22 replies to this topic

[Nealyh_02]

Was playing in a MTT tournament...was very early in the game and the small stack goes all in for 650 I have about 5,000 and I look down from the small blind and have AK not suited.. I try and isolate the all in by betting about 1000 over the 650 all in...the big blind calls ( he has about the same amount as I do). so there is approxiamately 4,000 in the pot. The flop comes all spades. I hit an ace but have no spades.. I check..the big blind checks....the next card come up a a low heart...I check..the big blind checks. The river comes another spade...I know that between the all in and the big blind I am probable beat if I just check. I decided to just take a stab at the pot and bet abother 1,000. The big blind folds and the all in flips over 9 of spades and wins the side pot about 1900.. I take the rest which is the about 2,100. I big blinds gets very upset and doesnt know why I didnt check it down. He claims that he had the 10 of spade, but was checking it down and I should not have made the attempt to steal the pot. I think since there was more money in the side pot...It was okay to try and steal the pot...am I right?

[ricker]

When it's early in Tourneys, I don't worry about the unspoken alliance that goes on in tourneys. If you're getting close to the money you should ABSOLUTELY check it down to try and take out a player. However, if it's early in the tourney, it's every man for himself still as far as I'm concerned.

[mrdannyg]

there should be no ethics in dry-side bluffing.if you feel it is the correct move, for you, in terms of chips and also the payout structure, then you should push all-in with 4 high on the bubble.

[jayboogie]

I would have just bet the flop and you probably wouldn't have heard a complaint from your opponent if you had.

[Zach6668]

In this case, there was actually a sidepot, so it wasn't a dry-side bluff.Also, it was early, so who cares?- Zach

[Abbaddabba]

As an aside, i really like how you checked it down when you COULD have protected your hand, and then bluffed the river into a mostly dry sidepot with a hand where most better hands call and almost all worse hands fold.

[Actuary]

Abbaddabba, on Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 2:54 PM, said:

As an aside, ...........better hands call and almost all worse hands fold.

He's an Asshole.... but I agree.

[jayboogie]

Also I should add this is not even a dry side pot. There's money in the side pot, which means you should be betting your hand and protecting it.

[HangukMiguk]

Nealyh_02, on Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 12:03 PM, said:

I think since there was more money in the side pot...It was okay to try and steal the pot...am I right?

you're righti don't like the attempt, but if you can bluff him off the side pot, yes, you're right to do so with money in the side pot.

[AceyDeucy]

A few points:This is not a dry side pot. There is money in there that you can easily turn into dead money for yourself. The fact that there is money in there changes everything.Look, poker is NOT a team sport, plain and simple. You do what is best for you and you count on others doing what is best for them, right? The point of why the dry side pot bluff is stupid is that you are screwing yourself IN ADDITION to everyone else (as opposed to actual good moves, where you are not getting a sharp one). There is no "ethic" about checking down on an all-in. In fact, if you read Roberts Rules, it is specifically illegal for poker players to discuss doing such. The so-called ethic is unspoken, because if it is spoken everyone will get penalized!There was money out there for you, and in fact, there was more money in the side pot than the main pot. You are better off winning the side and letting the all-in guy triple up, than letting the all-in bust out and this other schmuck cash in. Personally, I would have viewed it as less ethical to checked through, because I am always suspcious of hte player who is not trying his best to win. It's wrong to let a sucker keep his money, and all.NOW, if that side pot is dry, this whole thing changes. But it wasn't, so those rules don't apply, at all.

[Nealyh_02]

Actuary, on Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 4:17 PM, said:

He's an Asshole.... but I agree.

whos an *******?

[Actuary]

Nealyh_02, on Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 9:54 PM, said:

whos an *******?

abbaddabbaddooooooin a teasing kinda way....

[MasterLJ]

I agree as well. I'd bet out that flop all day long and twice on Sunday. I generally don't assume someone flopped a flush until they start betting like it.

[DanielNegreanu]

The guy who yelled at you is an idiot. When there is no "meat" in a pot, a dry side pot bluff is usually pretty stupid. However, since there was a substancial amount in the side pot your bet improves YOUR chances of winning the tournament.

[Zach6668]

DanielNegreanu, on Saturday, April 22nd, 2006, 5:44 AM, said:

The guy who yelled at you is an idiot. When there is no "meat" in a pot, a dry side pot bluff is usually pretty stupid. However, since there was a substancial amount in the side pot your bet improves YOUR chances of winning the tournament.

I concur.

[mrdannyg]

Zach6668, on Saturday, April 22nd, 2006, 5:48 AM, said:

I concur.

I agree with you concurrance

[Bubba83]

On a side note, why not bet the flop or turn in case BB has a single spade? Your hand is probably good, protect your hand for the money in the sidepot.

[grocery_mony]

you said early in a tournament, at this point your goal is to accumalate chips not gang up on small stacks. you made the right move obviously imo.

[iggymcfly]

Checking the flop here is bad. Checking the turn is terrible.I really don't care much either way about the river, but of all the streets, that's the one where a bet is the least useful.

[Swift_Psycho]

Bubba83, on Saturday, April 22nd, 2006, 3:58 PM, said:

On a side note, why not bet the flop or turn in case BB has a single spade? Your hand is probably good, protect your hand for the money in the sidepot.