Poker Ethics Question
 

Situation: 8 players left in 10 player sit in go. Small stack goes all in for about $300. I call and so does another (we each have about $1500). On the flop I hit top pair with Ace kicker, and bet. The other caller, who was on a straight draw, says I should not have bet because the idea is to eliminate players and it is easier to eliminate the all in with two hands competing compared to one.

I do see his point, but my thinking is I should build my chips with the best hand. If I dont bet and he hits his draw I do not get the all in money.

Also I have always heard you check an all in unless the board improves your hand.

Was I in the wrong here? If so, why? This was debated in the room and I was in the minority. BTW- I won the hand even though the straight draw called.

Thanks in advnace for your thoughts.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

It's more of a strategy question really. I think it is misunderstood by the silly people who are told about the idea but then apply it at times when it is not applicable.

If you're on the bubble then it sometimes makes much more sense to 'cooperate' and check the hand down. This is because the huge gain for both of you from eliminating the all-in guy and thus guaranteeing you are ITM is much more important than 'protecting' your hand and increasing your chances of winning a few extra chips. You are thus much more likely to want to check the hand down in the latter stages of a SNG/tourney then in the early stages. But you're still in the early stages. Knocking out a player probably does not increase your $EV as much as winning the extra chips at this point since there are still many players left. So you did nothing wrong to bet. The result of the particular hand is irrelevant of course.

But what is silly is when players bluff the third player out with a hand that is extremely unlikely to beat the all-in guy without improvement. For example, don't semi-bluff with 45 on a 67K flop. If you know the other guy out and don't improve then you're just helping the all-in player stay in the tourney.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

Also I have always heard you check an all in unless the board improves your hand.



[/ QUOTE ]

It is customary, and generally good strategy, to not bluff in that situation. This is called bluffing at a dry side pot, and should usually be avoided. If you have a good hand and think that you can get some chips from the other live player in the pot, then betting is the correct move. Your objective in a tournament is to win chips, not to eliminate players.

[ QUOTE ]
On the flop I hit top pair with Ace kicker, and bet. The other caller, who was on a straight draw, says I should not have bet because the idea is to eliminate players and it is easier to eliminate the all in with two hands competing compared to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not clear from your post when he said this. If he said it while the hand was still in progress, than he is guilty of a serious violation of rules and ethics. If he said it after the pot was finished, then he is just a nit.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

No, I think you're absolutely right.

First of all, the idea behind checking down when a player is all-in is to eliminate him to increase everyone's payday. These other guys are out of their minds to think that it makes a difference between 8 players left and 7 players left in a 10 player SnG. You're not even close to the money yet.

Second of all, you have to watch out for yourself. If betting helps you win more, you should do it. Sure, if the flop doesn't improve your hand you shouldn't bet, but I think that's good advice anyway because you can't beat the all-in player on a bluff. In your case, it was a great bet because you NEED to charge that guy for drawing out. You won more chips because of it. Good for you (applause)!

These other guys at the table are misusing a point of poker protocol. The real rule is not to bet into a dry side pot if you don't hit a hand when you're in or near the money. Neither of those conditions were true, so you can rest easy.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

The only person whose ethics are in doubt is the villain's, Re: Franklin -- one man to a hand. Also, a lot of people don't really understand NLHE, though they think they do -- this includes your villain.

From No Limit Hold 'Em: Theory and Practice, p.2: "Advice comes in sound bites... Sound bites make for terrible no limit advice." The sound bite here is checking down a hand to eliminate a player -- if you don't stand to gain, there's no sense in it. When you're gaining big money at the final table, or on the bubble, there is. Ethics are not the problem here -- your opponent just doesn't know enough about the game.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

with 8/10 players left- it is WAY too early to be thinking about teaming-up on the all-in. You were correct to bet. Those who disagreed with you are surely newbies.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

you normally shouldn't BLUFF in these situations. you weren't bluffing.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

I agree with the previous posters, and would emphasize CurryLover's point that this is a question of strategy, not ethics.

