Worst play ever, or "How I Tilted out of the Sunday PS event"

[BillyTheBull]

Add this one to the many tournament hands I've played or witnessed, where a short stack is all in, and then all kinds of stupid stuff ensues as a consequence in the side pot. I just don't get what's so hard to understand about the concept that tournament poker is primarily about eliminating other players . . . apparently it is, though, as I see these ridiculous side-pot bluffs all the time, all over the place.

I admit that, first and foremost, I allowed all this crap to happen by not pushing AIPF with my KK (instead of just re-raising); however, this still does not justify the (imo) horrible PF calls and our villain's river bluff, which, although admittedly profitable for him, was an almost guaranteed "get-out-of -jail-free" card for the all-in short stack -- and WHY IN THE WORLD would you ever give another player one of those?????!??

Anyway, this hand put me on tilt to the point that I didn't even care anymore (which very rarely ever happens), and it's no surprise that I donked out of the tourney just a few hands later on a busted flush draw. . . .

ARRRRrrrrrrrrgh

***** Game number #15352348636 *****
Tournament #77206785, $10+$1 Hold'em No Limit - Level V (75/150) - 2008/02/17 - 14:42:27 (ET)
Table '77206785 1' 9-max
Seat 9 (BTN) has the button.
SB posts small blind [75]
Hero posts big blind [150]
Seat 1 : SB with 2162 chips.
Seat 2 : Hero with 2703 chips.
Seat 4 : UTG with 4705 chips.
Seat 5 : UTG+1 with 235 chips.
Seat 6 : MP1 with 1665 chips.
Seat 7 : MP2 with 4955 chips.
Seat 8 : CO with 3290 chips.
Seat 9 : BTN with 3825 chips.

** Dealing hole cards **
Dealt to Hero :

Sklansky group: 1
UTG: folds
UTG+1 raises 85 to 235 [ all-in ]
MP1: folds
MP2: folds
[MP1] gl
CO calls [235]
BTN: folds
SB calls [160]
Hero raises 600 to 835
CO calls [600]
SB calls [600]
** Dealing Flop ** [Potsize: 2740]

SB: checks
Hero: checks
CO bets [300]
[UTG+1] one time
[UTG] zomg van you have ed miller short stack advantage here
[UTG+1] ONE
SB calls [300]
[UTG+1] yeah look at this
Hero calls [300]
** Dealing Turn ** [Potsize: 3640]

[UTG+1] its gonna be 4 way all in
SB: checks
[UTG+1] so sick
Hero: checks
[UTG+1] i hate this stupid game
CO: checks
** Dealing River ** [Potsize: 3640]

[UTG+1] gg
SB bets [1027] [ all-in ]
[MP1] gg
[BTN] gg van
Hero: folds
[Hero] goddammit
CO: folds
[UTG] someone is new chip leader
** Showdown **
SB shows a pair of Threes:

[UTG+1] lol whattt
SB collected 2700 from side pot
UTG+1 shows a pair of Jacks:

UTG+1 collected 940 from main pot
[BTN] OMFG
[Hero] omg, no way
[MP1] lmfao
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3640 Main pot 940. Side pot 2700. | Rake 0
Board [Ad 9h Jc 4c Qh]
Seat 1: SB (small blind) showed [3d 3s] and won (2700) with a pair of Threes
Seat 2: Hero (big blind) folded on the River
Seat 5: UTG+1 showed [Js 5h] and won (940) with a pair of Jacks
Seat 8: CO folded on the River

Poker Hand Converter By Cardschat.com Poker Forum

 

[Crazy_Whitey]

Yea it gets frustrating, but when people do that, just make them your target and wait for a spot to take their chips, it seems alot of people at lower limits make stupid sidepots with no cards, I think its fine if you've got a hand but you shouldnt be bluffing.

 

[BillyTheBull]

I think its fine if you've got a hand but you shouldnt be bluffing.

Well, if you had a hand, then you wouldn't be bluffing, now would you?!?

