20 replies to this topic

[shamhawks]

I'm seeing so much of this lately, I have to address it.What is up with these people that must bluff when there is a short stack all-in...this just happened again in a sng. 3 people in the pot...1 an all-in and this stupid aggressive person makes a big bet on the river to force out the other person in the hand...she flips over king high, and the all-in goes on a big rush in the next few hands getting kings and aces back to back. the other person forced out said he had the all-in beat, but gave way to the big bettor.I'm sure no people in here ever make this terrible move...but whatever you do...do not bluff at a multi person pot with an all-in. either have the goods or check it down...that all-in might come back and bite you later on.

[MrConceit]

shamhawks said:

I'm seeing so much of this lately, I have to address it.What is up with these people that must bluff when there is a short stack all-in...this just happened again in a sng. 3 people in the pot...1 an all-in and this stupid aggressive person makes a big bet on the river to force out the other person in the hand...she flips over king high, and the all-in goes on a big rush in the next few hands getting kings and aces back to back. the other person forced out said he had the all-in beat, but gave way to the big bettor.I'm sure no people in here ever make this terrible move...but whatever you do...do not bluff at a multi person pot with an all-in. either have the goods or check it down...that all-in might come back and bite you later on.

Yeah I totally agree. This is in fact a Daniel pet peeve from some earlier article/post of his. Cardplayer perhaps? Though he talks about specific situations. What was his term... Dry pot? Anyway, it's ok to bluff if there is a substantial side pot, but not if there isn't a side pot at all. That was sort of the thrust of Daniel's b1tch, people who bluff at a pot that has no side pot (and has someone allin).

[iveyfan30]

shamhawks said:

I'm seeing so much of this lately, I have to address it.What is up with these people that must bluff when there is a short stack all-in...this just happened again in a sng. 3 people in the pot...1 an all-in and this stupid aggressive person makes a big bet on the river to force out the other person in the hand...she flips over king high, and the all-in goes on a big rush in the next few hands getting kings and aces back to back. the other person forced out said he had the all-in beat, but gave way to the big bettor.I'm sure no people in here ever make this terrible move...but whatever you do...do not bluff at a multi person pot with an all-in. either have the goods or check it down...that all-in might come back and bite you later on.

i couldn't agree more...it seems to happen in every sng that i play..ss will go all in somebody else will go all in to get a heads up,seems like the caller alwasys has like 4 6 os...they double the ss up then they wind up in the money...it makes no sense..i swear it seems to happen every time i play a sng

[MDXS]

I really, really, really hate this. Just today this happened in a Sit N' Go. 4 left, 3 pay. Flash forward a few hands and I'm getting busted by the former short stack...

[tolbert]

This is one of the worst moves in tourny poker. Almost happened to me in the $500 step on PP. 5 left and me and another guy call a short stacks all in. Check-check, river gives me top pair, I check and he puts me all in? Luckily I made the call and he turned over a stone bluff, which by the way would have lost to the shortstacks all in. In this tourney the top 4 advance to the next level, so there is no difference in prize money ... making this an absolute ridiculous play. Also, sometimes the dry side pot bluff is a sign of collusion. Id be wary if i saw someone do it twice in the same game.

[The Dude]

OK, first post and I gotta disagree.It's not always a poor move. Was the guy pushing you out of the pot the cl? If so maybe he prefered to have the ss still in the game. It gives him bullying rights. If you're more concerned about getting in the money than winning you can be pushed around waiting for the ss to go first. In the mean time the cl accumalates more from stealing of the medium stacks.Not always ideal and sometimes it can backfire. In the long run it does lead to more winning games because, by the time it gets three handed and you're in the money, the cl has an unassailable lead.Just my 0.02c.

[MrConceit]

The Dude said:

OK, first post and I gotta disagree.It's not always a poor move. Was the guy pushing you out of the pot the cl? If so maybe he prefered to have the ss still in the game. It gives him bullying rights. If you're more concerned about getting in the money than winning you can be pushed around waiting for the ss to go first. In the mean time the cl accumalates more from stealing of the medium stacks.Not always ideal and sometimes it can backfire. In the long run it does lead to more winning games because, by the time it gets three handed and you're in the money, the cl has an unassailable lead.Just my 0.02c.

Laugh, this is the first good reason I've heard for this normally horrible play. Snicker. You do it to keep the small stack in so you can keep bullying. I dunno if that actually comes up very often, or if I believe that that's usually why it's done, but ok. A semi-valid reason finally given for this.

[Wilderness]

The Dude said:

OK, first post and I gotta disagree.It's not always a poor move. Was the guy pushing you out of the pot the cl? If so maybe he prefered to have the ss still in the game. It gives him bullying rights. If you're more concerned about getting in the money than winning you can be pushed around waiting for the ss to go first. In the mean time the cl accumalates more from stealing of the medium stacks.Not always ideal and sometimes it can backfire. In the long run it does lead to more winning games because, by the time it gets three handed and you're in the money, the cl has an unassailable lead.Just my 0.02c.