If anything, the ethics favor betting. Checking down to maximize the chance of eliminating a player is a faint whiff of collusion. Only an oversensitive purist would call it unethical, it has become an accepted tournament tactic. But the most ethical thing you can do in poker is to play every hand for your maximum personal advantage, rather than considering joint advantage with another player.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

Yes its true that the all-in player is better off if the non-all-in folks bet each other out of the pot; thus collectively all the other players are better off if they always check it down. But its not by very much: y'all gain when the all in outdraws you AND the other player also outdraws you AND the all in; something that doesn't happen very often (two folks outdawing you with different hands).

But there is no particular reason that the best hand is better off checking it down. There is nothing wrong with you and the all in benefiting from you betting, at the expense of the inactive players and especially at the expense of the other player who cannot call and loses pot equity AND equity of illiminating the all in. Forcing the straight draw to face a big bet is very big EV for you.

This is not an ethics question, except for the part where you are forming an implicit partnership with the straight draw. It would be an ethics violation, I believe, if you discuss it ahead of time.

The player is out of line in his critism since he called the bet and therefore you are still teaming up against the all in.

The advice to check bla bla bla is typically when the all in pretty clearly has the best hand; there is no reason to bet a hand worse than his unless the 3rd player is REAL live.

- Louie

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Checking down to maximize the chance of eliminating a player is a faint whiff of collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad somebody said this. I've played many SNGs, and never once felt that anything but sound poker strategy was correct. Of course, checking down with a super marginal hand in position can be right, but that has nothing to do with beating the all-in guy.

We have all been that all-in guy. Its out of our control what happens with the remaining players, but if they check it down simply to lower my equity, I'm not all that thrilled. In that spot, I think they should just play poker, and 'betting into a dry side pot' is often the right play. Even on the bubble, I see nothing unethical about betting with a good hand to raise your own chip stack. If these guys berated you for not helping them out, perhaps they should try another game like football or lacrosse. Poker is not a team sport.

The bottom line is that teaming up on another play is what seems unethical, not making sound NLHE decisions.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

I just had this conversation last night with somebody at a local tourament. He said he played a hand where he would have checked the hand down, but made a play because of the pre-flop raiser betting. He had no business being in the hand to start with with J-9 suited on a raise and an all in call, but that's beside the point.

He caught a straight flush draw and check raised his opponent all-in with it. His opponent called with his QQ and ended up losing to the donk. The all-in player had A-K and would've won with a pair of Kings on the turn.

I said that the guy with QQ should have bet to try and get more money. He was probably 60% sure he had the all-in player beat and 95% sure he had the donk call beat. It was the middle of a MTT and knocking someone out isn't that important at the time.

We talked about this for 10 minutes before I decided that I had enough and just realized that I could take all his chips. I did with 88 against his A-4. Hee Haw!

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

Ok, I'm not the best poker player and I haven't ever posted on here before, but...
Many times I have seen one person go over everyone else who has called an all-in...even post-flop. I don't see anything wrong with this, if that person has the best hand to knock him out, so be it. Also, isn't it smart to get as many chips as possible when the number of players get smaller?
Am I making any sense at all here?

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I'm not the best poker player and I haven't ever posted on here before, but...
Many times I have seen one person go over everyone else who has called an all-in...even post-flop. I don't see anything wrong with this, if that person has the best hand to knock him out, so be it. Also, isn't it smart to get as many chips as possible when the number of players get smaller?
Am I making any sense at all here?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a different situation. Sometimes you want to isolate the small stack all-in player to protect your hands. For example, I have KK. Small stack moves in ahead of me. With a medium or large stack, I move all in as well. The reason for this is to get heads up with the small stack with a presumably better hand. If I just call the all in, I am giving pot odds to other players behind to also come in. I don't want to lose the pot to Ax. However, this is not the subject of the original post but another valid topic though that is close. You can actually prevent the issue in question by getting HU with the raiser.

As for checking down in a three way pot with a dry side pot, I feel it is only necessary if there is a good benefit to both non all in players such as a bubble situation or a significant pay ladder change.

