Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: CrizzyConnor on December 28, 2007, 06:39:50 AM
-
I"ll give you some background on myself first of all. I"m pretty new to poker. I only started playing after coincidently being in Las Vegas at the time of the World Series Main Event this summer and ended a couple of my nights there watching re-runs of the 2004 and 2005 World Series on ESPN. I got home watched a lot more poker, searched the net read up on poker then took the plunge and started playing online.
Now I wouldn"t consider myself a great player at all, I lost around £450 in my first 3 months trying to learn the game. I put in A LOT of hours though and was hooked, addicted even, still am. Anyway around September I started throwing together a few results and went on a streak of easily coming 1st or 2nd in $10 & $20 SNGs, then i"d move up a step and lose it all or put it stupidly into MTT"s. Anyway I"ve still got the -£450ish hanging over my head but I just chalk that down to experience and maybe one day I"ll win it back.
Anyway onto the matter at hand. Now bear in mind, I don"t profess to be a great player whilst reading. I"m asking because I can"t see what I did wrong:
Last night I was playing in a $10 buy in MTT with around 1500 runners. Now I played what I think was the best poker in my life, was winning a lot of pots without showdown and only had one time where I got lucky and was told I "sucked out" - I put someone who was low in chips all in when I had an open ended straight draw with turn and river still to come, I hit.
So I was deep into the tournament with about 160ish runners left and I cant recall for sure but I think the blinds were 400 & 800. So the small blind only had around $1000 left and had to go all in. There was one caller directly before me (he and I where the big stacks at the table with around the mid-20Ks in chips) who just called the big blind...
I was dealt kc tc and I raised the bet to 2400
the button folded and small blind (as I thought) went all in. BB folded and went back to the guy directly before me who called my raise.
The flop comes with all low cards. I was thinking to myself that the side pot was bigger than the main pot so if I forced the guy beside me to fold I would claim that even though I hadn"t hit and be up in chips. So I bet two thirds the pot and like I thought he folded. Cards were shown and the small blind had missed too. We both missed the whole board and I won the main pot and side pot with King high.
Then I was given abuse and called a donkey by the guy I made fold. The abuse really got to me and I know I shouldn"t have let it but it affected my play and I ended up going out in around 100th place. I kept thinking over and questioning if what I did was bad play or not.
Now in my mind I was thinking for sure I had lost when the flop came but was going to take a shot at stealing the side pot and I in my mind thought this was good play, to gain chips without cards. I would"ve folded if he raised me or called then bet the next round. I was just taking a stab at it and thought I was playing well.
Sorry for the length of this monster but it"s been really bothering me ever since and made me really angry. It threw my game and my anger saw me going from being in the top 15 stacks out of 160 players (and in my mind a good chance to win it) to going out around 100th place. I still think what I done was the correct thing. I just hope some of you might"ve made it down this far and could offer me some of your opinions.
Was my play wrong and if so, why? Or was I just up against a sore loser?
-
Your play was not a bad one but it does address a variation of an unwritten rule of Poker Etiquette that your abuser obviously believes strongly in.
Many will say that, with one player with his tournament life on the line, unless you have a bet-worthy holding at any time (top pair even), it should be checked down. Many ignore and disagree with this though and see the pot in the same way as you - worthy of stealing! Ultimately, you"re in it to win it and you should not feel bad for the play you made. Your big mistake here was allowing "feeling bad" afterwards to ruin your game!
It"s not necessarily the play I would have made and it"s not something I"d tell you is right or wrong as I witness both happening so often. It tends to be against aggressive beginners and in the lower stakes games that this happens most. And it has to be expected ...
-
This is and has always been a tough subject, but is, I believe, one everyone must resolve for themselves.
I think that in this particular situation you made the correct play simply because of the size of the side pot. As the side pot was of such a size that you were going to be profitable by simply winning it and not necessarily the main pot.
