gentlemen's agreement

pkrfce9

Dave, I'd like your thoughts on the unwritten 'rule' that at the final table, when the short stack is all-in and there is more than 1 caller, none of the callers should bet in subsequent rounds. The thought here is that with more players against the short stack, you have much greater odds at busting him out that hand, thereby increasing everyone's likelihood of a bigger payout.

Do pros honour this 'rule'? In a lot of the home games and online tourneys I've seen, I don't think players are aware of this. Guys will push the others out with mediocre hands and then triple up (or worse!) the short stack. I sometimes wonder if they really thought about the ramifications of what they were doing.

In what circumstances would you break this 'rule'? It seems stupid to do this on a bluff but if you think your hand is better than the short stack's is it a good idea? If you had the absolute nuts or close to it, is it worth it to try to bust an extra player out?

Thanks in advance.

Dave Scharf

Bluffing at a dry pot is a bad idea. Don't do it.

Betting with the hand that think is the best is almost always a good idea. So, if you think you have the best hand, bet.

Consider two situations. In each, there are three players in the pot, one is all in.

(1) You do not have the best hand. What do you accomplish by betting? You may drive out the other player and then be faced with having to draw out against the all-in player. Um... better to check and go for your draw OR allow the other live player to beat the all-in player. You can only win the pot by making the best hand. And, if you can't win it, you might as well let the other live player win it and eliminated the all-in player.

(2) You have the best hand, but the other live player has a thin draw. A bet will drive him out leaving only one player to draw out on you (the all-in player). This will maximize your chance of winning the pot but will minimize the chance of the of the all-in player being eliminated. Which is better EV? Great question. I have no idea how to sort out the math (balancing chance of winning pot v. EV increase of maximizing the all-in player going broke). However, my instinct tells me that winning the pot and the chips in the pot is the best thing that can happen to me since (1) I get more chips and (2) if it happens that I will eliminate the all-in player anyway. I like to bet when I think I have the best hand. This will frequently include situations in which I have a naked A-K on a flop like 8-7-2.





There probably are rare occasions in which the EV is better to check the best hand so that the player you are allowing to remain might draw out on you and also on the all-in player thus eliminating

Ventrick

The way I usually look at it is that the Short Stack can be in there with a very wide variety of slightly better then average hands. The first caller obviously knows this and can call him with a wide range of hands. If I'm sitting on a mediocre hand I'm not going to call, but if I have a good starting hand that I know is better than the Short Stack's I am going to want to isolate him so that there is only 1 hand with a chance to draw out against me.