i hate this

[Guest XXEddie]

or it could go like this you have 88 player A has 10 10 player b (allin) has KQ Flop comes A 2 5, you bet, player A folds. You win the pot because you bet.again, easy to find a beneficial way when you know everyone's hand

[HoosierAlum 0]

I can think of a time it'd be beneficial..Blinds 400/800 with an ante of 100I have 15k in chips.I make it 3k from the button with AK, SB goes all in for 4k, BB smooth calls. All I can do is a call since the all in was not a full raise. 12k in the pot +1k for antes =13k. So after my preflop bet with AK, I have 12k, after the flop, you better believe I'm gonna take a shot at winning that 13k by trying to knock you out of the side pot, since picking up the main pot would give me 25k.

OF COURSE. There are spots where it is useful. But people get stubborn and think...well Ive heard its a bad play...so it must be bad.

[HoosierAlum 0]

or it could go like this you have 88 player A has 10 10 player b (allin) has KQ Flop comes A 2 5, you bet, player A folds. You win the pot because you bet.again, easy to find a beneficial way when you know everyone's hand

Im not saying I know anyones hand. I was basing my analysis exactly the way you based your analysis. Also, the example you gave with the A5 on a KQx board is a horrible example. This is an example of when betting the dry side pot would be a BAD idea. I am trying to show when it would be correct.There are many more times where betting the dry side pot would be bad, but there are times when it can help you gain significant chips.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

OF COURSE. There are spots where it is useful. But people get stubborn and think...well Ive heard its a bad play...so it must be bad.

I was agreeing with you..I think? Heh.If you've got a high enough M, I don't know that there's a lot of benefit, but, certainly, there's times when it's appropriate.

[krup24 0]

This strategy is very useful and can work out if timed properly

[HoosierAlum 0]

OF COURSE. There are spots where it is useful. But people get stubborn and think...well Ive heard its a bad play...so it must be bad.

I was agreeing with you..I think? Heh.If you've got a high enough M, I don't know that there's a lot of benefit, but, certainly, there's times when it's appropriate.

Yes we are agreeing. We might as well be quiet because some people can't think for themselves or look at every possible option, and in turn it hurts their results.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

OF COURSE. There are spots where it is useful. But people get stubborn and think...well Ive heard its a bad play...so it must be bad.

I was agreeing with you..I think? Heh.If you've got a high enough M, I don't know that there's a lot of benefit, but, certainly, there's times when it's appropriate.

Yes we are agreeing. We might as well be quiet because some people can't think for themselves or look at every possible option, and in turn it hurts their results.

That reminds me of something a guy I play with said one time. He's a big craps player and loves black jack, but, he'll come up stairs to blow some money when he's bored. He makes some terrible calls and what not--he's just gambling, and he knows it. One time, someone said, "Read a fuckin' book and you'll know that's a bad play." And he said.."Listen pal, I read you like a book, didn't I? And on top of that, every one of you guys has read that Skalapsky(his pronunciation) and you read Brunson's book and everyone of you plays the same damn way. All I've got to do is come in here and throw some chips around and get you guys all worked up and tell me how bad I am, and I make money."He's bad. He's real bad, in fact. But, there's some truth to it. "Playing by the book" all the time only get you so far. Just sayin', it's JMO.

[SweetDaddyFreak 0]

Termed the "dry side pot bluff"Alot of people rip on this play, but it can be very useful and successful when used at the right time.

when can it be useful unless there is a side pot or you KNOW u got the guy beat

chips in the middle more important to you then the all-in guy being eliminated

[confidoboyd 0]