The Abuser is of the belief that you jeopardised knocking a player out simply for your own gain, but he obviously wasn"t holding much either and would presumably have hit on the turn or river. However, this isn"t a "dead pot" and as such I would not passivly check it down and leave my self open to the second oponent catching on fourth or fifth street.
As it happens, you won both pots and the all in player was eliminated, so the Abuser hasnt got much of a gripe other than he got outplayed. Other people may disagree with me and this is only my opinion, but one I"ll stick by if it means that my chipstack will increase.
-
First of all there is no right or wrong way of playing poker just opinions. Personally I would not be in the pot in the first place. MTT is all about survival, entering a pot when the chip leader as already entered, with a medium hand is a no no for me unless you have a premium hand (AA, KK, AK, AQs). However after the flop you played it write, you need to see if he had the goods, but like I said I would not have been in the pot in the first place.
Early on in MTT I turn the chat box off so I don't get distracted or put on tilt. I turn it back on in the later stages as normally the players that are left or more understanding of the game.
Wayne
-
Your play was not a bad one but it does address a variation of an unwritten rule of Poker Etiquette that your abuser obviously believes strongly in.
Many will say that, with one player with his tournament life on the line, unless you have a bet-worthy holding at any time (top pair even), it should be checked down. Many ignore and disagree with this though and see the pot in the same way as you - worthy of stealing! Ultimately, you"re in it to win it and you should not feel bad for the play you made. Your big mistake here was allowing "feeling bad" afterwards to ruin your game!
I too am a player who tends to follow this unwritten rule, tending to also conveniently forget the ethics that could easily be called into question when colluding in this way with another player.
At the stage of the game, however, that you found yourself at, I would say that there was nothing wrong with your play - even with my dodgy ethics !
I only see this kind of play being advantageous at the later stages of a tournament when the money jumps are significant.
Your big mistake here was allowing "feeling bad" afterwards to ruin your game!
Spot on Neil.
When you sit down at a table, leave emotion at the door. The player dishing out the abuse should also remember this.
Just my 2p worth.
-
Hi, I agree with NP, and I would never have been in that pot , but once you were, I thought you played it pretty well and aggressively, I certainly wouldn"t have been feeling bad if I were you. As for the abuse, just learn to laugh at it, thats what i do and if possible I like to take the mick out of the abuser. I think it"s really funny that it is always the loser doing the abusing, and telling the winner that they"re a Fish or a Donkey!
-
To be honest there is no right or wrong way to play the cards and its up to you what cards you decide to play. I"m a big fan of mixing it up a bit and have been playing for a little over 2 years now. There are loads of people out there who cannot handle losing full stop and this has nothing to do with poker! Its like life, you meet nice people and not so nice people. Don"t let it get to you and continue to learn the game, remember he had the problem not you. Good luck for the future.
-
Hi, I agree with NP, and I would never have been in that pot , but once you were, I thought you played it pretty well ...
I"d agree - especially if you stuck to your principle that you would have folded if he had fought back (it"s very tempting to assume that they"re trying to outbluff you and change a plan like that half way through the hand - don"t do it, believe me it"s an expensive type of mistake :) ).
As has been suggested their is a strong argument to stay out of the pot (any pot) once the other big stack has joined the hand. If you have position on him and you have a good hand then it might be worth trying to take some chips off him - but you have to remember that the other big stacks are the only ones who can really hurt you (or knock you out).
Missing out on a few pots that they contest is worth staying in for longer - that way you have the opportunity to pick up the good cards in position which will win you pots you won"t have the chance to win if you"ve already tangled and lossed with the big stack.
-
This is not bad play with 160 players left it is good play to accumulate chips to go and win the tournament.Now if there was 20 players left i would play the unwritten rule as if it gets you in the money or increase"s your payout by a nice amount.As for the player jus ignore moron"s like this or try playing mtt"s with chat window off so your play can"t get affected.Good luck in your poker glory
-
In my opinion, the unwritten rule about checking it down to have two chances of knocking out the at risk player only applies when there is one single pot, ie the all in guy pushed his chips in and got two flat callers, so no side pot was created. In your scenario, a side pot had been created, and you therefore had every right to continue to play poker to try and claim that side pot. If you win the main pot as well, then so be it, but at the point that you made your bet post flop, your intention was to claim the side pot.
