I agree this has to be one of the most annoying things that happens in ONLINE poker. It always drives me crazy when it happens especially bubble time in a SNG or tourney or (just as in your case) getting near the bubble in a multiple payout sat.

All we need is for Mike Sexton or VVP to talk about it and it MIGHT slow down.

Good luck.

cmitch

not defending or advocating, but the games goes on with a sidepot

yes, but that close to hitting the satellite wins is not the time to be trying to accumulate chips from a side pot, why not check it down and have 2 hands going against the allin guy, instead of just one hand. Thats the point he is trying to make, it would have gotten them closer to the prize.

Mickelson82

hey at least it didnt cost me my seat...6 seats were given out and i came in 8th when one of the monkeys at the table was trying to be creatvie with his k6 off vs my ak....good to see im still running well...

If I am in that side pot and think I have the guy all in beat, but not the other guy in the sidepot, why would I not bluff at it if I thought I could take it down?

Thats not a smart statement. If a guy goes all in odds are he has either an ace or a pocket pair. Being that there is an ace and a king on the board it was a bad play. At this point being close to the bubble your main objective is getting people out. If you feel you dont have the other guy beat chances are they arent folding thier aces. Think about it.

Nicky Price

Pocketboat, you are still not getting it....if you don't bluff at the pot and let the other hand stay in and knock ouot the all-in player, THERE IS NO NEED TO ACCUMULATE CHIPS BECAUSE THAT PLAYER IS GONE. God, I hope I'm at your table sometime soon...
-Jonny

Help me where I'm wrong on this.....

Scenario A: I check it down and lose main pot
Scenario B: I bet out side pot guy, beat all in guy, and win main pot

Why is Scenario B not preferable?

I'm not wrong on this one....here's the scene

Player A (All In): TT
Player B (Side Pot): JJ
Player C (Side Pot): QQ

If Player B bets large into "dry side pot" on flop of say 993, and player C folds and I can win the main pot from Player A....why is that not preferable to checking it down and losing to Player C????

I get it.....you are not reading my post thorougly apparently.....if I think I can beat all-in player, but not the other guy in the "side pot" with me

Hope I'm at your table, too!

pocketboat...lemme see if i can explain it by using my example...we were almost down to the final table and it was a satellite where the top 6 players all got the same prize, a seat into another tournament.

a short stack player went all in for 1k, blinds 150-300 and another player called on the button, i called 700 more out of the big blind with 33 to try and have 2 hands eliminate this player and to maybe get lucky and win a big pot...the flop was A K x, and i checked...the other player then went all in...here's why his play is awful...with 2 overcards on board he is only going to get called by me with a hand that is better then a pair of jacks...there is no money in the side pot and the main pot is around 3000 chips...if the player who is all in has even kq or something that still beats his JJ, and by him betting everything he has it tells me that my 33 is way behind and that he has a huge hand like 2 pair or a set, which is still a questionable bet in my opinion...if he were to check his JJ then we would be able to have 2 hands as opposed to 1 that could catch something that could eliminate the all in player, so the proper play here is to check...betting is pointless in this situation...it just so happened that the player who was all in had an A which won the main pot, and i would have hit a 3 and eliminated the player had the JJ person checked the flop and turn like he should have...there was nothing in the side pot and he ended up losing 1k in the pot and gained nothing by his all in bet...hope this explains it if not explain what you are misunderstanding....f beanie

JSUP, I understand it in this situation you describe, my comments were only in general about betting into a "dry sidepot"....

But, in this situation, here's a different perspective

You know as well as I do that a small stack can go in with any # of hands....and if I am in the JJ seat and think you aren't strong and won't call my bet and that the small stack moved in with less than the hands you mention (Ax, Kx, etc...)...he made a smart play to knock you off and not let you improve and take his chance against the small stack (who could have moved in with something like 44) heads up. If the small stack that moved all in was the very last seat before the satellite entries were awarded, I 100% agree with you to check it down....if there are still cards to be played even if he gets knocked out, why not sure up my spot even further?

I'll check it out...thanks.

My real "retaliation" if you call it that was against a comment from Nicky Price about in every tournament the point is to keep weeding out players and get to the $ by improving chances to knock out other players (keeping 2 in to go against the all-in player). I subscribe more to a philosopy of improving my chip count vs. worrying about how many players are "still in". I understand it in the very last cutoff seat for a satellite entry, but other than that, it's still my goal to improve my stack.

I'll check out the other section-

<TABLE cellPadding=2 border=0 celspacing="0"><TBODY><TR><TD>Where am I not getting it champ?

Player A (All In): TT
Player B (Side Pot): JJ
Player C (Side Pot): QQ

If Player B bets large into "dry side pot" on flop of say 993, and player C folds and I can win the main pot from Player A....why is that not preferable to checking it down and losing to Player C???? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

PocketBoat no one folds to a bluff in that situation.