Anyway, I realize poker is not a team game (even when you're playing a team event), but there's still a sort of code/etiquette/common sense piece saying that you don't bet at a side pot unless you've got a very strong hand, if not the nuts. Of course, the larger the side pot gets, the more often this "rule" is (understandably) violated; however, the underlying principle that the AI should only be allowed to survive if he/she has made a strong hand (and NOT because someone else made a stupid move) still applies, imo.

 

[Kenzie 96]

Rule #1 in poker, there are no rules there is only the money. Can't read the HH either but, it's your money & your chips so if it's legal you are free to do it. There is a very good discussion of this very subject in the Golden Archives section, check it out Billy.

 

[arkadiy]

God I cannot read that stupid hand history at all. Why does no one use normal pokerstars EASILY eligible hand history?

 

[danman7373]

I see this sort of thing a lot, and have even been the lucky all-in who was kept alive by a stupid bet into a dry side-pot. I will not bet into a side-pot unless it's already been built up significantly on previous streets, or unless I have at least top pair (where if the all-in beats me I doubt somebody folded a better hand for a river value bet). Sadly, there is not much you can do, because what bothers me even more than a foolish bet into the side-pot is when I am all-in, and two or more players actually type in the chat to check it down.

I can't see what the community cards were, but if your kings were an overpair on the flop, you might have just gone all-in there, shutting out subsequent action, and if the all-in beats you and survives and someone else is yelling how you made them fold the winning hand, then hey, what can you do?

 

[BillyTheBull]

God I cannot read that stupid hand history at all. Why does no one use normal pokerstars EASILY eligible hand history?

Well, that's what I get for trying to use the CC hand history converter. . . . Actually, it looked perfectly fine when I first posted, but now all the card symbols have somehow disappeared (and of course I can't go in and edit them back in); I'll find the original PS HH and will re-post. Sorry about that, and thanks for everyone's input.

p.S.: Mods, any suggestions as to why my hole and community cards have somehow disappeared? Did I do something wrong, or is there a glitch with the hand converter?

 

[aliengenius]

POKERSTARS GAME #15352348636: TOURNAMENT #77206785, $10+$1 HOLD'EM NO LIMIT - LEVEL V (75/150) - 2008/02/17 - 14:42:27 (ET)
Table '77206785 1' 9-max Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: RiveredYA197 (2162 in chips)
Seat 2: Rose-Buur (2703 in chips)
Seat 4: L.Schumner (4705 in chips)
Seat 5: vanquish331 (235 in chips)
Seat 6: Duke748 (1665 in chips)
Seat 7: ognib6 (4955 in chips)
Seat 8: knapping (3290 in chips)
Seat 9: gord962 (3825 in chips)
RiveredYA197: posts small blind 75
Rose-Buur: posts big blind 150
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to L.Schumner [2d] [8c]
L.Schumner: folds
vanquish331: raises 85 to 235 and is all-in
Duke748: folds
ognib6: folds
Duke748 said, "gl"
knapping: calls 235
gord962: folds
RiveredYA197: calls 160
Rose-Buur: raises 600 to 835
knapping: calls 600
RiveredYA197: calls 600
*** FLOP *** [Ad] [9h] [Jc]
RiveredYA197: checks
Rose-Buur: checks
knapping: bets 300
vanquish331 said, "one time"
L.Schumner said, "zomg van you have ed miller short stack advantage here"
vanquish331 said, "ONE"
RiveredYA197: calls 300
vanquish331 said, "yeah look at this"
Rose-Buur: calls 300
*** TURN *** [Ad 9h Jc] [4c]
vanquish331 said, "its gonna be 4 way all in"
RiveredYA197: checks
vanquish331 said, "so sick"
Rose-Buur: checks
vanquish331 said, "i hate this stupid game"
knapping: checks
*** RIVER *** [Ad 9h Jc 4c] [Qh]
vanquish331 said, "gg"
RiveredYA197: bets 1027 and is all-in
Duke748 said, "gg"
gord962 said, "gg van"
Rose-Buur: folds
Rose-Buur said, "goddammit"
knapping: folds
L.Schumner said, "someone is new chip leader"
*** SHOW DOWN ***
RiveredYA197: shows [3d] [3s] (a pair of Threes)
vanquish331 said, "lol whattt"
RiveredYA197 collected 2700 from side pot
vanquish331: shows [Js] [5h] (a pair of Jacks)
vanquish331 collected 940 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3640 Main pot 940. Side pot 2700. | Rake 0
Board [Ad 9h Jc 4c Qh]
Seat 1: RiveredYA197 (small blind) showed [3d 3s] and won (2700) with a pair of Threes
Seat 2: Rose-Buur (big blind) folded on the River
Seat 4: L.Schumner folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: vanquish331 showed [Js 5h] and won (940) with a pair of Jacks
Seat 6: Duke748 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: ognib6 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: knapping folded on the River
Seat 9: gord962 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)


