Schooling online

[poguemahone68 0]

I never school my opponents when playing online. I may direct them to a book or a forum, but never help them in their play. Except for one thing that completely annoys me in tournies, especially near the money and absolutely on the bubble.The DRY POT BLUFF! It just makes my blood boil. :evil: But hey, I'm an understanding person, I know that when someone does it, they have no idea why it's a bad idea and I also like the fact that now I really see their level of understanding of the game, but this play can affect me in a negative way and I always feel the need to say something.So tonight I was in a sit n go on Pstars and we're down to 5 players. I'm in the BB (big stack at the table) and UTG goes all-in for twice the BB and UTG+1 calls, fold, fold and I call. Flop comes, nothing for me yet, I check and UTG+1 checks, turn no help, I check and he checks, river is a 9 and I have a 97, but check and UTG+1 goes all-in with 1,900. It's a 3rd of my stack and I just don't want to risk it, so I fold. Original all-in guy has 66 and dumba$$ has AQ for high card ace.I mentioned that it wasn't a very smart move and that UTG would have been out had UTG+1 just checked rather than bluffing. Then this guy starts telling me to keep my opinions to myself and that he plays to win and I should just STFU. Then another player tells him it was a great play and tells me that it got me out of the pot, so it was the right move.I tried to explain the strategy behind it and they start telling me that poker isn't a team sport and then the name calling crap started.Anyway, they both finished 5th and 4th and I ended up playing the guy who should have been gone heads up. I won, so it really shouldn't bother me, but it does.Is it right to school people on this or should I just STFU?

[custom36 4]

I am in complete agreement with you. I can't believe people do something like that. If you have him beat, fine, bet. But if you might not have him beat, check it down!! But, you've gotta realize that not everyone is a good, knowledgable player and they don't understand that concept. Congrats on your win though!

[poguemahone68 0]

I am in complete agreement with you.  I can't believe people do something like that.  If you have him beat, fine, bet.  But if you might not have him beat, check it down!!  But, you've gotta realize that not everyone is a good, knowledgable player and they don't understand that concept.  Congrats on your win though!

Thanks for the comments, but I'd really like to get opinions on whether you think it's a good idea to school people on this or just keep quiet.

[allinbluff35 0]

don't educate the clowns, don't tap the aquarium, just laugh at their misfortune for not knowing how to play and keep buying the old lady diamonds do to these people

[custom36 4]

don't educate the clowns, don't tap the aquarium, just laugh at their misfortune for not knowing how to play and keep buying the old lady diamonds do to these people

Exactly. Take advantage of their mistakes. Let em hang themselves.

[Dagg 0]

This shit just happened to me on the Stars $11 limit rebuy final table.Chip leader cost me a few hundred dollars because of his idiocy.

[kilgoretrout 0]

I would advise against schooling the fish in this case. This situation is not likely to occur again in this tournament, so you will gain little to nothing if the fish listens to you. It also creates a bad table image, which you don't want.I also have some disagreement with your points on the dry pot bluff. while a pure bluff on the river is quite bad in this type of situation, a semi bluff on the flop in these situations can be a powerfull tool for a good player.for example, in the hand from your post a good play for utg+1 would be to put in a bet of 1/3 - 1/2 the pot on the flop with his AQthis bet does 3 things that are all good for him1. it will make you fold alot of hands that have outs in case his AQ is still best you may even fold a better hand like bottom pair.2. it protects his hand against back door draws in case he hits an A or Q3. against alot of players it stops you from betting him off his hand if you have something like a small or medium pairthis type of semi bluff is really a strong play since the all in player forces the 3rd man in the pot to respect the bet, since only a crazy person would bluff when someone is all in and there is no side pot (by this point in the tournament you will know i am a good player if you were watching)

[poguemahone68 0]

I would advise against schooling the fish in this case. This situation is not likely to occur again in this tournament, so you will gain little to nothing if the fish listens to you. It also creates a bad table image, which you don't want.I also have some disagreement with your points on the dry pot bluff. while a pure bluff on the river is quite bad in this type of situation, a semi bluff on the flop in these situations can be a powerfull tool for a good player.for example, in the hand from your post a good play for utg+1 would be to put in a bet of 1/3 - 1/2 the pot on the flop with his AQthis bet does 3 things that are all good for him1. it will make you fold alot of hands that have outs in case his AQ is still best you may even fold a better hand like bottom pair.2. it protects his hand against back door draws in case he hits an A or Q3. against alot of players it stops you from betting him off his hand if you have something like a small or medium pairthis type of semi bluff is really a strong play since the all in player forces the 3rd man in the pot to respect the bet, since only a crazy person would bluff when someone is all in and there is no side pot (by this point in the tournament you will know i am a good player if you were watching)

What exactly is your disagreement with my points on the dry pot bluff? It was a bluff on the river and not a semi bluff on the flop. A raise by him to get me out preflop or build a side pot would have been a better play IMO. So you're basically arguing a point I never made.Anyway, I've seen this play many times and it has hurt me on some of those occasions. It has also helped me as well, so I think I'll just keep quiet from now on.

