[elon05]

One thing that I thought was common knowledge but obviously is not among newer players is what to do when the short stack is all-in. What is the correct play in this situation? 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. Let me give you a situation from la game I played in last night.
There were 5 players at the table with blinds of 50/100. The short stack has about $250 and in first position. The highest stack is very aggressive and is in last position. The small blind and the big blind both post their blinds. The short stack goes all in. I am in 2nd position with 9,9. 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. Of course now the small and the big both fold. I know I have a decent hand but I fold. The high stack shows A, 4 and the short stack shows 10, 8. Of course the short stack would go all in b/c he is desperate and the blinds are about to hit him. The flop is 9,10,5. The turn is a Q. The river is a 6. What just happened here? Let's review.
The short stack just tripled up (almost quad'd up) and now is still in the game with $900. Why am I bringing up this? Because since the short stack was all in all I just called all the high stack had to do was call. The small and big would have probably called as well b/c of pot odds and they already had money in the pot. If this would have happened you would have had 4 hands vs. 1 hand and you could have checked it down to eliminate the low stack. The odds of 8 cards hitting something over 2 cards is very good. Obviously if I would not have folded I would have hit trips and someone else at the table might have hit as well. After the flop/turn/river feel free to bet but only if you are pretty positive that you have won. This would have been one player out of the tourney but because of the actions of one player (who didn't even have a powerful hand) the tourney continued.
As it turns out that player that went all in ended up having enough chips to hang on and actually made the money (3rd place). This is just polite poker etiquette, and is a general good idea in this situation. Remember, the goal is to get everyone out before you. 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. That really is nothing when the average stack is 2500-3000. Remember, play smart poker and don't be "that guy" at the table.
A situation that bothers me even more then this is when a player goes all in and there are 2 callers one of which is me. I flop middle pair which is very marginal but not bad. Check Check. Another higher card then my pair comes out. The other caller then goes all in. Obviously with 2nd to bottom pair I can't call and fold. The short stack shows bottom pair and the person that bet to make me fold turns over A high and lets the short stack triple up. Now if this idiot doesnt go all in the player is knocked out and we are 1 closer to the money. But honestly what was the purpose of him going all in. All he did was prompt me to fold and he lost the hand of course because he had nothing. So basically his bluff kept the short stack in the game and earned him no chips. Wow what a great play. If I would of called in that situation both of them would of been gone so basically nothing good was gonna come out of that bluff for him. What an idiot. Guys if a player is all in unless you have the absolute nuts just check around a take him out.

ELON05

[bobdmb]

I think of this as an unspoken law to at least check down the sidepot (if there is any) unless someone really has a monster (for instance if I hit nut flush, I will bet). I see a lot of people who don't stick to this "rule" and I hate it.

[sunnypoker]

um... no, it is some sort of a silent code but it doesn't have to be agreed on.

as for the aggressive guy raising you preflop. i would perfectly do the same thing to drive out other opponents in the hand as it increases my chance of winning the pot as i'm only heads up with the short-stack.
(is this not obvious :S?)

the biggest mistake was on your part on that hand, with a hand like 99, which is actually marginal hand considering UTG short-stack is all in, and your only in second position, and there's still tons of players after you.

either you raise it up to isolate, or you fold it.
calling is the last thing u want to do EXACTLY because of what happened, an aggressive player raising you and u not sure what to do so having to lay down the best hand, i would have done the same thing if i was in his position.
if you get called 99 is one of the worst hand to be playing as you'll be out of position, so you won't even be sure if you have the best hand when the flop comes, and there's no sidepot which makes it extra hard to decide whether to bet to chase the other person out of the hand or not.

[sunnypoker]

Originally Posted by elon05

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.

Originally Posted by elon05

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.

[Acorn89]

I would agree with sunny, there are sometimes that you want to check it down but there are times when it would be a good idea to try to win the pot. Also I think the real reason why you would check down a pot is not to eliminate a player but because there is no reason to bluff into a dry side pot since you arent really bluffing since you have to show the hand down anyway. This is especially true if you are in the begining or middle of a tourny were your goal is not to eliminate players but to build your chip stack, like sunny said you cant win the tourny unless you have all the chips.

I probaly would have done the same thing as the aggressive player in your situtation. It sounds like that he was bullying the table. I would want to give a pot to some other player who could use those chips to stop me from bullying a table. Also since he raise he had some dead money in the pot. And its not like its a small pot, if the average is 2500-3000, a 900 pot is about 1/3 the average stack.

One of the times that I think it would be a good idea to call with anything and check down a hand is when you are playing 3 handed and the short stack is very short, then that pot wouldnt have a big impact on the headup match.

So remeber the next time you in the same situation, your goal is to get chips not eliminate players.

[sunnypoker]

Originally Posted by Acorn89

Also I think the real reason why you would check down a pot is not to eliminate a player but because there is no reason to bluff into a dry side pot since you arent really bluffing since you have to show the hand down anyway.

well done sir! looks like acorn nailed the most important point in one sentence, which i couldn't manage to do in 2 posts. this is the essence of it

[cemfredmd]

I am not sure why some people seem to think this is such a large unwritten rule and you can get serious heat for not following it. Sure the 99 was a fairly good hand, but you were totally out of position, and calling an all-in with any two cards out of position is not good play. To say that everyone should just call the all-in bet is a bit short sighted. I think the raise was a good play by the player, I likely would have done the same thing with an Ace, but probably would need a better kicker. And if everyone had just called the all-in bet, you get 5-6 times what the person went all in on. If he happens to win it with that hand (and he was out of position too, so you had to think he had something), then he makes out even better then this situation with the raise and he only triples up. I agree with the others that you dont play this to eliminate a person, you play it to win chips. You could eliminate 10 people, but if they only had 100 chips each when you eliminate then, then you still only have 1000 chips. You play a couple of hands to win chips, and you could be doing far better then that.

[Arjonius]

What I've never seen a good answer to is when it becomes right to check down a hand. In this context, when means with how many players left? How close to the bubble or a pay plateau? And what if you're one player farther away than that? Or two? Or three? Is it okay to bet then?

[ssmooth8]

Depending on if a player raises and there is a lot more chips in the pot than just the player who went allin. If all money is equal on all ends of the players then a check down to the turn or river would be best. If you have far more money invested in the pot than the allin bet whenever you feel it is needed to insure you the win of the side pot. That is how it is suppose to be played.

[dconnerii]

the guy did nothing wrong by raising to push people out before the flop he new his hand was a little weak and needed to play heads up you needed to either raise first to isolate your self with him or call the raiser after you called tha all in. Now after the flop it is considered poker ettiqute to check down unless you have a real good hand but you don't have to check but it is recommended. but before the flop I see nothing wrong with rasing if someone flat calls an all in bet