There is no move in poker that "should never" be done, that is just a ridiculous statement.There have been some good points above about the benefit of dry side pot bluffing, and now I will give my own example from a few days ago.On the bubble of a MTT and i'm the chip leader at my table when we're playing 5 handed hand by hand. I've got a significant chip lead and have been stealing blinds and ante's 2/3 hands which is has been ridiculously beneficial to the point that i've got the next guy on my table covered 3 to 1. In one of my steal attempts I raise 4x the BB with Q6, get one caller, then the BB goes all in for pretty much 1 more bet, both I and the player behind me call. Flop comes down 5 9 10, I immediately bet enough to put the third player all-in and he quickly claims to fold AJ. All-in guy shows A 10, wins the pot, though a J spikes on the river. Folder proceeds to berate me for the fact that I let the short stack double up. Now, while he continues to bitch about this for the next 10 minutes, I steal another 10-15 bets in blinds/ante's before we break to the final table. When I'm the chipleader at the table with over 80 bets in my stack, do you really think I care that I let someone double up to 10 bets? By bluffing the side pot I kept the other 4 players at the table vulnerable and playing their 'hang on for the money' game which I can benefit from. It is a strategy that I've used many times profitably in both STTs and MTTs and if you don't agree then you just might be one of those 'hang on' players.CB

[bcook823 0]

Final table of this years WSOP, and Danneman calls an all in bet with 77. Hachem makes call with JJ. So Barch is all in with A6. The turn brings a queen and if Danneman bets Hachem very well might fold his JJ. Had he bet Hachem out of that pot, it would be a fantastic play in my opinion. Agreements to check down, without monsters, are foolish. Unspoken agreements or otherwise.

[KingAustin 0]

Final table of this years WSOP, and Danneman calls an all in bet with 77. Hachem makes call with JJ. Ace hits the board, they check it down. Hachem won a huge pot, if Danneman makes a play there, he knocks out the all in and wins a huge pot.

My guess is he WANTED hachem still in there so another chance to take out another player. I dont believe Danneman was playing for first, just more $$$.

[HoosierAlum 0]

Final table of this years WSOP, and Danneman calls an all in bet with 77. Hachem makes call with JJ. So Barch is all in with A6. The turn brings a queen and if Danneman bets Hachem very well might fold his JJ. Had he bet Hachem out of that pot, it would be a fantastic play in my opinion. Agreements to check down, without monsters, are foolish. Unspoken agreements or otherwise.

Yes it would have been a great play. Paul Phillips actually addresses this hand in his blog.

[Guest andibear]

There is no move in poker that "should never" be done, that is just a ridiculous statement.There have been some good points above about the benefit of dry side pot bluffing, and now I will give my own example from a few days ago.On the bubble of a MTT and i'm the chip leader at my table when we're playing 5 handed hand by hand. I've got a significant chip lead and have been stealing blinds and ante's 2/3 hands which is has been ridiculously beneficial to the point that i've got the next guy on my table covered 3 to 1. In one of my steal attempts I raise 4x the BB with Q6, get one caller, then the BB goes all in for pretty much 1 more bet, both I and the player behind me call. Flop comes down 5 9 10, I immediately bet enough to put the third player all-in and he quickly claims to fold AJ. All-in guy shows A 10, wins the pot, though a J spikes on the river. Folder proceeds to berate me for the fact that I let the short stack double up. Now, while he continues to censored about this for the next 10 minutes, I steal another 10-15 bets in blinds/ante's before we break to the final table. When I'm the chipleader at the table with over 80 bets in my stack, do you really think I care that I let someone double up to 10 bets? By bluffing the side pot I kept the other 4 players at the table vulnerable and playing their 'hang on for the money' game which I can benefit from. It is a strategy that I've used many times profitably in both STTs and MTTs and if you don't agree then you just might be one of those 'hang on' players.CB

i woulda went off on you as well but i do se eyour point....i still dont agree with it but thanks for that example

[bcook823 0]

I realize that Danneman was trying to move up in money so he didn't want Hachem to go away. However, if that were not his motive, he wins a monster pot and the chip lead.

[Wingmaster05 0]

I think Dannenman was just following the old standby that he thought was correct (don't bluff into a dry side pot). Which is why i like this play in big money situations (for tournaments). This play will almost always work against anyone with knowledge of basic poker theory. Most players can fold top pair in this situation, because (they assume) this guy must be betting a monster, there is NO reason to bluff.Doing this earlier in the tournament doesn't usually work as players are scrambling for chips anyway and will call you down.

[Wingmaster05 0]

Didn't Dannenman himself say the money would affect him the least? I don't believe he was just playing to get second place money.