dmorris68
Legend
Loyaler
This is a perfect example of the multiple levels of thinking when it comes to poker strategy. The vast majority of players are level 0 or 1 thinkers. Generally when we talk about leveling we're talking about exploiting specific opponents by thinking one or more steps beyond their ability, but I think it also applies to more meta-game scenarios like this where you determine that its beneficial to keep the short stack around for some reason -- a lot of players have blinders on and just think about knocking out players on their way to the finish line.
Another simple example of folding to a short stack even when priced in is when the SS is a dangerous player. Maybe they lost most of their stack to a suckout or cooler situation. Now they're being patient and waiting for decent hand to shove their 3bb, and you're in the big blind with a comfortable stack and 72o or 32o. It's tempting, and often mathematically correct, to call with ATC. Sometimes you'll see 3 or 4 people snap call in this situation trying to gang up and knock out the shorty. But if this strong player wins and triple/quadruples up, suddenly he's a major threat again. I've seen this happen many times. So sometimes it's better to keep them short until you have a serious hand to play back at them with. Don't necessarily jump at the opportunity to double up dangerous opponents even if you have the odds to call.
Another simple example of folding to a short stack even when priced in is when the SS is a dangerous player. Maybe they lost most of their stack to a suckout or cooler situation. Now they're being patient and waiting for decent hand to shove their 3bb, and you're in the big blind with a comfortable stack and 72o or 32o. It's tempting, and often mathematically correct, to call with ATC. Sometimes you'll see 3 or 4 people snap call in this situation trying to gang up and knock out the shorty. But if this strong player wins and triple/quadruples up, suddenly he's a major threat again. I've seen this happen many times. So sometimes it's better to keep them short until you have a serious hand to play back at them with. Don't necessarily jump at the opportunity to double up dangerous opponents even if you have the odds to call.
redcross
Rock Star
Silver Level
I have to agree with one of the other posts. Turn off your chat and none of that will get to you. It may be borderline unethical but it worked so it counts as a good strategy. Turn off the chat and just play poker, don't let all that talk even enter your mind, oh and stay away from live games, at least until you can handle trash talk cause they will light you up!
vinylspiros
PIRANHA-------->< (((º>
Silver Level
I think if you do this more than once ,they will ban you permanently. This is the definition of collusion.
S
sillymunchie
Visionary
Silver Level
did you bother to ask the big stackers why they didnt raise into the short stacker? because they could of put pressure on him, oh thats right they were afraid to get involved, when in a MTT we are looking to take advantage of the opponents that tighten up on the bubble, and thats exactly what you did, you could of burst the bubble right there possibly, but you are under no obligation to do so, by doing what you did the short stacker stayed as a short stacker, the bubble did not burst and you continued to run them down
great play and well played
great play and well played
Poker Orifice
FoolsTilt
Platinum Level
umm, no.
vinylspiros
PIRANHA-------->< (((º>
Silver Level
duggs
Killing me softly
Silver Level
its not, collusion is two players deliberately working together. it might be considered softplay if it wasnt in your best interests, but it is
MediaBLITZ
Legend
Silver Level
Yeah its funny how when you are the chip leader everyone else expects you to be the sheriff of those situations at the risk of your chips, not theirs.
It's a win-win for them at absolutely no risk. So yeah they get self righteous and indignant about it. One time I had AK in the BB and THREE all-ins in front of me (chip leader @ final table). I folded face up and a couple guys went totally ballistic.
I'm definitely calling that - BUT you are totally within your rights to lay it down - and you even have me thinking now -
If you are controlling the table, why on gods green earth would you want to change the table dynamics by knocking someone out? LOL
Seems counter-productive, but...... Hmmmmm, might be on to something there....
You're good - way to control the situation!
It's a win-win for them at absolutely no risk. So yeah they get self righteous and indignant about it. One time I had AK in the BB and THREE all-ins in front of me (chip leader @ final table). I folded face up and a couple guys went totally ballistic.
I'm definitely calling that - BUT you are totally within your rights to lay it down - and you even have me thinking now -
If you are controlling the table, why on gods green earth would you want to change the table dynamics by knocking someone out? LOL
Seems counter-productive, but...... Hmmmmm, might be on to something there....
You're good - way to control the situation!
IntenseHeat
Legend
Bronze Level
Collusion is defined as an agreement between two or more parties to blah blah blah, and so on...
Since there is no agreement or understanding between you and the other player, I don't see this as collusion. Nor do I see it as unethical. While unorthodox, it obviously proved to be a good strategy. A lot of people wouldn't be able to comprehend that notion, as they would only be interested in eliminating the next player and moving up the ladder.