Furthermore, if you are the short stack against two deep stacks, sometimes your opponents will still be duking it out in a side pot after you’ve gotten all-in. If one gets the other to fold, you’ve gained winning chances without risking anything extra. That’s a bonus you’ll get only if you’re a short stack.

 

[soonerdel]

why weren't you all in pre flop to take him on heads up ?

 

[BillyTheBull]

why weren't you all in pre flop to take him on heads up ?

Honestly, I thought my PF re-raise was big enough to get everyone else out, but in retrospect you're right, that's probably what I should've done. On the other hand, if the A hadn't flopped I would've happily pushed on the flop and been happy about the additional money in the pot (from the other guys' PF calls). . . .

 

[robwhufc]

Anyway, I realize poker is not a team game (even when you're playing a team event), but there's still a sort of code/etiquette/common sense piece saying that you don't bet at a side pot unless you've got a very strong hand, if not the nuts.

Yep, I agree. So big bet on the river on this hand = big hand, right? (hence the folds).

I see this sort of thing a lot, and have even been the lucky all-in who was kept alive by a stupid bet into a dry side-pot.

Side pot = 940. Main pot = 2700. Hardly a "dry" side pot.

Personally I love the play on the river. Everyone thinks it's going to be checked down, everyone wants to eliminate shortstack (why? accumulating chips is more important). Everyone knows that people are only going to bet with a monster hand. So he fires his last 1,000 chips in, and picks up 2,700 unchallenged.

His mistakes were on the first 2 streets, calling 900 chips out of 2100 with a pair of 3's, but on the river, his ONLY chance to win chips was to make a blast at the main pot with an underpair to the board - nice play fella!

 

[premierplayer]

Chances are he calls ur AI with the ace anyways.

 

[BillyTheBull]

Chances are he calls ur AI with the ace anyways.

(why? accumulating chips is more important).

Well, I disagree on that one; you can accumulate chips all you want, but if you allow shortstacks to chip back up enough times, their stacks will come back to take a bite out of yours more times than not. Furthermore, you can't make the money unless players are eliminated, no matter how big your stack . . . obviously, you want to accumulate chips, but don't give shortstacks unnecessary help in staying alive, like in this scenario. That's the way I see it, but I guess not everyone does. . . .

By the way, the only reason the side pot was so big is because of two highly questionable calls (one PF and one on the flop) with those threes.

Oh well, lesson learned: Next time I get in a spot like that I'll just push and if some donkey wants to come along with a pair of threes, I'll take his chips, too (hopefully). . . .

 

[BillyTheBull]

Furthermore, if you are the short stack against two deep stacks, sometimes your opponents will still be duking it out in a side pot after you’ve gotten all-in. If one gets the other to fold, you’ve gained winning chances without risking anything extra. That’s a bonus you’ll get only if you’re a short stack.

Thanks for the article reference, but I don't see the relevance . . . the author is clearly talking about cash game play there; while this might be a viable strategy consideration for cash games where you can buy in short and just rebuy when the cards don't go your way, in tourneys you usually don't have that option. Besides, it would be utterly impossible to be continually short-stacked in a tourney -- by choice or otherwise -- and, unlike in a cash game, you just don't have the option to put yourself into that situation on purpose at any given point in a tourney.

The author here is advocating short-stack play in a cash game situation, which is a train of thought with which I don't fully agree, anyway; I have been experimenting with this lately and the jury's still out, but I'm leaning towards favoring the big stack situation for multiple reasons . . . but that's a whole other thread.