You are correct, it is not always a poor move, that can be a valid reason for doing it. However, the chip leader would have to have quite a chip lead to still want the short stack (who will now be tripled up) to stay around and if they do have that kind of lead, they would probably be better off letting the guy get eliminated and using his huge stack against the remaining players.I do agree, there is a time and a place to do that, but 99% of the time its a bad move.

[shamhawks]

I might agree in a multi tourney with a huge chip lead, but not in sng, because you let the all-in small stack win this hand with 2 other people "guess what" he is not such a small stack anymore. but even with a big chip lead, you just don't want 1 extra person at the table to have a chance at you...case in point 2 months ago i was left with 125 chips in sng against 7875, and came back and won...I know this is all luck to get out of that big of hole, but it can happpen...where do you think a chip and a chair came from.Bottom line, there might be an arguement for doing this on the very, very rare ocassion :roll: , but still "THE DUMBEST MOVE IN TOURNAMENT POKER"

[The Dude]

It depends on the s'n'g structure. If it's a Party crapshoot I agree it's a poor move. With a better structured game I believe it to be a good move. If you're the cl with 2 average stacks and a ss where is the advantage in eliminating the ss? Much better to target the average stacks. It's just an opinion and I'm not saying it's perfect for every scenario. I just don't believe its the "THE DUMBEST MOVE IN TOURNAMENT POKER" . I think that award goes to calling an all-in with K-4s against my Q-Qand busting me with a flush. And then to be congratulated by the rest of the table on a "good call". :?

[CodyHartman]

I couldn't agree more. Any time that a player is all in, you better have the goods in order to bet people out.Now at the WSOP 5k LHE champiobship, we saw Elix Powers all in, and he got like 4 or 5 (don't remember) callers. I think Hennigan bet with a pair of 4's (bottom pair), and 1 or 2 people to fold, including Jan Sjovik (spelling?) to fold his top pair of Queens, (can't figure out why he folded), and Elix still had 2 overcards to Johnny's 4's, so he had 6 outs. No matter what 1 card could come Jan woulda had Elix beat to drawing runner runner. So did Hennigan do the right or wrong thing? I mean it is a limit tourney where an all in preflop may not be a huge pot for the all in, maybe 3.5 to 5.5 BB ins the pot.What do ya think about his move after the flop with bottom pair?

[Snydz9]

DRY SIDE POT BLUFFING!!!!!!! The worst, now if there is already money in the sidepot it is not as bad.. but still not that great. If the sidepot is empty, there is no reason to do it, no gain whatsoever. My biggest pet Peeve for sure.

[JimmyWellington]

I would categorize the "all in over betting the pot by 20x" the worst tournament move ever. I see this over and over. The blinds are 25/50, one person calls, two people call, the third guy? All in for 2500. Why? The only way anyone's gonna call you is when they have you beat.I mean...umm....keep doing it everybody...it's a great idea....

[The Dude]

CodyHartman said:

I couldn't agree more. Any time that a player is all in, you better have the goods in order to bet people out.Now at the WSOP 5k LHE champiobship, we saw Elix Powers all in, and he got like 4 or 5 (don't remember) callers. I think Hennigan bet with a pair of 4's (bottom pair), and 1 or 2 people to fold, including Jan Sjovik (spelling?) to fold his top pair of Queens, (can't figure out why he folded), and Elix still had 2 overcards to Johnny's 4's, so he had 6 outs. No matter what 1 card could come Jan woulda had Elix beat to drawing runner runner. So did Hennigan do the right or wrong thing? I mean it is a limit tourney where an all in preflop may not be a huge pot for the all in, maybe 3.5 to 5.5 BB ins the pot.What do ya think about his move after the flop with bottom pair?

I haven't seen it so I would need more info to decide if it was a good play or not. Was Hennigan sat on a healthy stack? How was the rest of the table chip wise in relation to him? I stand by the fact it can be a good move! If Hennigan felt like keeping a ss on the table, the medium stacks will only start playing when the ss goes. Therefore bullying rights to him.

[CodyHartman]

The Dude said:

CodyHartman said:

I couldn't agree more. Any time that a player is all in, you better have the goods in order to bet people out.Now at the WSOP 5k LHE champiobship, we saw Elix Powers all in, and he got like 4 or 5 (don't remember) callers. I think Hennigan bet with a pair of 4's (bottom pair), and 1 or 2 people to fold, including Jan Sjovik (spelling?) to fold his top pair of Queens, (can't figure out why he folded), and Elix still had 2 overcards to Johnny's 4's, so he had 6 outs. No matter what 1 card could come Jan woulda had Elix beat to drawing runner runner. So did Hennigan do the right or wrong thing? I mean it is a limit tourney where an all in preflop may not be a huge pot for the all in, maybe 3.5 to 5.5 BB ins the pot.What do ya think about his move after the flop with bottom pair?

