| Author |
Message |
spilari
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 06:27 - Edited by: spilari
Reply
I need to talk about the implicit conspiracy.
You know what I am talking about, right? The tactic of cooperating in checking down the hand when the small-stack is all-in. The theory is that in a tourney, it is not getting the opponent's chips that is important, but rather getting him out. And the more people that call his all-in, the more the chance one of them will get lucky, so it is to everyone's advantage not to raise, unless one is really sure to have the nuts.
In practice, many players don't use this tactic.
I have witnessed several times recently a failure of the big stacks to wipe out a small one efficiently in tourney, and it got me wondering what the consensus is about such play.
Scenario:
I am one of the big-stacks, and a small-stack goes all-in with, say $300. I have a marginal hand, like 8h,3s. I call, just for the chance of eliminating one player, and getting one step closer to the money. Normally I would not make such a call, unless I am sensing weakness.
All other players fold except the other big-stack, who calls too.
Fine. I don't really care which one of us takes the smallie out.
Now, after the turn, I have paired my trey, but some high cards have come, so I am pretty sure I don't have the best hand. Then the greedy *censored* raises $300. I chat "this better be yours" and fold. Then it turns out that he had a weak hand, the small stack had paired his king, and the river was an 8 so I would have won the hand with 2 pairs.
If he had not tried to intimidate me out, he would have doubled the chance of taking the victim out. Instead that one tripled his stack.
Later that same game a very similar case happens. This time I call with 7,2 clubs, and after the turn I had 4 clubs, but there was a scary straight possibility on the table. The *censored* raises and I fold swearing, assuming he MUST have the nuts this time, he would not do the same mistake twice, right?. Well yes, he had a str8, but so did the other guy, so the pot is split.
Again, an easy target escapes because of non-cooperation beteen the others.
So this week's poll is:
What is the deal with this?
a) The advantage of the "implicit conspiracy" is just a figment of my sleep-deprived mind.
b) The guy was a clueless loser that just had a big stack by mistake. A good player would have checked.
c) It is unethical or uncool to cooperate like that, even implicitly. I should be ashamed to even mention it.
d) The sneaky git was playing like this specifically to tilt me. (He won the game, of course)
e) None of the above.
Please post your votes and comments
spilari
|
gegs12
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 06:45
Reply
hey spilari,
in my opinion "censored" has made two legitimate and in fact intelligent plays. in the scenario you describe i would have done exactly the same thing as my instinct would have told me that you were indeed just trying to eliminate the short stack and thus get one step closer to the money. This shows weakness only because you flat called the small stack.
You had two options in this case that you could have employed depending on table position. If you were under the gun then a "raise" would have been in order. In most cases this would deter other players and let you know that if they called then they had a good chance of eliminating the short stack. (your aim is fulfilled without you yourself firing the bullets).
If you are last to bet then there is a good chance that somebody else had already called him anyway.
I disagree totally with the concept of "ganging up" on the short stack simply because he may well actually win the hand and all the rest of the players have done is treble/quadruple him up.
In my opinion therefore, it is always best just to let one player take him on.
|
gegs12
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 07:04
Reply
btw spilari,
i really do enjoy your posts. keep them coming mate.
|
spilari
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 07:13
Reply
gegs12
I sure will, while I still get ideas. trying to go for at least about one each week.
I am not sure if I agree with your opinion of just letting one player take on the smallie, but I will have it in mind if the situation comes up with you. Hmm. Maybe I can even devise a trap specially for you :-).
|
gegs12
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 07:16
Reply
you lay it mate,and i'll fall for it.
think i've worked you out after watching you for a month.
|
CMjohnnyB
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 07:30
Reply
The master strikies again another aborbing and thought provoking post spilari.
I agree with gegs i woudl ahve tried to take u out.
|
Daniella
Moderator
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 08:54
Reply
Ah, I always appreciate thought provoking posts.
Let me explain this as if this was a real tourney -for real cash.
In general, the concept of "checking it down" when one player is allin, is *way* too over utilized. Whether or not it is correct to "check it down" when one player is all in totally depends on the situation... and the situations in which it is "correct" to check it down with the other player(s) is *far* less common than most people think.
But before I even get to that, Spilari mentioned 83-off-suit as being a *marginal* hand. Well this isn't really true. JT-off-suit is a *marginal* hand... 83-off-suit is just plain garbage. There are times when you would *have* to call an allin raise from the big blind with garbage, but not as often as one might think. For example, if you have that 83 and you're in the big blind for 800, and a short stack moves in for 2000, you still should not call. Most people think you should; this is absolutely incorrect. Usually what happens here is you just end up giving the short stack more chips than you have to. In general in these situations, you should only cover a short stacks all in raise from the big blind with garbage when his raise is double or less than double the amount of the blind.
The reason I bring this up is you should never call with garbage just to try to bust a short stack, regardless of your own stack size. All you're doing is giving that short stack a better chance at getting "back in it" by putting more money in the pot if he happens to win it. Sure call with some "marginal" hands a little more liberally (such as JT-off-suit), but hands like 83-off-suit and T4-off-suit and the like should just *never* be played except in those very special situations where you've already got money in the blind, *and* you don't have to cover much more, *and* your call closes the betting.
