Dry Pot?

tiltn'noob · #1 01-06-2007, 04:16 PM

I played this hand earlier today. UTG+1 was not happy that I bet the flop, saying it was a 'dry pot'. What did he mean? Why wouldn't I want to bet this out?

My preflop calls were pretty loose, but I got away with them. Comments?

No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $0.25/$0.50
9 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $26.50
UTG+1: $112.05
MP1: $51.25
MP2: $50.75
MP3: $5.90
Hero: $57.15
Button: $55.70
SB: $8.75
BB: $50.10

Pre-flop: (9 players) Hero is CO with A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
UTG calls, UTG+1 raises to $2, 3 folds, Hero calls, Button folds, SB raises all-in $8.75, 2 folds, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls.

Flop: J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] ($27.25, 2 players + 1 all-in - Main pot: $27.25)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets $15, UTG+1 folds.
Uncalled bets: $15 returned to Hero.

Turn: Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] ($27.25, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $27.25)

River: 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] ($27.25, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $27.25)

Results:
Final pot: $27.25
SB showed Kc Ah

SheridanCat · #2 01-06-2007, 04:29 PM

You played it fine.

The concept of a "dry pot" really doesn't apply to ring games. The dry pot he refers to is the side pot, which has nothing in it yet. By betting into a dry side pot, you bet and drove him out of the hand. Perfectly acceptable in a ring game. He's an idiot.

In a tournament, especially in the end stages, things are different. This all goes to the concept of the implicit collusion where two (or more) players check the hand down when one other player is all-in. By checking it down, you have more opportunities to knock the all-in player out.

That said, you are never obligated to participate in the implicit collusion. If you have a strong hand, bet into the dry sidepot.

captain2man · #3 01-07-2007, 12:42 AM

SheridanCat covered it perfectly.

The concept that UTG+1 is referring to is BLUFFING into a dry side pot....and - yes - only applies to tournaments - where the real goal is to be the last one standing. If you're in a pot with one person all-in & some others who aren't - you don't want to bluff the other people out of the hand. Your first priority is to win the pot yourself & knock out the all-in guy. Your second priority, if you're not going to win the pot, is to make sure the all-in guy gets knocked out - and if that means one of your other non-all-in opponents takes the pot - so be it - better one of them wins it than the guy who's all-in. This is tournament poker 101 (but it's not ethical to agree to "check it down" at the table while the hand is in play).

But in ring games - each hand is its own game, in a sense - there's no knocking someone out.

Besides....although you certainly didn't have the nuts in this situation - you did have a strong hand with top pair/top kicker. UTG+1 probably realized that he would have won the hand had you not knocked him out - so he was pissed...oh well - too bad - wasn't a tourney - you did nothing wrong.

Oh wait...you did do ONE thing wrong.

Your original call of the $2 from an early position raise may or may not be debatable - however - once SB went over-the-top all-in with an $8.75 bet - you need to fall out of love with your AJ and drop 'em. It worked out for you in this specific hand - but more often than not - you're going to be behind - possibly wayyy behind.

tiltn'noob · #4 01-07-2007, 12:58 AM

Ok, thanks guys. That's what I thought. Yeah, that 2nd call was a little loose. That's one of the many leaks I'm workin on. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

PantsOnFire · #5 01-07-2007, 01:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
He's an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]
The other posters explained why.

I will only ever refrain from betting into a dry side pot when I have absolutely nothing and I stand to gain by a guy being knocked out of a tourney. Other than that, I will play my cards however I see fit since my main goal is to win the pot. So even in a tourney where a guy is all in, I will bet into a dry side pot to protect my hand if I have one that is worth protecting. It is more important to me to accululate chips than worry about guys being knocked out. Now this might change if say I'm down to three people at a final table and the payout between second and third is significant. Then, my play may follow a line of locking up second as a priority rather than getting some more chips.

In cash games, a person being all-in is irrelevent to any dry side pot issue. So basically this guy was a tournament moron with little cash game experience.

AKQJ10 · #6 01-07-2007, 01:05 AM

On occasion it could be theoretically correct to bluff into a dry side pot. If C is all in and A figures:

B (medium strength) > A (mediocre) > C (bad hand)

A might bluff out B to try to win the pot. That's rare, though, so it's usually fine to check it down.