While slightly different, I don't find this concept all that dissimilar from the final table thinking I often employ. For example, the other day, when in fourth place, with five players left, I was constantly rooting against the chip leader, not wanting him to extend his lead beyond my reach. After eliminating the fourth place finisher and taking the chip lead, I was happy to see the other two remaining players mix it up, always rooting for the shorter stack. Of course the elimination of either player would guarantee me at least a second place finish. But I preferred for them to pass chips back and forth, while I continued to extend my chip lead. I was happy to have both of them in the game until I was able to amass an insurmountable chip lead or had the opportunity to knock one of them out myself, giving me extreme chip lead and, obviously, a big advantage goint into heads up play.
Since there is no agreement or understanding between you and the other player, I don't see this as collusion. Nor do I see it as unethical. While unorthodox, it obviously proved to be a good strategy. A lot of people wouldn't be able to comprehend that notion, as they would only be interested in eliminating the next player and moving up the ladder.
While slightly different, I don't find this concept all that dissimilar from the final table thinking I often employ. For example, the other day, when in fourth place, with five players left, I was constantly rooting against the chip leader, not wanting him to extend his lead beyond my reach. After eliminating the fourth place finisher and taking the chip lead, I was happy to see the other two remaining players mix it up, always rooting for the shorter stack. Of course the elimination of either player would guarantee me at least a second place finish. But I preferred for them to pass chips back and forth, while I continued to extend my chip lead. I was happy to have both of them in the game until I was able to amass an insurmountable chip lead or had the opportunity to knock one of them out myself, giving me extreme chip lead and, obviously, a big advantage goint into heads up play.
Last edited:
PLAYINBIG
Legend
Silver Level
I would have called the short stack.But, if that was your game strategy (& it takes a strategy/plan to win a tournament) to help you gain more chips then... so be it.But ,it would have made me wonder if the 2 players doing that knew each other.
IGotADonk
Rising Star
Silver Level
I had a similar thing happen to me once. Me and two others were about evenly stacked, but I think I was a little ahead. I was bb with 83s, short stack was utg was all in with a 2x raise. Fold to me, and then I fold, table explodes with "waa waa, you should have called with anything, waa waa."
Seriously, sure the short stack's shoving with about anything... but most things are better than 83s, and I'd imagine he looked at the cards and said "probably better than what I'll get when I have to put in bb next round." So I'm thinking, he's got this chance and the bb to do anything, so 50/50 chance this is better... probably has a card in the top 50%... at least a hand that's better than 83s.
People get pissy when you don't do what they want you to do. Sorta like those guys who get all upset when you double down on 13 (don't do that, for your own sake). It's not collusion, it's not unethical, it's you making the decision that is in your best interest. The fact that you're doing something that is not in the table's interest is evident enough of not colluding. These are the same people who get pissed when you bet the turn after the short stack is all-in pre-flop. "Waaaa, you're gonna make one of us fold and give him better odds, waaaaa." Yeah, so? That situation is a great way to make money off of big stacks when you have a strong hand. Checking it down is collusion.
People are sore losers, and surprisingly sore winners.
Seriously, sure the short stack's shoving with about anything... but most things are better than 83s, and I'd imagine he looked at the cards and said "probably better than what I'll get when I have to put in bb next round." So I'm thinking, he's got this chance and the bb to do anything, so 50/50 chance this is better... probably has a card in the top 50%... at least a hand that's better than 83s.
People get pissy when you don't do what they want you to do. Sorta like those guys who get all upset when you double down on 13 (don't do that, for your own sake). It's not collusion, it's not unethical, it's you making the decision that is in your best interest. The fact that you're doing something that is not in the table's interest is evident enough of not colluding. These are the same people who get pissed when you bet the turn after the short stack is all-in pre-flop. "Waaaa, you're gonna make one of us fold and give him better odds, waaaaa." Yeah, so? That situation is a great way to make money off of big stacks when you have a strong hand. Checking it down is collusion.
People are sore losers, and surprisingly sore winners.
S
Skidis
Rock Star
Silver Level
I think this was a good strategy of you. You cant say that you need to play equal to all of the players, for an example you play diffrently against tight players than you play at aggressive players. Poker is about to win and in this example were your only thought to play for your victory, not to help anyone else. 
And if he goes all in shortstacked and he is thight, he could have like AK, AQ or something like that. An extra bonus is that the other players at the tables started to tilt
And if he goes all in shortstacked and he is thight, he could have like AK, AQ or something like that. An extra bonus is that the other players at the tables started to tilt 
J
jgenest3798
Enthusiast
Silver Level
I have done the exact same thing in a similar situation - and I have seen it happen where the player calls the SS allin, doubles them up, and they go on a heater and end up even with the big stacks. IF you know them or give the impression of knowing them in the chat box, THEN I can see the "appearance" of impropriety, but this is a sound strategy that should not be ignored because a player(s) think it is a bad play. Congrats on the win!