A lot of it depends on the pot size, and how critical winning that pot is in relation to your stack size. For example, say I have QT-off-suit in the big blind of 800... and my stack is 12000. Somebody else with chips limps, a short stack goes allin for 1800, I call, and my opponent calls. If the flop comes down something like T-6-2 there is no way in hell I would check there... that would be a *gigantic* mistake. The 6000 or so that's in the pot is just too critical to give my other opponent a "free" chance at drawing out on me -in a pretty big pot.
Honestly, I can't think of a spot that I would check a hand like top pair after the flop simply because one player was allin, unless it was in a super-satellite where all you were playing for was seats into a bigger tournament. For example, if you're in a super, they're giving away 7 total seats, and there are 8 players left, you would *obviously* check down *any* hand.
Basically... even if someone is all in... in 95% of the situations... if you make a hand you should bet it. Betting *draws* that do not include and ace is what doesn't make any sense. Notice the distinction here... if you bet A6-hearts after you flop a flush draw and the other guys that's all in doesn't call, now maybe you'll beat the all in player with just your ace high even if you miss. However... if instead you have 76-hearts and flop a flush draw... it makes no sense to bet it here because it has no showdown value.
The idea is to keep your chips, right?
=)
|
spilari
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 09:18
Reply
Ok.
It seems the general opinion is that "checking down" in not the best tactic in this situation as a rule, and I am getting swayed.
After thinking a bit more about this, I have come to the conclusion that there is another argument against this strategy: it is a bit defeatist. It only makes sense if you don't think you can win the tourney, but want to increase your chances of getting to the money.
If you are playing to win, then it does not matter if the small-stack goes out a bit sooner or later, but you do not want to lose money unnecessarily to the other big stacks.
So now my opinion is:
If I do not have a playable hand in these situations, then stay out, and if I do have a hand, steal it from the other big-stacks, or even go for a side-pot.
|
Dutchhill
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 09:46
Reply
dani..can you explain in pictures as well??
would be helpful
ty!
|
Thehype
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 09:52 - Edited by: Thehype
Reply
good post and some very long answers.
.
Checking down a hand if the shortstack is all in is something I would do if my instinct tells me its right. However If i have "hit" and my instinct tells me im ahead I would bet for the side pot.
Typical example in a cash game i played and won earlier today.
Player A has 1200 and in 200 big blind
Player b has 400 in small blind and goes all in.
As me player C with 2000 with Ace 10 off I fold as even with a strong hand do not want to triple up the small blind player. I also know the almost definite outcome would be im still leading and if it goes to plan there will only be 2 left and I will still be chip leader as appose to us all having similar size stacks.
As it turns out the small blind player had pocket 4s and hit his set on the flop. The big blind player doubled him up and called his pocket 4s with king 10. If id have been in I would of taken side pot but still tripled up player b. The outcome however was that player A & B just levelled out and i remained chip leader. By not playing that hand meant it was only themselves that they were taking from and not me. I try and focus how on how long my stack will keep me in the game compared to the sizes of the others stacks. As the blinds increase this is when to really get stuck in and finish people off.
Also when any player goes all in I may call but i prefer to set the pace and go all in on my terms only. I have found if you do that regularly it will pay off. By not calling other people all inns could be construed as weak, but normally the outcome of the game would speak for itself.
Instinct plays a big apart in it and although "theory" is interesting you have to get out there and learn which is something you are always doing. you always learn with this game and I always right my posts with what I prefer to do rather than suggesting its right as others do.
One thing I have found that has helped me is to remmeber never get involved in battles you dont need to be in. You could win em for sure but if you dont need to or your instinct tells u its not the right time then dont.
Look forward to the next one spilari
|
hovis
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 09:54
Reply
God these are great, if you ever wanted to know how crap you are at poker, read these! Ty guys and gals (wheres my comfort blanket).
|
spilari
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 10:16
Reply
hovis
unfortunately, the more i study, and the more i write of these posts, the more i find how crap i am at poker.
|
hovis
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 10:38
Reply
Yeh but you know your stuff, I try, read the books and am still on same chip count as 5months ago :(
|
HOWARD77
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 11:43
Reply
if i have called an all in with a marginal hand i would normally raise after the flop (unless theres a wild better involded) purely to try and provoke a fold increasing my chance of winning and increasing the side pot
|
1superken
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Oct 2008 19:23
Reply
That was a great read at first i thought the 8,3 off marginal was said in irony i only got half way through Dani's post but that was enough its plain ,crystal clear, in English, & ever so true, alternatively trust your instinct its emotional
|
Daniella
Moderator
|
# Posted: 24 Oct 2008 03:14 - Edited by: Daniella
Reply
spilari
...unfortunately, the more i study, and the more i write of these posts, the more i find how crap i am at poker.
It's a mighty complicated game.
That old adage that it takes an hour to learn how to play and a lifetime to master -is not just a cliche.
I appreciate anybody who recognizes just how complicated the game is, let alone the psychology involved. It's a game like no other -and I guess that's why I get a little discouraged by people who play it like it's Keno -win a few hands and think that they are now an expert and there's nothing else to learn.
There is an amazing beauty to poker -it's an art and it's a science...and the luck gives it a touch of pure magick.
(and yeah, I do mean magick=)
|
1superken
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Oct 2008 05:57
Reply
Dani you must be the toughest gig to follow in the whole wide world you just made me play 99 red balloons full blast in german.... if Paul Daniels was here im sure he'd say now thats magick=)
|