[justblaze 0]

I would advise against schooling the fish in this case. This situation is not likely to occur again in this tournament, so you will gain little to nothing if the fish listens to you. It also creates a bad table image, which you don't want.I also have some disagreement with your points on the dry pot bluff. while a pure bluff on the river is quite bad in this type of situation, a semi bluff on the flop in these situations can be a powerfull tool for a good player.for example, in the hand from your post a good play for utg+1 would be to put in a bet of 1/3 - 1/2 the pot on the flop with his AQthis bet does 3 things that are all good for him1. it will make you fold alot of hands that have outs in case his AQ is still best you may even fold a better hand like bottom pair.2. it protects his hand against back door draws in case he hits an A or Q3. against alot of players it stops you from betting him off his hand if you have something like a small or medium pairthis type of semi bluff is really a strong play since the all in player forces the 3rd man in the pot to respect the bet, since only a crazy person would bluff when someone is all in and there is no side pot (by this point in the tournament you will know i am a good player if you were watching)

anyone stupid enough to bluff at the dry side wont realize how dumb it is by a simple explanation in a chat box. type something cryptic like "you have a peice of his action?" and move on kilgore, you usually make sense but on this one you're way off. firstly, the bluff was a pure bluff and it was on the river. but even on the flop, why would you want to semi bluff? 1. if you bluff him out and he folds bottom pair, you've still won nothing as you have to showdown with the all in player for every chip in the pot. 2. If he calls you you're down to 6 outs at best. YOU are the one on a draw, and a slim one at that.3. why would you care? you have NOTHING.

[mx957 0]

This is one of the ONLY times I say anything to educate the fish. I tell them how now I will be working harder to remove them from their chips. It's not a good move and I don't know how anyone could argue that it is. With an all in player you MUST showdown, so if the hand didn't hit you hopefully it hit someone other than the all-in. The name of the game in tourneys is Elimination....and they just did something to 1) hurt ME and 2) hurt themselves. I'll just be working that much harder to elimate them sooner now than later.I won't educate that fish on much else....

[Smasharoo 0]

I tried to explain the strategy behind it and they start telling me that poker isn't a team sport and then the name calling crap started. They're right and you're wrong. What you're advocating is non implicit collusion between two players against another.Disgusting.

[justblaze 0]

I tried to explain the strategy behind it and they start telling me that poker isn't a team sport and then the name calling crap started. They're right and you're wrong. What you're advocating is non implicit collusion between two players against another.Disgusting.

actually its non complicit. it IS implicit. its also correct strategy in terms of maximizing individual equity, and is therefore ethically sound.

[Smasharoo 0]

actually its non complicit. it IS implicit. its also correct strategy in terms of maximizing individual equity, and is therefore ethically sound.Being the correct strategy doesn't make cheating ethically sound, ever.IT might be the correct strategy to break Shaq's leg, giving you the best chance to win a basketball game.It's not, however, ethically sound.Rationalizing cheating beacuse you want to do it and have it be ethically sound or because "everyone does it" is a pathetic cop out.

[Dirtydutch 8]

Aren’t you schooling us right now by telling us not to school people?Just a thought… A sarcastic, argumentative thought… But a thought nonetheless.Dutch.

[justblaze 0]

actually its non complicit. it IS implicit. its also correct strategy in terms of maximizing individual equity, and is therefore ethically sound.Being the correct strategy doesn't make cheating ethically sound, ever.IT might be the correct strategy to break Shaq's leg, giving you the best chance to win a basketball game.It's not, however, ethically sound.Rationalizing cheating beacuse you want to do it and have it be ethically sound or because "everyone does it" is a pathetic cop out.

except that poker requires a different ethical mindset than basketball. the nature of poker is deception and trickery. these things are explicitly allowed. What becomes ethical is when two players explicitly agree to do something at their mutual benefit to the disadvantage of the rest of the table, i.e. collusion. However, would you consider a strong player, who recognizes that another player is strong, folding KQs on the button because strong player A came in for a raise? This is implicit collusion by your definition, just as checking down the hand in the OP example would be.

[Rocketwadster 0]

actually its non complicit. it IS implicit. its also correct strategy in terms of maximizing individual equity, and is therefore ethically sound.Being the correct strategy doesn't make cheating ethically sound, ever.IT might be the correct strategy to break Shaq's leg, giving you the best chance to win a basketball game.It's not, however, ethically sound.Rationalizing cheating beacuse you want to do it and have it be ethically sound or because "everyone does it" is a pathetic cop out.