I haven't seen it so I would need more info to decide if it was a good play or not. Was Hennigan sat on a healthy stack? How was the rest of the table chip wise in relation to him? I stand by the fact it can be a good move! If Hennigan felt like keeping a ss on the table, the medium stacks will only start playing when the ss goes. Therefore bullying rights to him.

Hennigan was the big stack at the table to answer your Q.Does anyone else have an opinion on this Q or should I repost it as a new thread??

[ThePokerGeek]

In Party SNG's, Dry pot bluffing is one of the most common moves I see that drives me up the wall. It took getting into the end of the PPM IV Semifinals to see it played properly, and that was after weeding people out of the tournament for nine hours. People finally realized the best way to eliminate someone from the table. If someone bets into me, I let them openly know it's a dumb move, especially if I have a drawing hand. "If they end up surviving and beating you, it's on your head." Something to that effect. Most players can only focus on their own odds for winning the pot, instead of making the all-in players odds as bad as possible. I think this is one of those things that will slowly work its way into common knowledge of what not to do, but I don't exactly count on it. There will always be fish out there eager to put the hurt on someone, bluffing their way to the 2nd best hand with an all-in pot.Grin and bear it, hope for the best.-PokerGeek

[SuperNashwan]

I'm not sure I understand why this is a "dumb" move. There is a pot to be won, if you figure you've got the all-in beat, or 50/50 with overcards, then the less people in the hand the greater your chances of taking the money. Even better is that if the bluff works you get those chips back, increasing your chances of winning for free. I assume you guys are talking about doing it when you're obviously a long shot to beat the all-in?Daniel probably explains it better than me:-http://www.cardplaye...d=13135&m_id=54

[Kendren]

SuperNashwan said:

I'm not sure I understand why this is a "dumb" move. There is a pot to be won, if you figure you've got the all-in beat, or 50/50 with overcards, then the less people in the hand the greater your chances of taking the money. Even better is that if the bluff works you get those chips back, increasing your chances of winning for free. I assume you guys are talking about doing it when you're obviously a long shot to beat the all-in?Daniel probably explains it better than me:-http://www.cardplaye...a...135&m_id=54

Because in a tournament situation, the ENTIRE goal is eliminating people. Generally, you have to accumulate chips to continue to do this, but the goal remains to elminiate players. Bluffing out another player in an all-in situation decreases the odds of eliminating the all-in considerably. If you have it, by all means, bet it. But if you're bluffing, you're stoooooopid. Period.

[SuperNashwan]

Your only motivation for making any move should be to increase your chances of placing in the money. Consider:-Early in a tournament you are equal above-average stacks with a pro who's better than you when a weak short stack goes all-in with any two cards. You and the pro both call the all-in. Your chances of winning the tournament are more greatly increased by making yourself more likely to pick up the pot by bluffing out the pro, because you have little to fear from the short stack other than him suddenly running hot, which the odds are against. Getting rid of the short stack is less important than not allowing the pro a chance to become table captain with the extra chips over you.Alternatively:-On the bubble, the pro is the short stack all-in. You want him out because he won't play a smaller stack timidly and your cash expectation goes up massively the more people there are in the hand to knock him out, because you'll then have placed in the money.I hope you can see the difference? Remember, chips are power, there are some people you'd rather have them than others, and yourself should be right at the head of the list followed by people you know you can outplay.

[yeffy]

SuperNashwan said:

Your only motivation for making any move should be to increase your chances of placing in the money.  Consider:-Early in a tournament you are equal above-average stacks with a pro who's better than you when a weak short stack goes all-in with any two cards.  You and the pro both call the all-in.  Your chances of winning the tournament are more greatly increased by making yourself more likely to pick up the pot by bluffing out the pro, because you have little to fear from the short stack other than him suddenly running hot, which the odds are against.  Getting rid of the short stack is less important than not allowing the pro a chance to become table captain with the extra chips over you.Alternatively:-On the bubble, the pro is the short stack all-in.  You want him out because he won't play a smaller stack timidly and your cash expectation goes up massively the more people there are in the hand to knock him out, because you'll then have placed in the money.I hope you can see the difference?  Remember, chips are power, there are some people you'd rather have them than others, and yourself should be right at the head of the list followed by people you know you can outplay.

The point you're missing is there is no pot to be won. You are still against the all-in contesting the main pot. There is zero equity in bluffing since most people check down against the all-in. If you get there you win anyway. If you lose you just tripled up a shortstack for no reason. I was in a tournament a couple weeks ago we were down to 5 players and it paid 4 places I was 1st in chips. One shortstack went all in I called with 44 and the BB (2nd in chips) called as well. I flopped a set and checked behind the BB. Turned a boat and check check again, I wasn't going to bother betting the whole way. I rivered quads and the BB says "I'm all-in". I look down at a 74J74 board. I laughed out loud and called. Short stack had a 7 for the boat and the BB was bluffing with A high. I now had about 2/3 of the chips in play with 3 left and it was all over from there. Sometimes you have to like the guy who bluffs at the dry side pot...lol.