I do get a little peeved though when someone is all in, and you get someone making a bluff with no side pot in play. They are effectively using their chips to bluff to win an empty pot - and that is stupid play. In that situation, I believe the unwritten rule should be stuck to.
The third scenario is where you have something like JJ, and the flop comes 10 high, with a player all in. It is then a reasonable play to bet and push the third player out to protect your holding..... your JJ might be the best hand in play at that moment, but with a very real chance of losing out to the third player on the turn or river.
-
If you were convinced you could win the side pot just by betting then u made the right play, if you thought you would be called it would have been better to check it down than to build an even bigger pot to fight for with just k high. There are 160 players left, even if the short stack doubles up hes still short so i think taking the bigger side pot was definately the right play. If it was a decent sized main pot or could cause u to move up a significant amount of money then it might have been worth checking down but it wasnt.
-
At this stage of the tournament I would play it exactly as you have, if I was in the hand in the first place and I"m not sure I would have been.
However, if I was on the bubble or nearing the final table I would probably apply the unwritten rule, as it is more to my benefit to see a player knocked out than to win what is a relatively small pot.
-
People get this "etiquette" or "unwritten rule" completely wrong IMO.
Like several people have mentioned, it"s only relevant when it"s near the end of the tournament, and laddering (moving up a place) makes a difference to those involved. It"s not done to help anyone else out - it"s done for your own benefit.
NEVER make a play for another player"s benefit unless it benefits you also.
The person who criticised you for not sticking to the "rule" was wrong. With that many players left, it"s pretty much irrelevant if the short-stack is knocked out or not.
The other thing to remember in poker is that you"ve paid your entry fee or exchanged your money for chips at a cash game - as long as you don"t break the actual rules of the game, you can bet, call, raise and fold how you want. If you want to call an all-in bet with 47o, then that"s your prerogative. No one can tell you what you should do or shouldn"t do. Obviously, you might want advice from someone after a hand as how you might best play it in the future, but at the table the advice isn"t usually for your benefit - it"s usually someone just letting off steam.
Don"t let what someone says in the chat box (or at the table in a live game) put you off or adversely affect your game. Wayne"s advice is good for those who do get worked up about what people say - switch the chat off. I like to use it, but make sure that I don"t get upset by what people say.
-
...
Don"t let what someone says in the chat box (or at the table in a live game) put you off or adversely affect your game. Wayne"s advice is good for those who do get worked up about what people say - switch the chat off. I like to use it, but make sure that I don"t get upset by what people say.
Good point - I find the chat box can be very useful for assessing peoples mood and their skill level.
Poker is a game of incomplete information, if other players want to leak lots of information to you by what they say in the chat box then that is to your advantage.
Obviously if it does affect your play adversely then that benefit is going to be outweighed by the negative effect it has on your play so switch it off, but I would suggest the most profitable option is to find a way to not let it affect you.
-
Another opinion for you.
Don"t play with k 10 if you know you"re going to get called, at best you"re about 50-50. In the late stages it"s worth it to take out a player but even then a flat call would be better to get more help taking him out. If you raise and then get called you"re stuck in a potentially expensive pot.
Once you"re in it though I can"t fault steeling the side pot? Good move I"d say.
I also agree entirely with what Kinboshi says. You"ve paid your money to enter and it"s your chips you"re risking so do what you want when you want. If this idiot had a hand he"d have loved the "donkey" who just gifted him an extra 1500 or so chips. He"s only bitter because he lost.
Good luck in the future
-
...