In mid tournament situations, I would not bluff or bet draws but I sure would protect my made hands.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

There is no convention here. You should do what is best for YOU in all situations. If the size of the pot is 5% of your entire stack and means little to your chip count, check it down to increase the odds of a knockout. If you have >50% of your chips in this pot, go all in when you hit to prevent a suckout that cripples your stack. Its your call, and no one should berate you for what you choose to do.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

In the right situations you can sometimes fold out a hand that beats you with a hand that beats the all-in guy. Say you have AK on a 10 4 2 board and you put your opponent on a medium pocket-pair 55-99 and the all-in person on a weaker ace betting is the right play, especially if the pot is a large % of your stack. Though obv there are certain similar situations where a check-down is called for.

Sometimes it can also be worthwhile to build the pot if you have a strong draw. AQ [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] on a 10 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J :club 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] board, for example, is only ahead of a rag ace but has so many outs to improve if opponent only has two pair.

Another potential situation: you have AJ [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and the board reads J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], and a short-stack overbets all-in. He is called by a large stack who you cover. The large stack is quite tight so for him to call the overbet he has to have a strong hand like 2-pair or a legitimately strong draw which likes callers, like 7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] . You're generally behind the large stack but ahead of the short-stack who could be betting any draw or any pair. This exact situation came up for me recently and I even managed to fold out J8 who was convinced I had a set (he showed). I proceeded to win the £350 pot unimproved. J8 was kinda mad but a good player and I managed to show him why it was a good play.

The issue here is that most people don't have much concept of how the game changes around the 'protected pot' and do in fact confuse ethics (of which I see very little value in re poker with the exception of cheating) with strategy. If you are confident enough in your hand reading and how you think your opponents will react virtually any move will go in the right situation.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

once in the money it is best for you to chek it down as there is often a large money jump from knocking out the players. But this early in the SNG getting the chips into your stack are much more important then knocking out a player.

Ethics? forget it, just because there is a guy all in doesn't mean you should stop betting (when you usually have the all in guy beat anyway). This question should be is it +ev to bet here.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

seems like some prisoners dilemma goin on here

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

This isn't collusion. It's a shared understanding of best play. Best Play being defined as what suits the individual player. While we can debate whether it suits the player in this situation (or any other) the idea that a shared understanding of how to play a hand is collusion is very misguided. It would only be collusion if one of the would-be-checkers suggests aloud that they check the hand down.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

I don't see any ethics issue here. It's just playing out the hand in a way that makes the most sense, which I thought was fairly obvious.

There is no point in bluffing at a dry side pot.
If you get your other live opponent to fold you gain nothing extra, but you, and you alone must now beat the all in player, who presumably has a decent hand and probably has you beat at this point.

What your bluff has done is increase the likelyhood that this player remains in play. Without a hand that has decent showdown value there is no point in betting into the dry side pot.

Now in the OP's situation we have the improvement we are looking for and the very real possibility that he is ahead of both players. This situation imo clearly calls for a bet. You are going to charge the other player to draw and you're getting extra money in a side pot you expect to win. If he does fold you are heads up and are very likely to win, rather than lose, to the all in player.

As others have already pointed out if there is some type of verbal, or some other type of signal given, that lets both players know what each intends to do, while the hand is in play, then it's collusion.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

You played it right. Why give the guy with the straight draw a free chance to draw out on you? Yeah, the short stack would be more likely to go bust, but you don't care who goes bust next, so long as it's not you. Winning $600 when you have $1200 left is significant.

The player with the flush draw was out of line to suggest colluding against the short stack(s). Did he say this before the turn or after the hand was over? It's a serious offense if he said it before the hand was over. What happened on the turn? Did you bet again?

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

If it's a no limit game, I'd probably either fold or reraise to isolate the all-in shorty.

But, as played, I like betting to protect your hand better than trying to "check it down." You're no where near the money. You don't want to give any free cards. I like betting out here. It really isn't an ethical question for me at all. You're just playing your hand well in an effort to win the most chips possible so you can win the game.

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

"But what is silly is when players bluff the third player out with a hand that is extremely unlikely to beat the all-in guy without improvement. For example, don't semi-bluff with 45 on a 67K flop. If you know the other guy out and don't improve then you're just helping the all-in player stay in the tourney."

this is the only point that really matters here. bluffing or semi-bluffing into a dry pot to isolate against an ALL-IN player is ALWAYS the wrong move.

every other situation demands individual inspection.

best,
~Slip

Re: Poker Ethics Question
 

This is retarted. Just check it down and knock out the player...