wsop 3 players left

[mzdadoc 0]

When Tex went all in with A rag I believe Dannahan (sp) had pocket 7's and I know Haschem (sp) had pocket J's. They both called Tex's all in and then checked it down until Haschem won the hand knocking out Tex....Why check it down? They mentioned it almost sounded like courtesy to check it down and knock out a player but playing short handed why wouldn't Dannahan bet into Haschem and try and take him off his Jacks and that way be heads up against Tex.Sitting in the money like that I think I would have bet out real agrressive especially when the Q came on the turn. You're already a millionaire why not got for more????Am I wrong? Or was their play totally correct?????mzdadoc

[Golden 2]

I would absolutely check it down. The goal was to get to heads up - not who to be heads up with, IMO.

[copernicus 0]

Any stack can be dangerous, it only needs to hit a couple of all ins and it becomes a threat. Unless you have the nuts it is far better to lock up the next prize level and you maximize those chances by playing 2 against 1.Its not a matter of courtesy, its simple math. Take the prize structure and the probabilities of winning 2 against 1 vs getting heads up vs the small stack, and the probabilities of prizes from the resulting stacks when you win or lose, and it should become very clear how valuable it is to knock out the short stack.

[ajs1281 0]

Think of it like this,What if Tex has A10 and Dannenman pushes Hatchem out and lets Tex hit his ten.Then Tex is back alive, You take that extra million in prize money every time over being cute.

[exdubliner 0]

You want knockouts. Much better chance of barch being KO'ed if he's in against 2 players rather than 1. If Dannenman bet here and Hachem folded, and Barch has a hand that catches and beats Dannenman but would've lost to Hachem, Dannenman has just cost himself a virtually guaranteed 2 million dollars more in prize money. The smart play, the only play, is to check it down unless he hits a set with his 7s.

[Tateisgo 0]

You're already a millionaire why not got for more????

He IS going for more by checking it down. He makes no extra money or chips by pushing Hachem out of the hand. But if either him or Hachem take out Tex, he's guaranting himself a few extra millions.A dry-side bet with a weak hand is one of the worst moves in NLHE. Second to the dry-side bluff.

[cheetaking 0]

This is a cooperation play, which offers the greatest odds of knocking out a player who is all-in.Why bet? There was no side pot, and both players had marginal hands. If they bet, they don't win any more money themselves, and they have given the short stack a better chance of surviving the all-in and becoming a threat again.There is nothing that bothers me more when someone makes a bluff at a non-existant side pot after an all-in from the short stack. There have been several times where if the other guy in the pot had checked it down, I would have hit a straight on the river and knocked out the short stack, but instead he bet me out of the pot with nothing, and lost the main pot to the short stack. If we had checked it down, however, the short stack would have been out.

[mzdadoc 0]

My bad I was looking at it from a "Get the most chips point of view"I didn't even look at the prize pool and placement point of view.... DUH!I would rather have a bigger prize then more chips.....Thanks to all,mzdadoc

[gobears 0]

Interesting post from Paul Phillips - doesn't sound like he is a fan of the cooperation play. http://extempore.livejournal.com/123604.htmlOn barch's elimination hand danenman open-raised with 77 and hachem bravely flat called with JJ, leading barch to jam with A6. I might have posted about this before but after danenman flat called the all-in I think hachem made a huge mistake by not jamming and getting heads-up. It would have been so sweet if danenman had bet hachem out of the pot when the queen hit the turn and promoted his pair over barch's ace-high. Oh how I hope if I'm ever playing for $7.5M that everyone thinks we have an agreement not to bet without monsters in elimination situations.

[gobears 0]

And in the Paul Phillips thread - Matt Matros posted this link to some posts that he made - he doesn't like the cooperation play in this particular situation either.http://tinyurl.com/dmqdf

[BDPoolie 0]

When Tex went all in with A rag I believe Dannahan (sp) had pocket 7's and I know Haschem (sp) had pocket J's. They both called Tex's all in and then checked it down until Haschem won the hand knocking out Tex....Why check it down? They mentioned it almost sounded like courtesy to check it down and knock out a player but playing short handed why wouldn't Dannahan bet into Haschem and try and take him off his Jacks and that way be heads up against Tex.Sitting in the money like that I think I would have bet out real agrressive especially when the Q came on the turn. You're already a millionaire why not got for more????Am I wrong? Or was their play totally correct?????mzdadoc

Yes, you are definitely wrong. Check it down until you are sure you have a lock.

[copernicus 0]

And in the Paul Phillips thread - Matt Matros posted this link to some posts that he made - he doesn't like the cooperation play in this particular situation either.http://tinyurl.com/dmqdf

A horribly incomplete analysis. It concludes (I havent checked the math) that there is a 70,000 TC chip difference betweeh JH checking it down and moving in (in favor of moving in). Assuming thats correct it doesnt reflect the fact that with the size of the stacks and blinds, 70,000 is almost meaningless compared to the big jump in prize equity you get by eliminating Barch.I'll replay it later and do the math, but I cant believe its even close....as in more than $100,000 of prize equity in favor of checking it down.