Don"t let what someone says in the chat box (or at the table in a live game) put you off or adversely affect your game. Wayne"s advice is good for those who do get worked up about what people say - switch the chat off. I like to use it, but make sure that I don"t get upset by what people say.
Good point - I find the chat box can be very useful for assessing peoples mood and their skill level.
Poker is a game of incomplete information, if other players want to leak lots of information to you by what they say in the chat box then that is to your advantage.
Obviously if it does affect your play adversely then that benefit is going to be outweighed by the negative effect it has on your play so switch it off, but I would suggest the most profitable option is to find a way to not let it affect you.
Couldn"t agree more about the benefits of keeping the chat box open, but ONLY if it doesn"t adversely affect your play. If it does upset or distract you it may be best for your game to close it down. Personally I often find it very useful and particularly enjoy when I can see that a couple of players at my table are letting this affect their game.
As for the situation I may well even have folded pre flop after the only person at the table who can hurt me has already called. I may well have flat called but I would not have raised (unless knowledge of the player made me think he"d fold) as K, 10 (even suited) is not a hand I"d be calling a re-raise with.
-
nah this is definately bad play in my opinion. If i was the other person calling the raise, 1 reason why i would be calling the raise is because i would be trying to knock somebody out so i would probably be giving you the same abuse as this guy did lol.
You will be doing yourself no favours by betting into small side pots with nothing because people often think you are inexperienced and you will probably get no respect later on in the comp and was probably why you ended up getting knocked out soon after
-
...
You will be doing yourself no favours by betting into small side pots with nothing ...
I"d have to disagree with this.
Firstly the side pot was larger than the main pot, so it"s worth winning.
And because it was worth winning I think a significant number of players would agree that it was a perfectly valid play.
Obviously there will always be disagreement, but as long as you know which players are respecting your bets (and which aren"t) you can always turn that to your advantage
-
Too early still to be bothered bout knocking someone out, id rather have the sidepot and him win a small main pot then him get knocked out and lose the side pot
-
Firstly, thanks to everyone for replying. I can see from reading that I maybe shouldn"t have been in the hand in the first place. It"s playing hand like K 10, KJ, JQ and AJ that usually get me into trouble. I still see myself as definitely learning the game... I"ve only recently started folding aforementioned trouble hands UTG and in early position when a friend told me I probably shouldn"t play them from here and I have noticed myself get into much less trouble since. I personally figured my hand was decent for a raise against one flat call of the big blind and me in the place directly before the button. I also figured that the small blind would have a good chance of being dealt garbage but would still have to go all in - which was my reasoning behind the raise.
I also subscribe to the unwritten rule of checking it round when it is one pot (no substantial side pot) and when a move up the money etc is likely if a player is knocked out...
Maybe my biggest mistake like many of you said was playing the hand in the first place. I know it"s because I"m just a beginner and I know it"s wrong a lot of times but I find it"s hard to lay down a hand if both cards are suited and above 9 (J10, Q10, QJ, KQ, KJ etc). I"ve started to be able to fold cards like QJ in early position like I mentioned before so maybe in future I wont get myself into pots like this and wont have to worry about being taunted.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to read and reply. I prefer playing live to playing on the net so i"ll hopefully see some of you at APAT events next year (I"m hoping to make it to the Scottish Amateur in May next year!)...
-
On a slightly different theme (but not a thread-jack).....
What is the ruling if in a live game a player finds himself allin and the other 2 verbally collude to check it down?
I"m pretty sure its a serious breach of the rules which should have a severe penalty.....but I"m not sure?
-
-
yeah i have had my wrist slapped before, i got a warning, but to be fair, i never really realised hat what i was doing is in a way collusion until i thought about it later.
I run poker nights across the area and since this warning i have become a lot firmer on people verbally agreeing to check down a pot.
Its not an issue that will get you ejected from a tournament but take every care to make sure that what you say to another player isnt collusio. Why have unneccesary greif right?