I think it would only be construed as cheating if you told the guy during the hand that it would be in both of our (your) best interests to check the hand down. I asked the question in another post from the other side of the coin, when the two callers against my all-in were not betting, if it would be okay for me to coax them into betting against each other, hoping that one would fold so it would be heads up. In my scenario, I had pocket 3's, another guy had ace king, the BB who called my all-in raise had queen 4 offsuit. Of course I lost to the queen four offsuit when a four hit. Had the ace king bet, the queen 4 would have folded, and I would have still been in the tournament, instead of yet another fourth (this was a home game where we agreed to pay top 3). I was basically told to STFU in that instance.In this instance, you being one of the not-all-in guys, I understand your frustrations completely when the guy bet out. You brought it upon yourself though for playing the hand in the first place with a marginal hand in the BB. Just my opinion though.

[poguemahone68 0]

I tried to explain the strategy behind it and they start telling me that poker isn't a team sport and then the name calling crap started. They're right and you're wrong. What you're advocating is non implicit collusion between two players against another.Disgusting.

I am glad to have disgusted you smash. If I were to tell the player to check it down during the hand, that would be cheating/collusion. Can you direct me to an article or a book that describes checking down to take a player out of a tourney as collusion or cheating?Perhaps you think this because you have little understanding of tournament play?

[poguemahone68 0]

actually its non complicit. it IS implicit. its also correct strategy in terms of maximizing individual equity, and is therefore ethically sound.Being the correct strategy doesn't make cheating ethically sound, ever.IT might be the correct strategy to break Shaq's leg, giving you the best chance to win a basketball game.It's not, however, ethically sound.Rationalizing cheating beacuse you want to do it and have it be ethically sound or because "everyone does it" is a pathetic cop out.

I think it would only be construed as cheating if you told the guy during the hand that it would be in both of our (your) best interests to check the hand down. I asked the question in another post from the other side of the coin, when the two callers against my all-in were not betting, if it would be okay for me to coax them into betting against each other, hoping that one would fold so it would be heads up. In my scenario, I had pocket 3's, another guy had ace king, the BB who called my all-in raise had queen 4 offsuit. Of course I lost to the queen four offsuit when a four hit. Had the ace king bet, the queen 4 would have folded, and I would have still been in the tournament, instead of yet another fourth (this was a home game where we agreed to pay top 3). I was basically told to STFU in that instance.In this instance, you being one of the not-all-in guys, I understand your frustrations completely when the guy bet out. You brought it upon yourself though for playing the hand in the first place with a marginal hand in the BB. Just my opinion though.

Figured someone would bring that up. It was only one more big blind to me and I was the chip leader, so it didn't cost me very much at all to try and take out someone next to the bubble. 5.5 to 1 on my money, I'll call there with ANY cards.

[mx957 0]

I tried to explain the strategy behind it and they start telling me that poker isn't a team sport and then the name calling crap started.  They're right and you're wrong.  What you're advocating is non implicit collusion between two players against another.Disgusting.

This is not collusion. That's like saying that everyone is picking on the short stack and that's not allowed. When IN FACT Most people do try and steal blinds from the short stack. It's a simple fact, if you are the short stack you are in everyone's sites....you are in danger of elimination and all players are doing their best to make that happen. But collusion, not really.

[Speedy Petey 0]

Cheating smasharoo???????? Are you crazy? So I guess when Flack and Brenes checked down last night and busted Matusow's sixes with a pair of sevens and moving up atleast $250k in the money was cheating then. You just can't agree with anybody, can you, even if you are wrong?

[poguemahone68 0]

actually its non complicit. it IS implicit. its also correct strategy in terms of maximizing individual equity, and is therefore ethically sound.Being the correct strategy doesn't make cheating ethically sound, ever.IT might be the correct strategy to break Shaq's leg, giving you the best chance to win a basketball game.It's not, however, ethically sound.Rationalizing cheating beacuse you want to do it and have it be ethically sound or because "everyone does it" is a pathetic cop out.

Your analogy is what's pathetic.

[tammers994 0]

Never discuss strategy in front of a fish. fish = bread and butter. If you let them know there is a strategy, he might go out and improve his game, thus taking food out of your mouth. Just say nice play, make your mental note and then use his weakness to your advantage when the time is right.

[Guest XXEddie]

however said he shouldnt of called with 97, youre wrong9 7 -26.2%A Q -41.1%6 6 -32.8%hes 3-1 to win and got 5.5/1 to call, it was a mathematically correct call

[Guest XXEddie]

Cheating smasharoo???????? Are you crazy? So I guess when Flack and Brenes checked down last night and busted Matusow's sixes with a pair of sevens and moving up atleast $250k in the money was cheating then. You just can't agree with anybody, can you, even if you are wrong?

meet smash

[Smasharoo 0]

Wow you people are really slow when picking up on people ****ing with you, huh?