just retarded, there is an argument for betting AQ.

Originally Posted by shazbox

Originally Posted by JinxT4

I couldn't agree more with this and fail to see why people do this. I know it increases the bettor's chances of winning (so maybe I see one reason), but it still puzzles me when he bets AQ on a 952 rainbow, makes me fold something like 88 (figuring he has a higher pp and wouldn't bluff an empty side pot), and then lose to the AI player's unimproved AK.

But there are also the cases when he bluffs you off your 8s and wins against unimproved AJ. So good move for him because he would have lost otherwise.

And next time you bluff him off his 8s and you lose to shorty's unimproved AK, so as a general strategy it's a bad move for you and the other guy to keep doing this. In fact, if you are equally skilled, the best thing for you two would be to always just check it down. I'm not saying you should check a good hand all the way through, though, because I wouldn't trust the other guy to do the same, and hopefully you have an edge.

You obviously don't get it. If you bluff once and the non-shorty folds (who could have beat you) and you win, then you bluff a second time, non-shorty folds, and you lose, you are still better off than letting the non-shorty stay in and have a chance to beat you. Bluffing the other guy out of the pot increases your equity and is therefore a positive move for you. Also, if he sees you bluffing dry side pots all day long, you will get paid off by him when you actually hit something and he thinks you are just bluffing him out again.

Also, what are you doing in the all in pot with 2 people with 34?

Originally Posted by JinxT4

I couldn't agree more with this and fail to see why people do this. I know it increases the bettor's chances of winning (so maybe I see one reason), but it still puzzles me when he bets AQ on a 952 rainbow, makes me fold something like 88 (figuring he has a higher pp and wouldn't bluff an empty side pot), and then lose to the AI player's unimproved AK.

Increasing your chance of winning isn't just ONE reason for doing most things, it IS the reason for doing them. The whole point of the game is to win.

concerning #2 At least don't brag in a way that might encourage the opponent to become a better player. Things like "This is why my ROI is 15% and yours is -100%" are just totally moronic. If someone overplayed his hand badly I'd be the first one to admit that he just had to pay me off there.

Originally Posted by shazbox

You obviously don't get it. If you bluff once and the non-shorty folds (who could have beat you) and you win, then you bluff a second time, non-shorty folds, and you lose, you are still better off than letting the non-shorty stay in and have a chance to beat you.

He, he...at least I tried, right? No, what I mean is this:
If you and the other guy who is not all in keep bluffing each other, let's say half the time he bluffs you out and the other half you bluff him out, then over time you are both worse off than you would have been not betting.

Bluff him out 60% of the time, and re-raise him when he tries to bluff you out. Problem solved

Originally Posted by shazbox

Originally Posted by larsmars

Originally Posted by pankfish

Why in the hell would I stop playing poker just because some short stack playing with 20 bbs already has all of his chips in?

Game theory. If three players, Reg1, Reg2 and Shorty, find themselves in this situation repeatedly, both Reg1 and Reg2 will benefit from soft playing each other in the long term, on the expense of Shorty.

This makes no sense to me...

Well it applies to tournaments where it's often beneficial to both of the big stacks to get rid of the short stack. Obv doesn't apply to cash games.

I remember in AC i was in a $300 buyin tourney,
4 people in the hand, 1 was all-in
flop came A62 and i had AT, i bet out, one guy says "Ohh you better have the nuts" and both folded
turn came K, river K, and the all-in guy won the hand with Kx.

The talker said "Ohh see you idiot, I would have won the hand with a better kicker". I'm like, "shut your mouth, we're not even in the money yet"

Ya, there are times where it can be beneficial. Especially in satellites. But in general, play to win. Screw what other people consider 'etiquette'

Also, now that I have read this thread I have started bluffing empty side pots constantly, just to tilt the hell out of all the idiots.

As a general rule, I believe you bet at the side pot only if you believe you have a good shot at winning and want to increase your pay out for a good hand. Or if you think the other guy is drawing or has a low pair to the board and youwant to solidify your chances. I mean...this IS poker, so anything that improves the amount of chips in my stack is a plus, right?

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Originally Posted by shazbox

Originally Posted by larsmars

Originally Posted by pankfish

Why in the hell would I stop playing poker just because some short stack playing with 20 bbs already has all of his chips in?

Game theory. If three players, Reg1, Reg2 and Shorty, find themselves in this situation repeatedly, both Reg1 and Reg2 will benefit from soft playing each other in the long term, on the expense of Shorty.

