Is there some tournament ettiquette I'm not aware of...
... or are these people just morons?
OK, here's the story. 4 times in the last couple weeks, I have been in a multi-way pot, where one guy is all in. If I hit on the flop, I raise to get the other people out, and avoid being drawn out on. Basically to get the other people out, and make it heads up for the pot. Lately I've been getting some comments from the other players like "What did you do that for?", or "nice move idiot". Last time I checked, Poker wasn't a team sport, and these people aren't my friends. I'm out for me, and me only.
I know that in Blackjack, there is some silly superstition that the last guy at the table is supposed to play a certain way for the good of the other players (Which makes no scientific sense at all). Is there something similar in Poker that I'm unaware of??
OK, here's the story. 4 times in the last couple weeks, I have been in a multi-way pot, where one guy is all in. If I hit on the flop, I raise to get the other people out, and avoid being drawn out on. Basically to get the other people out, and make it heads up for the pot. Lately I've been getting some comments from the other players like "What did you do that for?", or "nice move idiot". Last time I checked, Poker wasn't a team sport, and these people aren't my friends. I'm out for me, and me only.
I know that in Blackjack, there is some silly superstition that the last guy at the table is supposed to play a certain way for the good of the other players (Which makes no scientific sense at all). Is there something similar in Poker that I'm unaware of??
Comments
It is a fairly common practice but I would guess most just blindly follow it without understanding. There are times when it is correct and times when it is not. You may well have made a bad move or not. Depends on a number of factors. Give some details and I can respond better.
There is nothing wrong at all with betting into a dry side pot when you have a strong hand.
Apart from unusual satellite/prize payout situations, deviating from good poker strategy in order to eliminate players in a tournament is rarely worth doing. This is a grossly misunderstood concept among beginning (and some experienced) tournament players, and not just relating to dry side pot situations.
Implicit collusion is something different, and was introduced by Lee Jones in WLLHE. It basically refers to the fact that when facing multiple opponents each with an individually weak draw, they typically have a strong draw against you as a whole.
ScottyZ
Example 1:
I have pocket Jacks. The short stack goes all in (probably a desperation move with the increasing blinds), I call, and someone behind me calls. The flop comes T,6,5 rainbow. I make a pot size bet to eliminate the third guy, in case he's holding Q,K,or A and is going to draw out on me on the turn or river.
Example 2:
I'm in the BB with A,9s. Again, the short stack, in middle position, goes all in (about 3x the BB). The button calls, and I'm on the big stack and feeling adventurous, so I call. The flop is 9, 8, 3. I bet again to make the button pay if he wants to outdraw me.
In both cases, and a couple other similar cases, I get rude comments from the other players as if I'm doing something wrong. I think it would be stupid to check, and let them outdraw me for free..
In Example #1, I would have re-raised pre-flop with the Jacks in most cases.1 Oddly, this play would also be a dry side pot bet, and a play which is just as valid as the two flop plays in the examples given.
The fact that you would never hear a complaint about the pre-flop dry side pot play outlined above (or similar plays), wheras you will hear complaints about post flop dry side pot plays ad nauseum, is a great illustration of how poorly misunderstood dry side pot play really is.
ScottyZ
1Depends on things like stack sizes, nature of the opponents still to act behind you, etc.
Why do you care what they think anyway?
Someone did a great writeup of this to explain the conditions required where you would bet out. I thought Sklanksy but I can't put my finger on it now. Harrington calls this a 'cooperation play' but doesn't go into great detail.
I don't think enough detail has been posted to definitively say if these are the correct moves. They are not terrible moves but might not be the best in the given scenario. We also need to know: How big is your stack relative to the blinds and others in the tourney, how big is the pot, how big are the stacks of the others in the pot, are you close to or in the money, what are the jumps from one place to the next etc etc???
Taking your example 2, I'm going to add some details in my make believe world. If you are just out of the money, the small stack has a miniscule amount compared to you and the other player in the pot. Say that making the money is a very big deal to you. You are the chip leader with 70BB and the other player has a somewhat smaller stack. The pot means very little to you - 9 BB. The small stack has 33 or QQ and the mid stack has JTs. We don't know if the flop is a rainbow or not but let's say he hit at least 1 of his suit. You can price him out of the hand but you are severely behind the small stack. He has a good chance to outdraw him but you do not. We can argue this play but it does make some sense to check this one down.
There was a recent post about a super satellite with 6 players left and 5 getting seats. That was an excellent example of when it is a very bad idea to push someone out of a pot. Not quite the same situation but illustrative nonetheless.
Recently on a WPT episode there was a great example in reverse. Short-stack went all-in. One caller and Negreanu in the BB called blind as it was very small. The other two laughed as they checked it down without even thinking. The 'implicit collusion' was totally obvious. When Negreanu flipped over his hand, he was shocked to learn he had hit a straight. In this case, there is no way he should have checked that down, although I don't recall if there was any chance of his being outdrawn on this anyway. I'm sure the pros would know he wouldn't bluff into a dry side pot anyway, unless he was at the 3rd level or trying to help his all-in friend out. If he had bet, chances are the other player would have folded anyway.
It comes up in the broadcast of the WSOP final table Main Event as well. As Danneman had 7's, Chiro Pocket J's.
and Tex all in with something else.
Chiro could have made a move at Danneman and vice versa, but, both players calmly checked it down and flipped their cards
to see in the end who won. End result was Hachem taking the pot, Danneman not losing anymore chips and Tex (or whoever) out in 3rd place.
the motormouth on the TV simply said that etiquette was that you don't bet out unless you improve your hand post flop.
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. I can understand you not wanting to allow a Q, K, A to hit for "free" simply to oust one other player. I believe the anger starts when someone bluffs at the dry pot and the all-in survives.
I marveled at this hand, the single worst hand I've ever seen Daniel Negreanu play, and one of the worst plays I have ever seen in poker overall.
(On the other hand, Humberto Brenes played this dry side pot hand perfectly, having never bet his complete whiff.)
When we see the best poker player in the world make a complete mess of a dry side pot hand, it's easy to see why it is common for the poker playing masses to not get it right.
This is more than just "not quite the same situation". This is a whole new ball game on an entirely different planet in a part of the universe with different laws of physics. And with 8 innings instead of 9.
In a satellite and bubble situation, it is almost always correct to "check it down" even if you currently have the nuts (but not the immortal nuts).
For example (again, in a satellite and bubble situation), it would be a complete disaster to bet your AK into a flop of QJT into an active opponent holding QQ, with the all-in player holding JJ.
ScottyZ
Otherwise I will bet at it.