railing the FT at the Foundation Semi

[trishan]

Give that reporter a job IMO.

+1 to this, his time playing poker is obviously wasted!

LOL

[Nevah play JJ]

Thanks for not mentiong even sucking out on me to even still be IN the tourney Caroline, with my sick read!

Dave, I have way way way too much respect to even mention that!!
Here I was, keeping quiet, saying nothing and you inform the world... LOL

And I hope you're not serious about that dry side pot garble you wrote
Dry side pot does not mean you can't bet and does not mean it's wrong to bet.
I'll leave that to Scott to justify though...

I was being very sarcastic, to be honest I believe that he played very well.
HOWEVER!!
This does not say I believe in dry side pot betting.
I do not see it as the smartest form of play, unless you have the absolute nuts! There was a flush on the board, Scott lead out with a $35,000, bet to push everyone off the pot.

I have been told it is better to have 3 players against 1 in tournament play! Not in cash games, that is different.

HOWEVER!!!
In this instance I truly believe that Scott played the hand perfectly and was MORE than happy to have lost to him in this instance!

My post was made with tongue in cheek and meant purely in humour, (did you really see me throw a chair across the room?? lol).

[bennymacca]

are people going to fold flushes if scott bets?

if the answer is no, then scott has every right to bet.

betting into a dry side pot is bad when the other person most likely has a better hand than you.

[Nevah play JJ]

I am NOT criticising the way he played, so quit being defensive about it.
I AM stating I do not believe in betting into dry pots, much to my own detriment most times.

It is what I was taught to do when I started playing, it is a thing I have stuck to...

I am not sure if this is getting through or not!! I TRULY BELIEVE SCOTT PLAYED THE HAND TO PERFECTION!!!!! Quit ignoring that particular comment!

But I still live by my personal belief.

[bennymacca]

noone is having a go caroline.

i am just curious as to why you think betting into a dry side pot is a big no-no.

there is a reason why this is sometimes a "breach of etiquette" and i am not convinced you understand why.

[JMACK007]

I think Scott should have checked it down. He didn't gain anymore chips by betting, and if someone DID have the flush, he loses more chips by betting. As it is all he is trying to achieve is getting flush draws to fold, and the all-in player was holding the nut flush draw anyway!

But what do I know, I ran like my Granny all weekend!! lol.

[trishan]

But what do I know, I ran like my Granny all weekend!! lol.

Is you Granny Doyle Brunson?

[Nevah play JJ]

noone is having a go caroline.
I am just curious as to why you think betting into a dry side pot is a big no-no.
There is a reason why this is sometimes a "breach of etiquette" and i am not convinced you understand why.

Phew..
That is ok then... I honestly felt like you guys were angry because you felt I was having a go at Scott, when in fact I was not.

No... I don't always understand why things are a breach of etiquette and as you know I always love to learn... so maybe you can tell me?

I actually had three trains of thought in regards to that particular part of play and I might even be wrong about my thinking.

1 - I believe checking it down unless you do have the absolute nuts, (Which Scott did get on the turn) because all being said and done, eliminating players is the name of the game.

2 - The other name of the game is to get as many chips as possible. By putting out the huge bet he put out, he pushed everyone off the pot, wouldn't it be best to have milked the other players in this instance?
Perhaps put out just over minimum bet, get maybe one or two callers, in that case there is another $20k in your stack.

3 - Say someone did have the flush... at the stage we were at, wouldn't it be wiser to put out the smaller bet just to check the waters? If someone did have the flush, there is a HUGE chunk of your stack gone, when they either called or re-raised. He was still beaten on the flop by any flush, he did not have the best possible hand until turn.
What would have happened if they had re-raised, was Scott prepared to put his tournament life on the line if they did just on trip threes against a possible flush?

Just some thoughts/questions.

[Garth Kay]

That is ok then... I honestly felt like you guys were angry because you felt I was having a go at Scott, when in fact I was not.

No... I don't always understand why things are a breach of etiquette and as you know I always love to learn... so maybe you can tell me?

I actually had three trains of thought in regards to that particular part of play and I might even be wrong about my thinking.

1 - I believe checking it down unless you do have the absolute nuts, (Which Scott did get on the turn) because all being said and done, eliminating players is the name of the game.

2 - The other name of the game is to get as many chips as possible. By putting out the huge bet he put out, he pushed everyone off the pot, wouldn't it be best to have milked the other players in this instance?
Perhaps put out just over minimum bet, get maybe one or two callers, in that case there is another $20k in your stack.

3 - Say someone did have the flush... at the stage we were at, wouldn't it be wiser to put out the smaller bet just to check the waters? If someone did have the flush, there is a HUGE chunk of your stack gone, when they either called or re-raised. He was still beaten on the flop by any flush, he did not have the best possible hand until turn.
What would have happened if they had re-raised, was Scott prepared to put his tournament life on the line if they did just on trip threes against a possible flush?

Just some thoughts/questions.[/color]

Hi Caroline,

I am sure Scott is happy with this discussion on his play but I will answer some of your questions.

1.) In most cases checking down a dry side pot is the norm, especially in bubble and in the cash situations UNLESS you are absolutely certain that your hand is well ahead of the all in and you wish to protect the current equity in the hand or wish to extract more value from your live opponents.

In the case of flopping a set, I am pretty sure that I would be firing here to shut it down and go heads up with you as you are either drawing for nine outs or two (flush draw or higher pocket pair) and that's on the basis the nine outs doesn't improve my hand to a full house.

2.) On a scary board of this nature you need to shut it down when you are winning. The chances of the turn creating a full house for Scott is only around 25%. The chance of someone hitting a four card flush on the turn is 38%. I don't want anyone with a shite flush draw coming along for the ride, such as anyone with a J or lower. So I bet big here to close it down as well.

3.) At this stage of the tournament if anyone does have the flush and I get trapped I still have outs. A small bet on that board doesn't inspire anything but more callers, anyone with a flush would call, a raise might indicate a baby flush and they are scared of another spade coming as well.

So I hope that helps.

[bennymacca]

a set is a hand that is very unlikely to be beaten;

if the all in player has a flush already, then i doubt any of the other players in the hand would be folding a better flush.

so this makes it very unlikely that, by betting, the all in player stays in because a better hand was folded

betting top pair in this instance would be a very different scenario

edit: what garth said as well