*takes a deep, calming breath*
These articles (what's the source of this one, BTW?) and threads always ignore the most important parts of the argument. They're talking about a metagame concept (ie: thinking about consequences of actions outside of this one hand) but then ignoring all of the other metagame implications.
It's not just
"eliminating a player vs the chips in the pot". It's very much situational and there are all sorts of reasons you might want to bet to push the other live player out of the hand. They include:
- It's the bubble, you've got a big stack and you're making a killing stealing blinds and raising scared players off their hands. It's actually in your interests to keep the short stack in
the game and prolong the bubble as long as possible.
- You know betting a dry side pot will put various players at your table on mega-tilt and you think you can exploit that to your advantage*
- Related to the above, you can see a benefit to giving yourself a reckless image.
I feel like I've typed the above post sooooo many times now over the past year or so. I don't even play that many donkaments. Anywho, point is I think the above are all perfectly justifiable reasons for betting in this situation, even the dreaded bluffing
a dry side pot. You're just not seeing the whole picture if you stick to the dusty old convention all the time every time.
* or you think it'll be worth it for the lulz