This is a discussion on Re Raising after a player is already all in. within the online poker forums, in the Tournament Poker section; What makes a player re raise when there is a short stacked player that is already all in.When they are 3 people in the hand
What makes a player re raise when there is a short stacked player that is already all in.When they are 3 people in the hand & when they do not have the nuts?I have folded before thinking the player that re raised has the nuts.When actually all the player done was pushed the better hand out with a lower pair of cards & doubled up the short stack.I see this constantly in online poker with good players & bad.What is the purpose ,because I do not know?
It is a strategy play, and also depends a bit on the type of game you're playing (tourny, cash). If it's a tournament and they're looking to knock out the short stack, typically they've got pretty close to 'the nuts' and are just looking for isolation. What they're trying to do is get you, and anyone else, out of the hand that might have outs and potentially could hit a better hand. For example, on a 8 high flop, they might be holding pocket 8s, short stack pushes, the trip 8s guy reraises, and you're holding a flush draw. It's potentially gotten too expensive for you to continue, and puts you in a hard situation to play your draws and hit a better hand.
I have also seen people 3 bet, but with a draw. Ultimately not hitting their hand, the short stack lived on. They got some pretty nasty chatter from others because the 3 bet got better hands to fold, and the short stack would have been out.
That's the general gist of it all, but obviously how you play is ultimately up to you GL
re: Poker & Re Raising after a player is already all in.
Originally Posted by PLAYINBIG
What makes a player re raise when there is a short stacked player that is already all in.
What is the purpose ,because I do not know?
As someone else has said, this is a recognized strategy. It is known as isolating the opponent. That is you try to ensure that the only other player left in the hand is the short stack (in the example you give although it doesn't have to be the short stack).
If you have a hand that you think will beat the shover but you are not sure that it would beat others, re-shoving can make the others fold leaving just you and the opponent you want. Doesn't always work though so it's a risky strategy.
I dont think so its completely stupid to reshove. I dont do it very often, but when I do its because I have playable hand and think I am better than shortstack.
I hate situations when short shoved, I call and other player also calls.. then I have something like middle pair or top pair weak kicker and second player plays it aggresively on flop, turn,.. sometimes with even A high ( I have no idea why?? )... So its like prevention from this situations
In my mind there is a difference between trying to isolate a player before their all-in is called by additional players and trying to run players out of the pot once a player has gone all-in and all players have called. For example, if a there were to be a rasie and an all-in 3-bet in front of me, and I felt that I held the best hand, I might re-shove to discourage the original raiser or any additional players from calling, thus isolating the all-in individual. Even if someone were to shove on the flop, with no one having gone all-in prior, I would probably re-shove to isolate them if I felt that I had the best hand.
Once an all-in has been called by multiple players, many players believe that there is an implied understanding that by checking the hand down, they increase the chances of eliminating the all-in player. This is often referred to as tournament strategy. While some players employ this thinkig from the beginning of a tournament, others only start to utilize this strategy as the bubble approaches or once the money has been reached.
Where some players feel that it is unnecessary to risk additional chips by betting into a dry side pot, almost all agree that you should never bluff at a dry side pot. Then there are some players that feel it's okay to do whatever it takes to try to take down each and every pot. The flaw in this thinking, in my opinion, is that it often works in favor of the all-in player. Frequently the player holding the best hand ends up folding it, and the all-in player ends up winning and having their tournament life spared. Of course sometimes, the player who reshoves their stack does end up having the best hand. But when the other player folds, they don't win a single chip more than they would have had they not risked the remainder of their stack. Then there is the possibility of shoving into a player that might have flopped an absolute monster hand, but be willing to check it down based on the principal that if you're a "check it down" player, then you always check it down the same way, whether there is a slight possibility that you have the best hand or no doubt that you have the absolute immortal nutz. In the last secenario, you would end up losing your entire stack re-shoving into a dry side pot when you could have seen the rest of the hand play out without risking any more chips than you already had by calling the first all-in.
I've had hands where I've called an all-in with A-Q and a second player called with A-8. I flopped Qs and checked down to the river where an A fell, giving the second caller top pair. Of course this gave me top two pair. I've played A-K and had the same card that the other guy a straight draw on the turn give me the nut straight. When a K hit on the river, they shoved their K high straight right into my broadway straight. Surprise! I've been holding the best hand. All you had to was check it down.
