Poker Ethics Question

[Jeepzeke]

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.

[CurryLover]

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.

[benfranklin]

[ 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.

[viking999]

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.

[Agent Zero]

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.

[BackRoad_J]

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.

[alphatmw]

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

[AaronBrown]

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.

[Louie Landale]

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

[BenA]

[ 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.