I Had Chips to Make that Play Syndrome
I have seen the term "I had the chips to make that play" used a lot recently online and in fact it's one you usually hear a couple times in any TV poker show when a large chip person has a marginal hand facing an all in from a short stack.
I kind of get why someone might take a chance at a final table where eliminating someone matters, but I am seeing this phrase used in early/mid stages of large online tournaments where eliminating a single person means little.
The other day on a hand I was not involed with I saw a person in the 10 rebuy on Stars call a 3200 all in bet pre flop. Blinds were 100/200 and it was after the rebuy period and the caller had 5 7 suited and 25,000ish chips.
He did win (beating the other guys A 10) and when the other guy asked why he called the all in pre flop he got the "I had the chips etc" reply.
It had me scratching my head. Certainly a 3k loss to the 25,000 chip person would not be that big a dent, but it still seemed strange to make a call where you have to be the underdog in that case.
Maybe I am too tight a player ( I hate being the underdog in all ins
), but I am still confused by the all in underdog gambles justified with the "I had chips to gamble" logic. I understand seeing more flops cheap with more types of hands as a large chip person, and pressuring people more, but I can't get the all in calling plays that seem to use it as a reason.
Am I missing something here or is it just bad players misusing a poker term they have seen/heard.
I kind of get why someone might take a chance at a final table where eliminating someone matters, but I am seeing this phrase used in early/mid stages of large online tournaments where eliminating a single person means little.
The other day on a hand I was not involed with I saw a person in the 10 rebuy on Stars call a 3200 all in bet pre flop. Blinds were 100/200 and it was after the rebuy period and the caller had 5 7 suited and 25,000ish chips.
He did win (beating the other guys A 10) and when the other guy asked why he called the all in pre flop he got the "I had the chips etc" reply.
It had me scratching my head. Certainly a 3k loss to the 25,000 chip person would not be that big a dent, but it still seemed strange to make a call where you have to be the underdog in that case.
Maybe I am too tight a player ( I hate being the underdog in all ins
), but I am still confused by the all in underdog gambles justified with the "I had chips to gamble" logic. I understand seeing more flops cheap with more types of hands as a large chip person, and pressuring people more, but I can't get the all in calling plays that seem to use it as a reason.Am I missing something here or is it just bad players misusing a poker term they have seen/heard.