Too tight...?
I was just wondering people's opinions about this fold...
I'm in the big blind in a NL tourney. I get dealt Qd6d. This is a rebuy tournament, and probably about 5 hands after the rebuy period is over, and everyone has bought their add-ons.
Anyways, blinds are at 200/400, and four limp in, including the small blind. I check, so there are 5 of us who see the flop. The flop comes Qs8s6s (giving me top and bottom two pair), and the small blind moves all-in. I've got probably TC4000 in front of me, and he's moved all-in for more than TC6000. With three people behind me, I think long and hard for a second, flash my cards to the small blind, and fold it. He gets two callers, one of whom is also all-in. Small blind shows down AcQc, and the big stack shows down the nut flush (which he flopped), busting out both all-ins.
Obviously, in hindsight, it was a good fold, but I'm wondering....was the fold too tight? I figured that with 3 to act behind me, I wasn't in good position to call.
Thoughts? Feedback?
I'm in the big blind in a NL tourney. I get dealt Qd6d. This is a rebuy tournament, and probably about 5 hands after the rebuy period is over, and everyone has bought their add-ons.
Anyways, blinds are at 200/400, and four limp in, including the small blind. I check, so there are 5 of us who see the flop. The flop comes Qs8s6s (giving me top and bottom two pair), and the small blind moves all-in. I've got probably TC4000 in front of me, and he's moved all-in for more than TC6000. With three people behind me, I think long and hard for a second, flash my cards to the small blind, and fold it. He gets two callers, one of whom is also all-in. Small blind shows down AcQc, and the big stack shows down the nut flush (which he flopped), busting out both all-ins.
Obviously, in hindsight, it was a good fold, but I'm wondering....was the fold too tight? I figured that with 3 to act behind me, I wasn't in good position to call.
Thoughts? Feedback?
Comments
I think this is unethical, irrespective of the fact that the SB is all-in. The SB still has an interest in this pot and is not entitled to this additional information.
ScottyZ
Great fold. One that most players will have a lot of trouble making.
If I was in your seat I think I would have folded. I think I would have, but I might well have called (in the heat of combat me all do dumb things). If I were you I would have (I hope) considered the following:
(1) I probably have the small blind beat. This HUGE overbet looks a lot to me like a player who does NOT want to get called. You see this frequently in no-limit. Player jam it with top pair or an overpair because they are scared of getting beat.
(2) Even though I THINK I am the best right now, I will give the small blind credit for having the flush re-draw. So, best case scenario I am about a 2-1 favourite.
(3) There are three player behind me. Any one of them MIGHT have flopped a flush. This fact, I think, tilts the situation into the very marginal category.
(4) With lots of chips in my stack I REALLY want to avoid BIG POTS in which I am marginal. This is certainly the case here. Fold and fight again another day.
If there were NO other limpers I would be VERY tempted to call.
I realize I'm veering widely off course here, but I'm curious.
It would seem to me that the SB no longer has any additional decisions to make in the pot, and therefore any additional information wouldn't benefit him one way or another. Is this a major no-no, or a small one? I've been in at a table in a similar situation, where the player folded his hand FACE-UP (with players to act behind him!). I didn't think I was violating any rules, but if I broke poker ettiquette rules I won't do something like that again.
A small one.
It really depends heavily on the *level* of tournament you're playing at. Even though the SB can no longer bet, the SB is (normally) free to *talk* or otherwise influence the players (e.g. giving off false tells). This is really only going to matter if the SB is advanced enough to do these sorts of things. On the other hand, if the SB is inexperienced, you might (unintentionally I'm sure) put him at a *disadvantage* if he is the one giving off (true) tells in response to seeing your cards. Again, this only makes a difference if the other players are advanced enough to pick up on this.
Whether it is a violation of rules or not (of course) depends on the exact rules where you are playing. At a high level tournament with strict rules enforcement, showing your cards to another player would probably get you a time penalty. However, this sort thing would likely be tolerated (or more likely unnoticed) at 99%+ of the tournaments out there.
*That* is a major no-no.
Sort of like on the WPT this week when one idiot was all-in and made a big deal about it (while two active players were still in the hand) when he thought the turn Q helped him. I was glad to see Gus "stick it in him" after he made such a boneheaded production out of it, but it may very well have killed Gus' action with trips against his active opponent's 77. In previous hands Gus was getting called down with *much* worse, so it's not impossible that the 77 would have paid Gus off if "happy Queen boy" wasn't being so brain dead.
ScottyZ
At the recent tournament I went to at the Club Regent Casino in Wpg, they had a "Show one, show all" policy.
Tricks such as this are angle shooting, not poker.
Assuming this is a home game you are not familiar with, I think you did well to simply "go with the flow" and not say anything. In these kind of situations, you have to use a lot of judgement as to whether the intention of someone showing a card is genuine angle shooting, or is more in the spirit of fun.
ScottyZ
Sometimes in tournament play it is SO desirable to avoid going broke that shoving all-in and showing A-A was a good play. That has now been eliminated. At the beginning of every WSOP tourney it used to be announced "If you accidentally show your cards you will accidentally be given a twenty minute penalty."
For those of us that have never played in a real tournament - what is a time penalty?
Am I right to guess that each player has a bank of time that they can use to make decisions and that the twenty minutes is subtracted from that or am I totally off base?
Under a time penalty, you would be forced to sit out of the tournament for whatever the length of the time penalty is (i.e. automatically fold and post blinds and/or antes).
Time penalties are generally given for most rule infractions other than those where disqualification (or worse) would be appropriate. The length of time penalty may reflect the severity of the infraction.
As for the WSOP example, I would think that a 20 minute time penalty in the very early rounds wouldn't be too severe, especially if your early gameplan was to play super-tight early anyway. So I wonder if people would *still* use this sort of showing AA tactic because a time penalty might not be too severe at that point.
Another example of sitting out not being too bad, was that my best B&M tournament result came when I had to sit out of a tournaemnt for over 1 hour in the middle stage (for an external reason, not a penalty).
Hmmm... I wonder if that says anything about my skills... 8)
ScottyZ