 

[B-TownRounder]

I know your pain all too well. I think online poker has actually hindered my live game. I played a live tourney last night and (even though I finished in 7th) was not "on it" at all. I was letting bad players walk all over me because I am so used to the suck outs on FT I had it in my head it was going to happen here.

The same thing you are complaining about even happened here. Some idiot bet $10K into an all in pot on the river with K-2, neither of which were on the board. So, the guy behind him folded 6s and the guy who was all in took the pot with A high. Some people just have no concept and never will...I think I am going to try yoga to help my BP!

 

[BillyTheBull]

I think I am going to try yoga to help my BP!

LOL . . . maybe I'll join you, brotha. . . .

I'm glad someone agrees with me, but that doesn't seem to stop all the rest of them (had another similar one happen today in a Cake satellite , and I've definitely seem dumb stuff like your example in live tourneys, although maybe not quite as often as online). Be that as it may, I firmly believe that good play and solid tournament strategy will prevail in the long run, no matter how ugly things may get during any particular tournament -- don't give up and stick to your game! (and let me know how the yoga works out, ok?!)

 

[zachvac]

There is NO etiquette rule about checking down once someone is all-in. The reason this happens is it's pointless to bluff into an empty pot. If there are 5k chips between 3 people in the pot, and someone bluffs at the pot, that is very stupid because there are 2 possibilities.

1. They have a hand and they call you, you lose your bluff and don't win the pot

2. They don't have a hand, they fold, you still lose to the all-in, you win nothing.

Now one difference is say the all-in you think would be pushing with ATC. You flop bottom pair (hell or even an under pair like 33). The opponent is likely to fold to your bet because of what's mentioned above even if you're beat and you likely are ahead of the ATC hand (because they miss most flops). Add onto that the fact that there was money to be won there on a bluff and this was a good push IMO. Say Vanquish had Q5, which he would have pushed with as well. All of a sudden even though you had the best hand he wins, he wins the entire pot with an underpair. So I actually think this was a good hand. He won the side pot for free and he was about 50/50 for the entire pot (if you assume he's pushing ATC).

The goal of a tournament isn't to eliminate people, it's to be the one left. If I'm the big stack, I don't want people eliminated, I want to keep taking money from the scared medium stacks. Why should he hurt his tournament chances just to help eliminate something? He should be playing for HIM to finish the best, not for you.

The more I think about it though, the more I absolutely love that push. It's a gutsy move, but most of the time he wins the side pot and 50% of the time he wins the main pot. You had to fold there, you didn't do anything wrong, but I really like his play a lot there.

 

[zachvac]

Well, I disagree on that one; you can accumulate chips all you want, but if you allow shortstacks to chip back up enough times, their stacks will come back to take a bite out of yours more times than not. Furthermore, you can't make the money unless players are eliminated, no matter how big your stack . . . obviously, you want to accumulate chips, but don't give shortstacks unnecessary help in staying alive, like in this scenario. That's the way I see it, but I guess not everyone does. . . .

By the way, the only reason the side pot was so big is because of two highly questionable calls (one PF and one on the flop) with those threes.

Oh well, lesson learned: Next time I get in a spot like that I'll just push and if some donkey wants to come along with a pair of threes, I'll take his chips, too (hopefully). . . .

So you're telling me you would rather have 3k chips with 5 players left than 5k chips with 6 left? Just because they can come back doesn't mean they're any more likely to. Especially considering that most tournaments have steep payout structures, you want to aim for 1st. The only way to finish 1st is to accumulate chips, not to just wait for everyone to bust.

 

[BillyTheBull]

So you're telling me you would rather have 3k chips with 5 players left than 5k chips with 6 left?

If you're ITM with 5 players left and still on the bubble with 6 players, yes, absolutely. Look, I'm not saying I don't want to accumulate chips, but there are smart ways to go about it, and, well, other ways. . . .

The more I think about it though, the more I absolutely love that push. It's a gutsy move, but most of the time he wins the side pot and 50% of the time he wins the main pot. You had to fold there, you didn't do anything wrong, but I really like his play a lot there.