Hope this helps
-
nah this is definately bad play in my opinion. If i was the other person calling the raise, 1 reason why i would be calling the raise is because i would be trying to knock somebody out so i would probably be giving you the same abuse as this guy did lol.
If you called in this position to knock out a player when there are still over 100 runners in the competition, then I"d raise to get you off the hand, as it would mean you haven"t got a strong hand, and I want the chips. Getting hold of more chips is far more important to me than reducing a 100+ field by one runner.
Also, giving anyone abuse for playing a hand the way they want to play it is wrong. They"ve paid their money, the chips are theirs to do what they want with them. Why give them abuse?
Seriously, people who think that implicit collusion (which is what we"re talking about when we check it down to increase the chance of knocking someone out) is relevant at this stage of the tournament are just wrong.
You will be doing yourself no favours by betting into small side pots with nothing because people often think you are inexperienced and you will probably get no respect later on in the comp and was probably why you ended up getting knocked out soon after
If you were looking to check down a pot here, I"d say that would signify that you"re an inexperienced player - and I"d be very surprised if any seasoned pro would be looking to check down a pot here when there"s a chance they can bet out and increase their chances of winning the pot.
-
ok, find me 1 example, be it a video or anything where you have ever seen a succesful pro bet into a side pot with nothing and i will silence myself on this issue.
Fair enough??
Oh and this comp had 1600 runners in, so for it to be down to the last 100, id definately say that you were deep enough to be checking the pot down and trying to knock somebody out.
-
...but if the side pot was bigger than the main pot, surely you have to agree it was worth going for.
-
ok, find me 1 example, be it a video or anything where you have ever seen a succesful pro bet into a side pot with nothing and i will silence myself on this issue.
Fair enough??
Oh and this comp had 1600 runners in, so for it to be down to the last 100, id definately say that you were deep enough to be checking the pot down and trying to knock somebody out.
Ignore the side pot - you"re looking at all the chips that are in the middle and trying to make them yours. You know the short-stack is on a huge range, and the other player in the hand knows that too. Get him out of the hand, increase your chip stack.
I"d never, ever, ever check down a pot just to increase the chance of short-stack being knocked out when there are a 100+ players left. I might check it down if I think I"ve got no chance shifting another player off the hand, but I"m not checking it down to ladder.
Looks like we"ll have to agree to disagree here. You play it your way, and I"ll play it mine. One thing I"d have to say though is that you"re wrong to abuse anyone here who bets. I don"t think that"s a matter of opinion, it"s just not right.
-
ok, find me 1 example, be it a video or anything where you have ever seen a succesful pro bet into a side pot with nothing and i will silence myself on this issue.
...
You"re not likely to see this on TV.
(i) Virtually all the televised stages of tournaments are the latter stages and final tables of tournaments where the implicit collusion in question is the best choice of action.
(ii) On a similar note, a lot of televised tournaments (specifically those that are made for television, as opposed to just having cameras at an existing tournament), become very crapshooty. This means that the other player in the pot wouldn"t be able to fold because they wouldn"t have enough chips left to be able to do so.
(iii) Once you"ve eliminated the 99.9% (and this may be an understatement) of televised tournament poker the above 2 points cover, you would then have to happen to have a hand, not only with a substantial side pot but also being played by an established pro and at the feature televised table.
The situation itself will occur on a fairly regular basis around the world - but because of these reasons (especially (i) and (ii)) you would be very lucky to catch it on TV.
And that...
is why you shouldn"t learn poker from watching it on the telly.
-
apologies, the lol at the end of my sentence saying i was going to abuse him to was implying that i was joking.
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?
That was the point i made
-
apologies, the lol at the end of my sentence saying i was going to abuse him to was implying that i was joking.
OK - my bad. Misinterpreted what you were saying - easy to do on a fourm.
(http://blondepoker.com/forum/Smileys/default/thumbs.gif)
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
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 ;D ;D ;D
-
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 ;D ;D ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
try pokertube
-
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!!!! 8) 8) 8)
-
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.