Unethical or good strategy?

[kmichaels]

If you had a 170K stack, and only need 4K to call, why not call man? It´s a cheap gamble and you could eliminate him making a nice pot. I really think it was a bad play from you.

 

[Loonbat]

One of the poker books I've read refers to it as "Hand of God". By keeping this artificial bubble in play, you allow yourself to keep stacking chips from the mid-sized stacks. I like it.

It has nothing to do with odds as this is normally an ATC call. It has to do with table dynamics and the fear of your opponents in this spot. In many other scenarios, it is a call. You played it PERFECTLY given this scenario. Who cares if your poo-flinging monkey opponents saw it as "unfair".

 

[rrph3rtbkr]

every thing is fair in love and war so y cant be in poker ,anyways main aim is to win the main prize money .......

 

[dj11]

Not unethical, perhaps unwise, but I like your explanation of the total situation enough that I'll take your side of the issue.

The unwise part IMHO is that the pot odds for you were huge (8+ to 1), and any sane player would be calling based solely on the pot odds. Note that I qualified it as only 'perhaps'. Using other peoples stacks to our own gain is more wise, so 'perhaps' was a good adjective.

I will agree that you action could throw up some red flags, but would not worry about it. Don't do it again if you end up on a FT with that same short stack. That would go way beyond red flags and a ban hammer could easily be falling.

 

[scorpion1367]

Sound situational poker imo ,recognizing how your opponents were playing and taking advantage of it is the key to winning tourneys........scorp

 

[bernotas22]

click buttons do whatever you want it's obvious you didn't do anything wrong other than schooling newbs

 

[MiddlePair]

Smart move OP, smart move.

 

[loomis311]

You did nothing wrong and in fact it was very smart. You were able to exploit a weakness and take full advantage of it. I would have done the same thing.

 

[hackmeplz]

If the goal of your move was to benefit the shortstack, it's unethical and against the rules. If the goal of your move was to benefit you, and in the process it helped the shortstack, it's not collusion in the slightest. It's clear from your description that the latter is what happened. There is nothing even the least bit unethical about taking the action that gives you the highest ev. In fact in a backwards sort of way you calling there could be considered collusion AGAINST the shortstack if you actually think your highest ev play is to fold.

 

[Aces2w1n]

Great strategy... Not only did you keep their weakness.. You may also have possibly put them on tilt with their thinking? ... I would've definetly added to the confusion with a comment or two. Cards/stacks aren't always a weapon of choice but a few comments in the works to add to their mental strain

 

[JaxA]

Totally fine and a good strategy for that particular situation.

The 2 other big stacks were annoyed you didn't do something to help them (assist with knocking out the short stack), but rather kept him alive to help you (continue stealing, leverage their overly tight play).

This.

I can see both sides but you were playing to win, not trying to help the short stack so it's perfectly fine.

 

[SyKoChiller]

Next time turn off the chat and dont answer,You can play however u want to do if you feel like it can help you win or move up - you can even fold an AA vs 7-2 who are they to say anything, just my opinion

Damn right! Although this situation is different, I find it hilarious some of the comments people make playing in a $100 or so free roll. Like their some super analytical poker pro's/genius's doing us all a favor by playing a lousy free roll. If your that damn good why play in free roll for 3 or 4+ hours to win a pathetic $30... right?

 

[topper39]

I like your move and wouldn't consider it as a collusion nohow. You just took adventage of the particular situation. It's more like metagame question.
And I think you can easily vindicate your decision againts any inculpations. Just look at the whole hand from a mathematical point of view. 25(pot)/4(amount to call) = 6,25 = 16%. If you give villain some extremely tight range of TT+ only (which is quite non-sense in this situation, but who they are to command you how to determine ranges) it's not even a mathematically correct call. You get like 12% with T4o vs TT+ range and you need 16%.

 

[Poker Orifice]

Not unethical, perhaps unwise, but I like your explanation of the total situation enough that I'll take your side of the issue.

The unwise part IMHO is that the pot odds for you were huge (8+ to 1), and any sane player would be calling based solely on the pot odds. Note that I qualified it as only 'perhaps'. Using other peoples stacks to our own gain is more wise, so 'perhaps' was a good adjective.