You say you love that push with 33 at the end, but why exactly? And how do you figure those percentages (which don't make any sense to me)? The only good thing you could possibly say for that play is that by making it, he managed to come out slightly ahead (not by much, though) after getting himself in a bad spot by making two bad calls earlier. However, if he makes that same push every time in that situation, I guarantee you he's gonna go broke a heckofalot more times than not; so, is it really a good play? I don't think so. . . .

 

[zachvac]

if he makes that same push every time in that situation, I guarantee you he's gonna go broke a heckofalot more times than not; so, is it really a good play? I don't think so. . . .

I disagree. Basically you're folding anything without an A, and maybe even weak aces. You haven't bet early so it's obvious you don't think you need to protect and are obviously hoping for a cheap showdown. So the vast majority of the time (I'd say 90%+) you're folding. If he pushes you off it he gets the side pot no matter what. Now vanquish in that situation is pushing ATC, and most holdings 33 is 50/50 against (slightly ahead of 50/50 most of the time, but once in a while dominated and once in a while vanquish holds a 2 or 3). I didn't say I liked the play up to that point, but once you are in that situation, that push was definitely +ev. Let's use 90% for the amount of time you're folding, and I think that's being generous to you. You'd have to have an absolute monster to call in that situation. So 10% of the time he loses 1027. In the 90%, 50% of that (45% overall) he wins 2700 and the other 45% he wins 2700+940.

Actually since I read that wrong this play is even better. I had the 2700 and 940 switched so he's putting in a little over 1/3 of the pot to win so you just have to be 75% to call or less. While this bigger pot means you're definitely more than 10% to call, even if you call half the time here, the play on the side pot is +ev plus he gets a coin flip to win the main pot. Vanquish is pushing ATC and 33 is a coin flip to win against most ATC hands. Care to explain to me why you think the push with 33 was not a +ev play?

 

[BillyTheBull]

Care to explain to me why you think the push with 33 was not a +ev play?

I'll try . . . I'm not a huge "EV" guy, but I understand the concept. First of all, if either knapping or I have an A, he's not getting a fold imo; as a matter of fact, the range of hands he can actually beat is extremely small, but I'll admit that his push will likely get any 4 or 9 out of the way, and maybe even a J or a Q, so in that sense it's a good play. However, while your 90% fold estimate might be close against just one player, I think 90% is WAY high considering he's betting into two people . . . I'll give you maybe 50%, at best. Additionally, while vanq might push with xx PF, in that spot I'm putting him on FF, Ax, or Fx 90% of the time, meaning he's probably 80%+ to have an A, Q, or J, so I definitely don't agree with your coinflip estimate for the main pot; rivered is gonna win that with 33 maybe 15% of the time, and that's generous imo (considering also any pair or "accidental" 9 or 4 in vanq's hand).

What it all comes down to is the fact that I apparently played like an idiot, thinking that I'd have to give at least one of them credit for an A (given the PF action), thus folding my KK. I guarantee you I'll never do that again against him, although it was probably the right thing to do for the situation, especially with knapping still to act behind me. (By the way, I'd love to find out with what knapping bet out on the flop, only to fold on the river. . . .)

 

[BillyTheBull]

dont know whats wrong with my comp but cant see cards =)

Look at the re-post by AG; my initial HH somehow got messed up in the converter, and I can't go back in to edit . . . sorry 'bout that.

 

[zachvac]

I'll try . . . I'm not a huge "EV" guy, but I understand the concept. First of all, if either knapping or I have an A, he's not getting a fold imo; as a matter of fact, the range of hands he can actually beat is extremely small, but I'll admit that his push will likely get any 4 or 9 out of the way, and maybe even a J or a Q, so in that sense it's a good play. However, while your 90% fold estimate might be close against just one player, I think 90% is WAY high considering he's betting into two people . . . I'll give you maybe 50%, at best. Additionally, while vanq might push with xx PF, in that spot I'm putting him on FF, Ax, or Fx 90% of the time, meaning he's probably 80%+ to have an A, Q, or J, so I definitely don't agree with your coinflip estimate for the main pot; rivered is gonna win that with 33 maybe 15% of the time, and that's generous imo (considering also any pair or "accidental" 9 or 4 in vanq's hand).

