All-in by Short stack

[CDNMAN 42]

I have noticed recently in MTTs that when a player who is short stacked jams, and more than one player calls, then after the flop one player will place a large bet..my thought to this is why??? I believe that the goal in an MTT is to reduce the number of players..if so, then by raising a short stack all in you reduce the number of players that could knock out the short stack and most times when a player large bets in this situ the other live player will fold. so the large bet gained nothing other than providing some protection to the short stack. whereas having more than one player against the short stack increases the odds he will be eliminated. Also I have recently seen this scenario carried out in the League and the player who did the large raise after the flop was bluffing and lost...to what end does he raise? There was a time (old school) when it was normal in this situ to simply check it down unless one player has the absolute nuts then betting is ok. Just my opinion

 

[bablovod]

I have noticed recently in MTTs that when a player who is short stacked jams, and more than one player calls, then after the flop one player will place a large bet..my thought to this is why??? I believe that the goal in an MTT is to reduce the number of players..if so, then by raising a short stack all in you reduce the number of players that could knock out the short stack and most times when a player large bets in this situ the other live player will fold. so the large bet gained nothing other than providing some protection to the short stack. whereas having more than one player against the short stack increases the odds he will be eliminated. Also I have recently seen this scenario carried out in the League and the player who did the large raise after the flop was bluffing and lost...to what end does he raise? There was a time (old school) when it was normal in this situ to simply check it down unless one player has the absolute nuts then betting is ok. Just my opinion

perhaps the bluffer was in position and reacted to the check of the other players to eliminate obstacles, or maybe he was a pioneer, but there are always players who are ready to fight to the end, even with an empty ace. we all know that)

 

[sibkaz]

A game of perspective! ) The crystal ball suggested...)

 

[Tero]

I believe that the goal in an MTT is to reduce the number of players..if so, then by raising a short stack all in you reduce the number of players that could knock out the short stack and most times when a player large bets in this situ the other live player will fold. so the large bet gained nothing other than providing some protection to the short stack. whereas having more than one player against the short stack increases the odds he will be eliminated.

Oh, I see the confusion here... You are mistakenly thinking wolfs hunting in a pack instead of seeing the monkeys throwing s**t at each other at the poker table. I've seen this phenomenon too. People play MTTs like they are KOs.

True, thinning the herd is at least the desired outcome if not the goal, but monkeys as we are we do not work collectively during a game. And not sure if we even should

But on a more serious note, the player raising on flop simply wants to improve his chances to win the (presumably nice?) pot.
He's better off against one player instead of 3-5 players in the hand.


Of course, if there is a significant pay jump after one elimination then everyone should use their brains - but again, monkeys...

 

[EiXT]

True, thinning the herd is at least the desired outcome if not the goal, but monkeys as we are we do not work collectively during a game. And not sure if we even should

Monkey see flop -> monkey go bananas -> happy 1BB steal


(all-in players win the rest and remain in the tournament)

 

[Poker Orifice]

I have noticed recently in MTTs that when a player who is short stacked jams, and more than one player calls, then after the flop one player will place a large bet..my thought to this is why??? I believe that the goal in an MTT is to reduce the number of players..if so, then by raising a short stack all in you reduce the number of players that could knock out the short stack and most times when a player large bets in this situ the other live player will fold. so the large bet gained nothing other than providing some protection to the short stack. whereas having more than one player against the short stack increases the odds he will be eliminated. Also I have recently seen this scenario carried out in the League and the player who did the large raise after the flop was bluffing and lost...to what end does he raise? There was a time (old school) when it was normal in this situ to simply check it down unless one player has the absolute nuts then betting is ok. Just my opinion

The goal is to acquire chips &/or to 'ladder up' the prize money payouts. Whether a player gets KO'd (is eliminated) it doesn't provide us with any benefit (additional equity) unless we are a short stack and we're hoping to ladder up the prize payouts. In actual fact, this player increased their chances of taking down the pot as they will now be HeadsUp vs. the allin shortstack, along with some deadmoney in the pot from the other players who've now folded.

