Was this bad play?

[WarBwastardo]

With 160 runners left from 1500 you"re not yet in the money places right?  I think as a big stack and approaching the bubble, the last thing you want to be doing is colluding to knock players out.  Big stacks can feast hungrily on the shorter stacks approaching the bubble as they"re all generally tightening up to eek into the money places.

Once the bubble bursts those short stacks are going to start pushing and your theiving equity vanishes.  Even if you"re in the money, with 160-ish runners to go, 16 tables, still why bother?  How much do you get for coming 159th as opposed to 160th?  Or 159th as opposed to 100th?  Knocking players out when the final tables approaches is when I"d start colluding.  If I ever got near a Final table that is.

I think entering this pot with K-10 was a bit dodgy, but post-flop was played very well.  The guy was probably just p*ssed off cause he would hit and won the pot, but got out-played.

Not doubt all of this has been said somewhere on this thread already, I ought to have read the previous posts, but my soup is nearly ready.  

[Jon MW]

...  Even if you"re in the money, with 160-ish runners to go, 16 tables, still why bother?  How much do you get for coming 159th as opposed to 160th?  Or 159th as opposed to 100th?  Knocking players out when the final tables approaches is when I"d start colluding.  If I ever got near a Final table that is.
...

Apart from the odd freak tournament, like the WSOP main event and some of the monster online events, the serious money is always at the final table no matter how many started.

[evilpie]

And that...

is why you shouldn"t learn poker from watching it on the telly.

Ok, i agree here, but still, can you tell me if you have ever seen any seasoned pro bluff into a relatively small side pot?

Just watched Barry Greenstein do it in the 2007 WSOP HORSE championships. It was in the Razz part and the guy he bluffed off had a bit of a moan.

Greensteins argument.... "If I check you know I"m weak so you might do the same to me after the next card so it takes away my chance of winning the hand"

This was with 15 players remaining in a 200 field and the guy who went out got $88k. Oh and there was a side pot of absolutely nothing. Greenstein just wanted to improve his odds of winning what was in the main pot.

I know it"s Razz not NLHE but I assume the principle"s the same.

and that...............

was on the telly  

[Jon MW]

And that...

is why you shouldn"t learn poker from watching it on the telly.

Ok, i agree here, but still, can you tell me if you have ever seen any seasoned pro bluff into a relatively small side pot?

Just watched Barry Greenstein do it in the 2007 WSOP HORSE championships. It was in the Razz part and the guy he bluffed off had a bit of a moan.

Greensteins argument.... "If I check you know I"m weak so you might do the same to me after the next card so it takes away my chance of winning the hand"

This was with 15 players remaining in a 200 field and the guy who went out got $88k. Oh and there was a side pot of absolutely nothing. Greenstein just wanted to improve his odds of winning what was in the main pot.

I know it"s Razz not NLHE but I assume the principle"s the same.

and that...............

was on the telly  

I thought about watching the WSOP coverage for an instance of this because I thought that was the most likely option.

But then I decided that I couldn"t be bothered.

[kinboshi]

I saw that last night (early this morning) Mr Pie - and I thought he"d done just that.  I was in a tournament of my own and wasn"t 100% though, so thanks for posting that.

Like I said earlier in the thread - never do anything in a tournament that doesn"t benefit yourself first and foremost.

[ThePiranha]

fair enough, i suppose i cant argue with that.

Im just trying to find the video on youtube now but im having no luck.

But if you are right, i suppose i will have to re-evaluate my current opinions on checking a pot down with 10% of the field left in

[Jon MW]

try pokertube

[evilpie]

I was a bit shocked to see it. Always thought that checking down was the thing to do but I guess it"s not.

I suppose all other things being equal you"re better off with a 1 in 2 chance than 1 in 3 (or worse).

I"ve always thought that if someone bets in this situation they must have a monster so i guess it"s easy to get rid of someone. And let"s face it poker isn"t a game of gentlemanly conduct and unwritten rules..........

                    .........it"s a game of lies and deceit!!!!

[deanp27]

not read most of the replies but i think your play was spot on here actually.

You made a pot worth playing for with position against a guy who had shown no strength (probably only limped to get the SB out) which gave you an insurance policy against the original pot v the all in.

Good bit of initiative IMO - plus you put the other guy on tilt.