Dry sidepot - Unforgivable?

gerry87

Down to the final 5 in a satellite, top 3 get the same ticket. I'm just after doubling up so not in too bad a shape. Exact details are a tad sketchy.

Blinds 1500/3000
I'm on the button with AA, one player in MP calls, I raise to 6/7k and sb (shortstack) goes all in for i think 10k, MP calls, i go to re-raise and get told i can only call, so i call.

Now i've got a little dilemma, i want to ensure SB gets knocked out, but i also want to get as much value as i can squeeze out of the other guy in the pot, who has the same chips as me. So flop comes QT2 or something similar and 2 hearts. He checks, i check. Turn another heart, he checks, i bet minimum, he folds.

I heard after a player at the table was giving out at my bet into the dry sidepot. But i figured if the other guy was drawing to a hand that could beat aces, then i was giving him the odds to call a 3k bet into a 30k pot. Whether he was chasing a flush or even had bottom pair, he wouldnt fold for a min bet.

So was i wrong? Should i have checked it down or was it ok to try and milk value for the only decent hand i've had in an hour.

PPP-Pit Boss

From what I understand. It is only poor etiquette and possibly poor play to bet into a dry pot unless you are holding a very strong hand and you are only doing so to get rid of the opposition thereby reducing the chances of small stack going out. That kind of table talk is most likely a misunderstanding "I LIKE SAW SOMEONE SAY IT ON TV" there is no reason in the world why if you are holding a monster you should not try to get more money out of your opponent.

Ste05

Bet the flop...

Bp!

Ste05 wrote:

Bet the flop...

big

Ste05

.... but don't bet the turn without a Flush...

HalfBaked

I would definitely bet the flop big here. If you were holding a marginal hand that did not hit the flop then you can check it down.
But in this instance you have a strong hand and there's no point in letting the other player hit a flush, or some runner runner hand with over 30K in the middle.

ZZR1100

i was attacked for doing this in the SO.One guy allin and 2 call including me.
i cant remember the exact cards but i floped 2 pair on a board with 2 hearts .i bet out out and the "lady" folded.I won the hand but she gave out **** after the pot saying you should Never ever bet in these circumstances.some of the table aggreed.this isn't even the final table although it is close to the bubble for the final.I hadn't played in the SO before but i felt and still do that you have to protect your hand if you hit something on the flop.i would on the other hand check it down if my holding wasn't that strong (second pair etc )

ecksor

Bluffing at a dry side-pot is unforgivable IMO (unless you're in the very rare circumstance where you're sure you have the all-in person beaten and the person still active has you beaten and you can get them out, but that's very very very rare). Value betting or protecting your own hand is perfectly justifiable and correct in my opinion. Your goal isn't to knock players out of the tournament, it is to accumulate chips. Besides, did the guy complaining honestly thing you forced out a guy who could beat AA on that board?

Actually, I've just re-read your post ... Since it was a satellite then the logic should change since accumulating chips isn't always your primary goal. I guess the exact answer then depends upon your chip count and therefore whether you gain more by trying to win the pot or by trying to knock players out. I would guess that if you're shortstacked, go after the pot. If you've got a tonne of chips and there's a short-stack or two left, then go for the knockout. Anyone got a view on that?

fuzzbox

ZZR1100 wrote:

i was attacked for doing this in the SO.One guy allin and 2 call including me.
i cant remember the exact cards but i floped 2 pair on a board with 2 hearts .i bet out out and the "lady" folded.I won the hand but she gave out **** after the pot saying you should Never ever bet in these circumstances.some of the table aggreed.this isn't even the final table although it is close to the bubble for the final.I hadn't played in the SO before but i felt and still do that you have to protect your hand if you hit something on the flop.i would on the other hand check it down if my holding wasn't that strong (second pair etc )

You were right to bet - dont listen to anybody who says different. The objective is for YOU to win, not for everybody to share. Why should you allow somebody else (with a draw) to win the pot?

masterK

gerry87 wrote:

I'm on the button with AA, one player in MP calls, I raise to 6/7k and sb (shortstack) goes all in for i think 10k, MP calls, i go to re-raise and get told i can only call, so i call.

Why can he only call here after the sb going all in.

Waylander

If you had Ah I would not have a problem with your bet, if you did not, in this situation I think you should have checked.

MadsL

Why can he only call here after the sb going all in.

Underraise rule.

Under-raise: This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising … going all-in to raise … has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked. The term locked here means that any player who has already acted in the round (checked, called, or raised) may no longer raise. They may only call or fold. However, players who have yet to act (betting has not reached them yet) may raise the expected raise for that betting round, after calling. If the under-raise is half or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply.

Although I wasn't aware of the 'half expected raise' rule...anyone confirm this?

5starpool

I'd say that 'rule' is a peculiarity to the place you looked them up in. Then again if anyone can shed light on whether this is a generally used rule in places outside the universe of Ireland then that would be good too as MadsL is asking.

gerry87

Afterwards i was thinking about fact that it was a satellite and that probably made it a wrong bet for the particular tournament. But in general i felt it was right.

I didn't have the A of hearts. I was betting to get a caller, if he had any tiny part of a hand or a draw he would have to have called with the pot that big.

Crumbs

MadsL wrote:

Although I wasn't aware of the 'half expected raise' rule...anyone confirm this?

The half expected raise rule is for limit poker. It doesn't apply to PL or NL.

Waylander

Yeah but Gerry, if the all in player had a heart you would have trebled him up, and made no gain. If the other caller had a slightly higher heart but too low to call your bet, the all in player would have been out, so you would be in the money, and you would not have any less chips unless you called a bet on the river.

cardshark202

I have no problem with bluffing into a dry sidepot if it will make a huge difference to my stack if I win the pot. And by bluffing I mean semi-bluffing. I also have no problem with someone betting AA on a 3-flush board. You probably have the best hand so no need to check again. You should really bet the flop though. There is certainly no rule about only betting with the nuts into a dry sidepot.

Ollieboy

Checking the flop here was not a good idea, as you dont want to get outdrawn, also if the other player had KQ here, you want to get all his chips into the pot also.

But even on this flop and the 3 hearts on the turn, I would be worried that the other player who's all-in, is going to take the pot, so checking on the turn would have been fine, but not bad play to bet either. The first tasks is to knock out the all-in player and if your ahead of the 2nd player, to get all his chips. If you had knock out both players, you would have been the hero.

I would have had no problem betting the flop here big.

Ste05

Ollieboy wrote:

The first tasks is if your ahead of the 2nd player to get all his chips, the second task is to knock out the all-in player and if you had knock out both players, you would have been the hero.

FYP