But this is a reasonable value bet, expecting to get called by lesser jacks and some pocket pairs. Also there are two bad overcards against which AJ needs protection so I think it's fine.

rascony · #7 01-07-2007, 02:26 PM

This thread made me think of this hand. $4/180, middle stages, MP1 had been limping in, I had been playing pretty tight, don't specifically remember why I limped along except hoping to see a cheap flop. Once the BB went all in, figured I would call, getting 3-1.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t100 (8 handed) internettexasholdem.com

SB (t7438)
BB (t3735)
UTG (t1095)
UTG+1 (t2820)
MP1 (t2285)
Hero (t3315)
CO (t1345)
Button (t400)

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
2 folds, MP1 calls t100, Hero calls t100, 1 fold, Button raises to t400, 2 folds, MP1 calls t300, Hero calls t300.

Flop: (t1350) 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (3 players)
MP1 checks, Hero checks.

Turn: (t1350) K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (3 players)
MP1 checks, Hero checks.

River: (t1350) K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (3 players)
MP1 checks, Hero bets t300, MP1 calls t300.

Final Pot: t1950

MP1 has Jh 9h (full house, nines full of kings).
Hero has Kd Qh (full house, kings full of nines).
Button has Js Jd (two pair, kings and jacks).
Outcome: Hero wins t1950.

Apparently MP1 thought we would just check it down, we weren't that near the bubble. Just thought this was a prime example of why implicit colussion is for the birds except under the examples given above. Apparently the MP1 thought that IC was a great idea, which from my point of view on this flop, I was more than willing to do, but it came back to bite them. Also I realize this was very lucky/rare on my part to hit.

Not to hijack OP's thread, but this is my first post, been reading on here a lot. Everytime I seem to have a question or a scenario I want to discuss, seems someone beats me to it or find it somewhere on the site. What a great source of information this site is and just want to say thanks to all.

Phenomenon · #8 01-07-2007, 02:52 PM

Yeah, don't worry about it rascony like the OP you did nothing wrong.

Well, I would have bet more on the river, you have a pretty much lock hand. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

pzhon · #9 01-07-2007, 03:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The concept that UTG+1 is referring to is BLUFFING into a dry side pot....and - yes - only applies to tournaments -

[/ QUOTE ]
No, this applies to cash games, too.

When you make a pure bluff into a dry sidepot, you can't win. You risk some chips for no benefit (at least in chips). If your bluff succeeds, you don't win the pot, since the all-in player can't be bluffed out.

You can bet into a dry sidepot for value, for protection, as a blocking bet, and possibly as a semibluff. Betting with TPTK on the flop was clearly fine as a value bet (you'll get called by some weaker pairs) and for protection (hands with a few outs against you like AK will fold). Typically, you should view the pot as smaller than the nominal value because of the all-in player, so you might reduce a bet from 2/3 pot to 1/2 pot, for example.

Many clueless people will object because they don't understand. It's not surprising; most poker players are losers, and even many of the winners don't understand poker well.

[ QUOTE ]

Your first priority is to win the pot yourself & knock out the all-in guy. Your second priority, if you're not going to win the pot, is to make sure the all-in guy gets knocked out - and if that means one of your other non-all-in opponents takes the pot - so be it - better one of them wins it than the guy who's all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is a common misconception that it is a priority to knock players out. In fact, the importance of this in tournament play is extremely small. The small benefits of knocking someone out are split among everyone remaining, so your share is microscopic (with some exceptions). You bear 100% of the cost of misplaying your hand.

In tournament play, it is often preferable for the short stack to win, rather than one of your opponents. There are common situations discussed in the Single Table Tournament forum where you don't want to eliminate a short stack so that you can continue to bully players terrified of getting knocked out or crippled. In other situations, the relative stack sizes might allow you to attack the blinds comfortably or set up other good situations with one distribution of chips, but not with another, and you may strongly prefer that the third player in the pot not win. These considerations are much larger than the mostly imaginary value of knocking a player out.

PantsOnFire · #10 01-07-2007, 05:00 PM

Wow, what a perfect example of checking it down gone wrong. If I'm MP1 here I move all-in on that flop.

MP1 would have increased his stack by more than 50% but for some reason he felt it was more important to have button eliminated. Frankly, that's about as bad a poker decision there is in tournament play.

There are some situations where this can change though. Let's take a 10 person SnG where top 3 pay. With 4 left there is some benefit for having a player eliminated so that is a factor. However, if I was a huge stack in that situation, I might still try to get the main pot with a dry side pot since an elimination is not as important to me as the other medium or short stacks. It would all change however if the big stack was out of the hand and me and another short/med stack were looking at the dry side pot. I would be much more inclined to check it down in that case.

Now that I think of, I hope that too many of the auto check down guys don't read this because I like getting the chance to get a free draw to win the main pot, just like you did.