Betting when short stack is all in

[CDNMAN 42]

I guess this is old school, the idea that when a short stack is all in any callers just check it down (unless they have the absolute nuts) the idea being that the more players alive against the all inner the better the chance to remove him. That is what tournaments are about, reducing the number of players against you. Lately, very often, I'll see two or more players call the short stack's all in and then after the flop or turn one of the callers will bet, the others will fold and yes the short stack wins and remains alive. Why in the world would one caller bet to chase others out ? to what advantage

 

[bermejoga]

If you make one opponent to fold, it's one less player to have a chance to beat your hand, i guess...

 

[mclay]

Sometimes it's advantageous for the table chip leaders to keep the short stack in the game. This way the rest of the table will play tighter while waiting for the short stack to bust.

 

[TeUnit]

It depends on the stack depths, say the hero has 100BB, villan1 has 6BB, and villan2 is allin with 1BB - the hero can can min bet or shove and put villan1 in a bad spot. Villan1 is no threat to the hero, and the hero has a chance to pick up free chips with very little risk. However, if both the hero and the villan1 had 5BB it would probably make a lot more sense to check it down and try to make the money. Implicit collusion should depend on the stack depths and skill advantage.

 

[zipocool]

here a lot depends on whether they give a bounty for this player

 

[Poker_Mike]

Why in the world would one caller bet to chase others out ? to what advantage

That player betting is not thinking through the situation and what their goal actually is. How can they get more chips in the pot?

Ideally they are trying to build a sidepot that they will bluff again on the river and steal?

But if a player bets and the opponent folds then there are no build-a-pot chips.

I think that is their logic but it rarely works out that way.

When I see this occurring then I know that player is low quality.

 

[fundiver199]

You are 100% right, that bluffing into a dry side pot makes little sense. So when a player is already all-in, and there is not side pot or only a very insignificant side pot, I will only bet for value. Of course a value bet will also have a protection element to it. So if for instance I bet a pair of 88, the opponent fold and the short stack then end up winning with a pair of QQ, then so be it. Why people bluff in this spot? Maybe because they are just bad, or they fail to notice, that someone is already all-in.

 

[jeez45]

If your hand has equity its okay to bet after, you never know what your opponents have, removing one player increase your chance to win triple pot 1v1, not 1v2.

 

[dreamer13]

The situation is a button and a position in poker, which allows you to evaluate the bets of all participants in the distribution and only after that decide to go all-in. Playing with a short stack is unpleasant anyway, but sometimes it can be in your hand and cards that you would never have not deliberately shoved can double your stack.Olinn in a poker full of trash is the most popular movie technique to show the decisiveness and fearlessness of the protagonist. It looks spectacular, because inexperienced players often repeat it, naturally lose and leave the poker table. In real life, you must have a compelling reason to "squeeze" your opponents out of the pot, risking your entire stack.