[xVICTORx]

It is not a joke - it is a hypothetical scenario to test your understanding of the game.

Do you call an all-in bet after 4 players went all-in and 2 players left to act?

There are 2 types of behaviors: consequential and nonconsequential.

The first one weighs all positive factors vs negative and then depends on what outweighs what it makes a decision based on that.

The second one believes in the rules and acts upon them regardless if it is right or wrong, because the rules are set to abide them.

Therefore, if you use the consequential behavior, you will make sound decisions, and if you think that just because you have the best starting hand you should go to a showdown with 4 other opponents for your whole stack because you have the best hand pre-flop, then you are applying nonconsequential behavior and, theoretically, bound to make errors, because you are not considering all other important factors that actually state that you may not have the best hand.

Here is an example:

I was sitting at a tournament (I was out of the hand) but here is what happened. It was late in the tourney, blinds were very high, UTG+1 limps in, UTG+3 calls, small blind completes the blind, and BB checks. Flop came Jd 9s 9d. Small blind checked, BB checked, UTG+1 went all-in, UTG+2 called, SB called, and BB called too. SB had 96, BB had 2 diamonds, UTG+1 had AA, UTG+3 had QQ. The turn was Js, and the river was Qd. Here every one made a hand, SB made 9's full of J's, BB made a flush, UTG+3 made the best hand Q's full of J's, but poor AA was left with just two pair.

So, why would you want to be against 4 other opponents with AA??