View Single Post
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-04-06, 04:02 PM
sunnypoker sunnypoker is offline
Bubble
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 72
BBP Points: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elon05 View Post
I just called as I would have done with any 2 cards since he was all in. The largest stack raises to $800 to kick everyone else out of action.

Even if I had 2 crap cards (ie: 7, 2) I still would have called probably b/c the short stack probably has nothing. Who knows, you may hit a 2 on the flop and he may not hit at all. What is it really costing you? $250.

um.... i'm lost in words...
u CALL because the UTG was all in as a shortstack?? and u call with any two cards??
there's players to act after you, does this mean anything???
u can't just call with any two cards.
"what is it really costing you? $250", not true. ur playing the hand out of position, it will always cost you more than that if you hit even the slightest bit of a hand. it will cost you $250 if you hit absolutely nothing, in which case u shouldn't have entered the pot in the first place with any two cards.

go read No-limit Holdem Theory & Practice.

u simply calling opens up more likelyness of others entering a pot, and also sweetens the pot to give someone the incentive to raise it up to isolate with a worse hand than urs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elon05 View Post
Of course you want as many people out of the tournament as possible. It helps everyone's position in the tourney to finish higher in the money.


Remember, the goal is to get everyone out before you.

no, the goal is to win the tournament, and to do that, you have to get all the chips,

if all u want to do is make the money, then yes, u get players to get out before you.

if u want to win the tourney, u need all the chips, to do that your opponents shouldn't have the chips.
which means, he doesn't want someone ELSE to get the chips when he has the opportunity to get it himselves.

it doesn't matter what the outcome is, it's about the situation,
of course u can say that it was his fault the shortstack is alive and went on to finish 3rd.
but if the aggressive player is going for the win, why should he care about assuring a shortstack is knocked out?
he cares more about building his chips higher so it increases the opportunity for him to WIN the tournament.


while i do understand there are some situations where the "silent agreement" takes place, and is an etiquet IN SOME SITUATIONS, this is different.
and also, you have to change your "mind frame" (or whatever the word is) about tournaments.
Reply With Quote