I will agree that you action could throw up some red flags, but would not worry about it. Don't do it again if you end up on a FT with that same short stack. That would go way beyond red flags and a ban hammer could easily be falling.

Something tells me you didn't read all of the responses in this thread.... like the ones who explain the reasoning behind this tactic (as Loonbat explained > keeping the bubble alive). < how could that lead to 'red flags going up'??? Because the player exhibits the ability to take advantage of a situation more than once (showing they were actually thinking instead of fluking?).
I'd assume anyone who's studied sng play would have come across this tactic early on in their path. It's pretty basic/common stuff.

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

short answer:
not unethical

longer answer:
can definitely look unethical; and i don't blame the nits for being suspicious. If the Short stack was your roommate, or your ride home, or you were trading percentages it would be borderline but still technically fine.

people need to get over the idea that it is the duty of the big stack to bust the short stacks. couldn't be farther from the truth.

Well played

 

[oooo]

Not sure, but from what I know...

all you were doing was exploiting the weaknesses that were in front of you, good play in my opnion

Yeah, I agree with deestee by knowing your version of the history... But I kid you not! If you KNOW the shortstack (as a friend or meet him in real life) then I have to go with the collusion version. It is that simple.
As a poker player, I'm trying to "get a read" on your action of posting the history here... Was it just to get opinions or was it a way of trying to get some of that guilt of your shoulders... Hmmmm

 

[nightmoves44]

It comes down to the reason you folded.If you did it for a friend or something,...but if you did it for strategy like you said,it all good.Unfortunately only you and the short stack know for sure.

 

[woodsy44]

You did nothing illegal or even unethical.

Where in the rules does it say you have to play the same against everyone.

In one of David Sklansky's books he even advocates this exact strategy.

Exactly. Every player is different so you play differently against each. Great tactics and mindset- Looking to win the tourney, not just a single pot

 

[SANDYHOOKER KY]

with a hand like that, you would be crazy to call, no use fattening him up more. that hand is about as good as 2-7, and maybe one of the other tight azz players should have gone after him. i have seen pro players do the same thing, so it must be acceptable to the poker world. the hand was almost a sure loser, so pffffft those guys.

 

[duggs]

with a hand like that, you would be crazy to call, no use fattening him up more. that hand is about as good as 2-7, and maybe one of the other tight azz players should have gone after him. i have seen pro players do the same thing, so it must be acceptable to the poker world. the hand was almost a sure loser, so pffffft those guys.

that hand is easily a +EV call,

 

[madethegrade]

LOL why do you care what the others think? You did what was the right choice for you at the time. but seriously call

 

[lost2qandisa]

What if this situation happened in a Live setting and the players involved are Phil Hellmuth type of guys who have a short fuse and very confrontational. To make matters worse, these players are huge/big guys - very intimidating and somewhat irrational. What would you do?

You bring a gun with you? Or hire a bigger guy to be your bouncer?

 

[gazrosenau]

you did nothing wrong i have used this way of playing thousands of times, and as for the other two players whould have done the same in the same situation

 

[jazzaxe]

I merely reasoned that it would be a better situation for me to keep the short stack alive.

I guess you need to explain why this was true. It benefits you to eliminate a player since the minimum payout for all remaining players is increased by his elimination. You have to figure your risk factor is small enough to justify playing any two cards.

As far as collusion goes, just because you were the BB and the chip leader does not absolve the other two players from acting in the hand. You could have all schooled the short stack by calling the raise and checked down the hand in hopes that there would be a winning hand among your three. Many people consider schooling to be collusive since you work together to eliminate a player. The difference is it is done openly. Since the short stack raised the pot and was all in is different from a short stack being blinded out in the small blind or big blind position. I have seen this happen even in the CC freerolls where a blind would be all in without a raise and gets saved by big stacks not betting in late position, so their "buddy doesn't go out first". Another way to piss off the other players is to allow the other two players to call the raise and school and then three bet the other two. This would definitely be non- collusive, but you would have been bitched at for sure.

 

[LeeCallaghan]

No way, you are totally right. steal the blind that is normal thing! Some people who was playing very TIGHT then go ahead! like professional or high dollers raise for nothing. Go ahead full tilt and pokerstars, there a lot stealing this days