what would you do?

[The Dude 0]

Playing a s'n'g with four players left. I was CL with 4000, two others had 2200 and the final guy had 1800 (all approx. it's not that important).One of the players with 2200 had been disoconnected for a couple of hands so I proceeded to raise whenever it was his BB. The player with 1800 was to the disconnects right and was getting mighty pissed at me stealing. Finally he made a stand against me and reraised me with Ax which I called with my 7-9 and outdrew him. When I knocked him out he starting berating me for not letting him get in to the money instead of the disconnected player.The question is should I have let him take the blinds instead of me? I feel that it was an easy way for me to cement my place as CL and not really my concern who got in to the money. The other player said he agreed with the player I knocked out. In my opinion if he wanted to make the money it's up to him to make a play back at me, not for me to hand it to him on a plate. Was I being an ass or was it the correct move?

[Swift_Psycho 1]

Don't listen to the moron. Having a player disconnected should have helped him move up in the money, not hurt him. He has one less player to worry about and dead money in the pot every time that the guy is in a blind. What happens if you let him take the blinds and you end up going out third because you were nice?You were fine to do what you did. Moving the guy up into the money is not your job, it's that person's. Just disregard that guy, you were not being an ass. Letting him take the blinds to move into the money is theoretically collusion anyway. The disconnected player sitting out is the same thing as a player just folding every hand hoping to make the money. If you can't beat a player who folds every hand, you should just shut up. So don't feel any guilt. I'd feel more guilty for knocking the guy out who was disconnected, because that guy didn't even have any control over his fate at all.Edit: Just to clarify my last statement, I didn't mean that you should start folding when the disconnected guy was in a blind. I just meant that between feeling guilty about the one guy who complained about not making the money and the guy who was disconnected, I'd be more inclined to feel sorry for guy number two if he finished out of the money.

[allinbluff35 0]

Playing a s'n'g with four players left. I was CL with 4000, two others had 2200 and the final guy had 1800 (all approx. it's not that important).One of the players with 2200 had been disoconnected for a couple of hands so I proceeded to raise whenever it was his BB. The player with 1800 was to the disconnects right and was getting mighty censored at me stealing. Finally he made a stand against me and reraised me with Ax which I called with my 7-9 and outdrew him. When I knocked him out he starting berating me for not letting him get in to the money instead of the disconnected player.The question is should I have let him take the blinds instead of me? I feel that it was an easy way for me to cement my place as CL and not really my concern who got in to the money. The other player said he agreed with the player I knocked out. In my opinion if he wanted to make the money it's up to him to make a play back at me, not for me to hand it to him on a plate. Was I being an ass or was it the correct move?

you play poker to take peoples money, tell the clown to grow a set and quit crying.

[bampote 0]

I have to agree... your goal is to win, not to give a better chance to your opponents. There's no reason you should be punished or have your chances at winning diminished because someone got disconnected.

[The Dude 0]

you play poker to take peoples money, tell the clown to grow a set and quit crying.

That was pretty much what I did. It was a $200 game and I think he was playing beyond his BR. He was way to passive and after an easy ride to the money. Pretty much scared money and may explain the whining.

[The Dude 0]

Don't listen to the moron.  Having a player disconnected should have helped him move up in the money, not hurt him.  He has one less player to worry about and dead money in the pot every time that the guy is in a blind.  What happens if you let him take the blinds and you end up going out third because you were nice?You were fine to do what you did.  Moving the guy up into the money is not your job, it's that person's.  Just disregard that guy, you were not being an ass.  Letting him take the blinds to move into the money is theoretically collusion anyway.  The disconnected player sitting out is the same thing as a player just folding every hand hoping to make the money.  If you can't beat a player who folds every hand, you should just shut up.  So don't feel any guilt.  I'd feel more guilty for knocking the guy out who was disconnected, because that guy didn't even have any control over his fate at all.Edit: Just to clarify my last statement, I didn't mean that you should start folding when the disconnected guy was in a blind.  I just meant that between feeling guilty about the one guy who complained about not making the money and the guy who was disconnected, I'd be more inclined to feel sorry for guy number two if he finished out of the money.

No need for the edit I understood what you meant. The collusion statement is one I never thought about and is one I do agree with, TBH I was just after some clarification that other people would have done the same as me.