This makes no sense to me...

Well it applies to tournaments where it's often beneficial to both of the big stacks to get rid of the short stack. Obv doesn't apply to cash games.

That's not true. The above statement applies to both cash games and tourneys. However, in a tournament you have the extra benefit of knocking someone out (or like salsa wrote, you might indeed want to bluff the other players out if you want to keep shorty alive).

Originally Posted by ApocalypseCow

As a general rule, I believe you bet at the side pot only if you believe you have a good shot at winning

Yes, and I don't really understand why this seems to be controversial. It's not very likely for a bluff to be profitable if you can't win even if the other guy folds.

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

Ettiquitte is for weak minded players

Nowhere is poker etiquette more prominent than at the high stakes tables.

Now you can call me a noob if you like, but I'm a little confused here. When salsa says he might like to keep the low-stack alive to bully opponents, it seems like the only opponents affected are said low-stack and possibly the player you're bluffing out. However, if knocking the low-stack out only benefits your position, whereas keeping him in just adds another competitor who now has (at least, in this scenario) tripled up. As far as the play you're bluffing out, he now has less reason to believe any bet you make, since you will be forced to show. How is this beneficial since it isn't likely to affect your winnings (the word 'bluff' was used)?

I believe salsa is talking about bubble play (not wanting the bubble to burst, therefore keeping shorty alive). Search the forums, I'm sure you'll find a thread about it.

Originally Posted by ApocalypseCow

Now you can call me a noob if you like, but I'm a little confused here. When salsa says he might like to keep the low-stack alive to bully opponents, it seems like the only opponents affected are said low-stack and possibly the player you're bluffing out. However, if knocking the low-stack out only benefits your position, whereas keeping him in just adds another competitor who now has (at least, in this scenario) tripled up. As far as the play you're bluffing out, he now has less reason to believe any bet you make, since you will be forced to show. How is this beneficial since it isn't likely to affect your winnings (the word 'bluff' was used)?

He is talking about bubble play in a tournament. When it gets near the bubble many people tighten up in an attempt to just get into the money. At that point aggressive players with big stacks can easily bully people and build a lot of chips (more chips the longer it goes). So you may want to keep people crippled but still in the tournament to lengthen the time you have to steal blinds and push people around.

Thanks, I had never considered that. I'll have to try that out instead of being a sheeple and tightening up so much.

1. Retarded play amuses me.
2. It depends.
3. You can do whatever the fuck you want with your own money.
4. Ask the dealer/floor to deal with it.

Originally Posted by shazbox

Originally Posted by ApocalypseCow

Now you can call me a noob if you like, but I'm a little confused here. When salsa says he might like to keep the low-stack alive to bully opponents, it seems like the only opponents affected are said low-stack and possibly the player you're bluffing out. However, if knocking the low-stack out only benefits your position, whereas keeping him in just adds another competitor who now has (at least, in this scenario) tripled up. As far as the play you're bluffing out, he now has less reason to believe any bet you make, since you will be forced to show. How is this beneficial since it isn't likely to affect your winnings (the word 'bluff' was used)?

He is talking about bubble play in a tournament. When it gets near the bubble many people tighten up in an attempt to just get into the money. At that point aggressive players with big stacks can easily bully people and build a lot of chips (more chips the longer it goes). So you may want to keep people crippled but still in the tournament to lengthen the time you have to steal blinds and push people around.

thanks, that's precisely what i meant

About bluffing dry side pots...

1) Generally it's retarded, since FE is crap (example: potting it and needing the bluff to work 50% or more to break even. With the third player all-in (and unable to fold) the bluff has the downside of a normal bluff (getting called by a better hand) with MUCH less of an upside (winning a pot uncontested).

However, it does increase one's chances of winning. If the short stack is super short (less than 1 BB, and forced allin) then there's already a side pot to be contested and the shorty likely has crap anyway.

Basically the "no-bluff" rule is only relevant ITM at tournaments, as you all have said. I once had someone berate me for "bluffing" a side-pot in a cash game. I had an open-ended straight flush draw... so I don't know if it was really a bluff... but anyway, who gives a flying monkey fuck if someone is eliminated in a cash game?

OMG BARRY GREENSTEIN JUST BLUFFED A DRY SIDE POT ON TV!!!! WHAT A DONK!!


...the sad thing was that he had to explain to the other guy (who had him beat) why he did it.

...he won the pot by the way.