What it all comes down to is the fact that I apparently played like an idiot, thinking that I'd have to give at least one of them credit for an A (given the PF action), thus folding my KK. I guarantee you I'll never do that again against him, although it was probably the right thing to do for the situation, especially with knapping still to act behind me. (By the way, I'd love to find out with what knapping bet out on the flop, only to fold on the river. . . .)

Wow, I read that wrong the first time, didn't see that Knapping was behind as well. I like this play slightly less here. But...

Let's use your number of 50% that he gets a call and assume that every time he gets a call he's beat (don't see what calls that doesn't beat him). So 50% of the time he loses his 1027 and the other 50% he wins 2700. So even if Vanquish flips over his cards and shows his hand, he still made a good push because his average win is (-1027*.5 + 2700*.5 = ) 836.5. Every time he makes that push at the end he's averaging 836.5 EVEN IF VANQUISH HAS HIM BEAT. You have to admit that vanquish doesn't have him beat all the time, and I still say this is a push any 2 cards. He barely has a big blind, and everyone else has a decent chip stack (at least compared with him). But even if vanq is 100% to win here, and we use YOUR 50% number, that push was a good play (because it was +ev, it's gonna be tough for you in poker if you're "not a huge EV guy", since +ev basically means it was a good decision).

 

[BillyTheBull]

Wow, I read that wrong the first time, didn't see that Knapping was behind as well. I like this play slightly less here. But...

But even if vanq is 100% to win here, and we use YOUR 50% number, that push was a good play (because it was +ev, it's gonna be tough for you in poker if you're "not a huge EV guy", since +ev basically means it was a good decision).

Alright, well, I don't think we're all that far off after all, and on some level we'll just have to "agree to disagree", as the old saying goes.

The reason why I'm not too concerned about EV most of the time is that it all depends on your estimates of what someone might have and do or not do at any given time, and particularly when you're trying to estimate several different things, it becomes a time-consuming guessing game that's not really useful in a real-time situation (although certainly great for after-the-fact analysis, theory, etc.). This is also why I don't memorize all the exact PF/post-flop percentages of hands, number of outs, etc. . . . I usually have a general idea, but I don't think there's too much use for getting caught up in the details, as they tend to distract me from many other useful reads I might otherwise pick up. (Of course, as this hand clearly shows, sometimes I play like an ass regardless. . . .)

Maybe you're one of those people that can just crunch mad numbers on a moment's notice and recite all sorts of odds, etc. in the middle of any hand, and if that's the case, great; I don't think, however, that being able to do so is by any means imperative to playing poker profitably (as I am, by the way, albeit just for a rather modest profit right now).

 

[robwhufc]

The only good thing you could possibly say for that play is that by making it, he managed to come out slightly ahead (not by much, though) after getting himself in a bad spot by making two bad calls earlier. However, if he makes that same push every time in that situation, I guarantee you he's gonna go broke a heckofalot more times than not; so, is it really a good play? I don't think so. . . .

(this thread developed into a belter!).

Re above, he did come out a long way ahead. On the river, all cards dealt, he only had 1,262 chips left (as said before, previous calls debatable but those decisions had already been made). 3 opponents in the pot, 5 overcards on board to his pair of 3's, he has precisely zero chance of winning this without getting the 2 players that could fold to fold. He put the rest of the stack in, they duly folded, and he went away with 2,700 chips.

Maybe we will disagree, but i don't see Vanquish being in the pot as particularly relevant - if he wins, then he wins, if he doesn't still a nice profit. If you are making your decision on "how likely is it that Knapping and Rose-Burr will fold to an all-in bet?" then that is one thing, but the opening post and a few that followed were slating him because he made the bet whilst there was a person all in, and his actions meant that that person survived (and he would have been eliminated if he'd checked).

I agree with Zachvac - you cannot consider having 1,200 chips with Vanquish eliminated (in an MTT - how near to the final table was this????), with one opponent now having 5,000+ chips, to be a better situation than having 2,700 chips with Vanquish still on less than 1K.

I'd have ignored Vanquish here, his stack of 235 is simply insignificant to bother about when you have 3 players active with 2,000+ chips. The Ace flop was bad, but you could have had a shot at the pot there.

P.S. why call bet post flop, then fold to bet on river?

P.P.S. curious to Knapping's hand too!