But I've also had people re-shove on me when they river two small pair on me. When I lose, my anger isn't because I lost the hand. It's because I could have bet it when I flopped the best hand, but instead decided that the priority was making sure the all-in player was eliminated, rather than starting a pissing war over a dry side pot. To be honest, I've started to get away from checking it down when a player is all-in lately, because of plays like this. I simply don't trust the other guy to continue to check it down if they should hit a better hand than me somewhere along the way. I've had people tell me, that I was supposed to check it down. I know. I would if I could have faith in other players to do the same.
I think that you are referencing post flop play - and not preflop. I also think that the stage of the tournament is a critical piece of information. In the early and middle stages of a tournament, I am focused on building chip stack and not concerned with knocking someone out of the tournament so my play will be different than close to the bubble.
When you play against several opponents hand protection is very important. Each of the opponents has outs to gain. In addition, any call or raise your beta improves the odds for the other opponents, so rates should be higher. I would have done as well.
re: Poker & Re Raising after a player is already all in.
Isolation as others have mentioned, but also I do it from time to time for protection against big stacks behind me who would mind chipping in the amount to take a crack at a 4x pot, but wouldn't go all in behind me if I have a substantial amount over the shortstack all in
If player who put all-in (Stack 30k chips. Blinds 2,5k;5k), next player (stack 150k) calls, and third re-raises to 150k (stack 400k). That's totally right. If second player has a average pair on hand (10 or under), 80% he folds, and if third have something like AQ, that's make biggest chance to win.
don't confuse pre-flop isolation with betting into a dry side pot.
they are VERY different plays.
preflop isolation is usually a good strategy, betting a dry side pot is usually a bad strategy unless you have trips or better.
if a short stack ships and you suspect a small to medium pocket pair and you have AQ and you want to call, then if you are heads up to the flop you will be roughly 48% to win, or basically a coin flip....when you consider the blinds and antes clearly a +EV play.
But, if you add in just 1 more player, even a blind unknown hand, your chance of winning plummets to about 38%, and of course there is the chance that somebody can put YOU to the test by shipping you all in and now you have to wonder if they have AK or KK etc.
I think shipping over the top when you have a strong hand is often the best play.
It's simply isolation. By reshoving all-in, you get higher fold equity and other players behind you left to act is in decision for majority of their chips. Sometimes, it's done to pick up dead money.
I recall in casino where I originally raised to $6 at $1/$2 cash game, 4 people called, someone went all-in for $25, action was back to me. I reraised all-in to isolate callers and tell them f--- off from the pot. Now for those players, they can only win the pot through beating two of us for the main pot, me for the side pot but they would have to risk as much as what I have or all of their chips if they have less than me.
Purpose of reraising all-in is to isolate and reduce number of players who like to take their hands to showdown. During pre-flop, this is commonly done. But on the flop, when there's a main pot, then it's a complete different story and bluffing into an empty side pot is the worst thing to do.
Sometimes re-raising when knowing the guy all in is beat with your hand can easily push a big stack off your tail. by calling let's say...with suited connectors. You would rather him fold and that is the reasoning for some to come over the top.
Late in a game if just two called the short stacked all in (so 3 in the hand) I would expect there's a good chance of getting to the river without significant raises unless your opponent has a great hand. If 3 or 4 call the short stack all in then I'd expect to have to invest heavily at the flop to progress. This is why I'd only bother calling the short stacked all in if I was in position and knew what the level of competition was or had a high pair, AK or AQ/J suited etc.
That makes perfect sense! If they shove all in you think they have the other player beat for sure, you will fold protecting their hand and giving them a shot to take down the pot. It probably frustrates you too, that maybe worth it all together.
Would need to see more information but there are several reasons for this. One could be there is a side pot that the player has a chance to win, secondly to isolate the player to make it easier to win.
I also depends on the type of game, if this is a large tournament I am not generally interested in checking the player down to get him out, I am concerned with winning more chips. If this is a SNG then maybe everyone is more likely to check it down to reduce the field. I will often bet with nothing here to reduce the field therefore increasing the chance I will win.
Say for the sake of argument player 1 has 1000 and shoved, there is player 2 with 10000 left and player 3 with 6000 of which player 2 is to act first. If player 2 reshoves, they are representing the nuts on any board, and so player 3 will not be wanting to risk all his chips with anything except for the nuts unless its some kind of monster draw. Therefore say the pot is AK7, and player 2 has A2 or KQ, he can reshove and player 3 will only call with a set or 2 pair and so gets him off better hands