 

[CDNMAN 42]

The goal is to acquire chips &/or to 'ladder up' the prize money payouts. Whether a player gets KO'd (is eliminated) it doesn't provide us with any benefit (additional equity) unless we are a short stack and we're hoping to ladder up the prize payouts. In actual fact, this player increased their chances of taking down the pot as they will now be HeadsUp vs. the allin shortstack, along with some deadmoney in the pot from the other players who've now folded.

Sorry but I disagree with your analysis on the goal, and knocking out a player certainly does give one an advantage...you can never get ITM in a tournament unless players are knocked out...DUH...and like I said previously on numerous occasions I have seen players raise the all in only to knock players out and lose so what did they possibly gain with the raise over the jammer??

 

[Poker Orifice]

Sorry but I disagree with your analysis on the goal, and knocking out a player certainly does give one an advantage...you can never get ITM in a tournament unless players are knocked out...DUH...and like I said previously on numerous occasions I have seen players raise the all in only to knock players out and lose so what did they possibly gain with the raise over the jammer??

All I can say is, try looking at my post again. Honestly I've tried to take some time to help you here.

When a player "raise the all in" they are typically isolating the short stack's all-in, along with picking up any dead money in the middle, putting other stacks in a difficult spot. Often done for ICM reasons. It's dependent on game situation.

 

[maronza1]

perhaps the bluffer was in position and reacted to the check of the other players to eliminate obstacles, or maybe he was a pioneer, but there are always players who are ready to fight to the end, even with an empty ace. we all know that)

Just like you, i remember you calling with a pair of aces my bluff for a flush on the river, of which i made a pot sized bet.

I have noticed recently in MTTs that when a player who is short stacked jams, and more than one player calls, then after the flop one player will place a large bet..my thought to this is why??? I believe that the goal in an MTT is to reduce the number of players..if so, then by raising a short stack all in you reduce the number of players that could knock out the short stack and most times when a player large bets in this situ the other live player will fold. so the large bet gained nothing other than providing some protection to the short stack. whereas having more than one player against the short stack increases the odds he will be eliminated. Also I have recently seen this scenario carried out in the League and the player who did the large raise after the flop was bluffing and lost...to what end does he raise? There was a time (old school) when it was normal in this situ to simply check it down unless one player has the absolute nuts then betting is ok. Just my opinion

For a league game is pointless since the aim of you and other callers is to eliminate a shorter stack, but in cases of a normal individual game, you would be reducing the numbers of players who have called in, thus increasing your chances of winning the whole pot

 

[olejean]

Correct opinion. I don't understand players that don't have any combination and bluff against all-in short stack.

 

[dimon4ik89]

In general, as far as I know, it is correct to do exactly as you wrote. I have never read about it anywhere, but we always played like this (live MTT or SNG, there is no difference in this), if one player was all-in, then the rest of the players usually checked until showdown, in order to knock out the one who went all-in before the flop (no matter how many players were in the hand, two, three or more, for example). And it was in those cases when one of the players had nuts, he allowed himself to make a bet, because he understood that nothing threatened him and in any case he would knock out the one who was all-in. I think that people who understand what poker is and how to play it, still play according to this strategy, as you wrote "old school")) I also went through this school in my time). If a person does as you wrote, he simply does not understand the essence of the game of poker, I think so.
It is true that there is also a situation when the players who participate in the hand understand that the one who went all-in has the nuts, and in order to win back at least some of the chips that they paid before the flop, they create a side pot specifically for this purpose.

 

[maronza1]

I have noticed recently in MTTs that when a player who is short stacked jams, and more than one player calls, then after the flop one player will place a large bet..my thought to this is why??? I believe that the goal in an MTT is to reduce the number of players..if so, then by raising a short stack all in you reduce the number of players that could knock out the short stack and most times when a player large bets in this situ the other live player will fold. so the large bet gained nothing other than providing some protection to the short stack. whereas having more than one player against the short stack increases the odds he will be eliminated. Also I have recently seen this scenario carried out in the League and the player who did the large raise after the flop was bluffing and lost...to what end does he raise? There was a time (old school) when it was normal in this situ to simply check it down unless one player has the absolute nuts then betting is ok. Just my opinion

Have a look at this

Log In · Get into our Poker Games - Replay Poker

What are you waiting for? Log in to Replay Poker now and get into your favorite poker games and tournaments.

www.casino.org

@mimietmour
@LuTsu