Cooperation Play

[slapdash]

In Harrington on Holdem II, he talks briefly about what he calls "cooperation play", whereby in the latter stages of tournaments, two or more players cooperate to eliminate a short stack. In the example he gives, there are 6 players left, the blinds are $3000/$6000, and you're big blind with 9-7 offsuit and a healthy stack. Second to act, a short stack goes all-in for $30,000, and one other player (not short-stacked) calls. Everybody else folds to you. With the antes, there is now $72,000 in the pot, and you need to put in another $24,000 to call. He recommends calling, and checking down to the river, to maximize the chance of eliminating the short stack. Now, I'm not saying this is wrong, but I'm not entirely convinced by the reasoning, and I was wondering if anybody could convince me? Here are my thoughts about the situation: The short stack could have a wide range of hands (especially if he's read Harrington), but on average his hand will be better than yours, because a random hand is. But the caller probably has a decent hand. I agree that calling and checking down to the river maximizes the chance of immediately eliminating the short stack. But (ignoring split pots), the only time it makes a difference to whether he's eliminated is when you win, he's second and the other caller is third, which is probably the least likely finishing order. But if you call and the short stack wins the hand, which I'd guess is more than twice as likely as your call helping to eliminate him, then you've given him an extra $24,000 chips, which decreases the chance of getting rid of him later. Is it clear that the increased chance of getting rid of him immediately compensates for the decreased chance of getting rid of him later? And getting rid of him is not the only thing you have to worry about. By calling, you almost certainly are making a negative EV decision, since the other caller is almost certainly beating you pre-flop. And if the other caller hasn't read the script, and makes a decent sized bet after the flop, you're going to have to fold most of the time and lose your $24,000, even if you flop a straight draw, which is the most likely good flop for you. Any thoughts?

[PokerBarney]

Re: Cooperation Play In the later stages of the tourney when prize money increases rapidly with every player out, I would agree with this strategy. The chance of getting rid of another player and doubling the next prize is well worth that extra 24,000 - which is only a few blinds. If you don't hit the flop you can fold if your other live opponent is betting, happy in the knowledge that if they are betting in this position, they've probably got something that could take on the short stack. Of course, early on the tourney (out of the money) I would happily let the caller take him out (or not, as the case may be), unless it was very cheap for me to see the flop - e.g. blinds of 300 and 600, shortie goes in for 1,200 with 1 caller means a pot of ~3,500 with antes, so only another 600 for me to see the flop.. with a price that good and the chance to take out two players if you flop that straight, I think it's worth it. Of course, that's not taking into account the styles of the two players.. if they're incredibly loose then I'd be more likely to see a flop, if not I probably wouldn't bother.

[Masterplan]

Re: Cooperation Play going 2-1 against a shortstack isnt about ev chipwise and more about cash wise, the faster you can get more players out, the sooner(and lower the blinds) the payout gets larger. imo thats what you have to weigh up, can you afford it, how much is the extra player going gaining you.

[jomell]

Re: Cooperation Play I quite agree with this move and have done it several times.But saying that i've also witnessed your opponent re- raising you and you have no option but to fold and then the small stack wins the pot :@ You will find that the regular final table players will adopt this play! After all when you are on the final table one more place higher can result in so much more £££. I've only seen this play on FT and before the bubble.

[guesswest]

Re: Cooperation Play In agreement with you here slap - I see why he's saying you should do it, but it may not be a good idea, there's more to know about the situation. You may not want to eliminate the shortstack, depending on your style of play. If you're shorthanded and making money with steals the shortstack sitting there makes people less likely to come over the top of you because they have an all-in man behind them and will be reluctant to go to war with you. Also, there's shifting utility involved in winning chips at this point, their value decreases when the shortstack is eliminated, so if you do knock out the shortstack the chips you win have significantly less proportional value than the ones you lose if you don't (which as you say is most likely). Not saying I wouldn't call it, but I certainly wouldn't call it in all situations. I also wouldn't respect the unwritten check-it-down rule if I hit something, so would have to assume the other guy might not either.

[slapdash]

Re: Cooperation Play

Also, there's shifting utility involved in winning chips at this point, their value decreases when the shortstack is eliminated, so if you do knock out the shortstack the chips you win have significantly less proportional value than the ones you lose if you don't (which as you say is most likely).

I've often wondered about the effect a short stack has on the dynamics of the game, but never really analyzed it. Care to elaborate?

[guesswest]

Re: Cooperation Play Since you're a mathematician and asking a maths retard like me, that makes me think I've probably analysed this all wrong and you're waiting to politely correct me :D But my thoughts are that your stack only represents your ability to post blinds. The individual value of 1 chip decreases in the obvious way in a tournament as it progresses because the blinds increase - but once you're down to one table, knocking out players means you have to post blinds with greater frequency, so your stack is proportionally less valuable. Make sense?

[slapdash]

Re: Cooperation Play

going 2-1 against a shortstack isnt about ev chipwise and more about cash wise, the faster you can get more players out, the sooner(and lower the blinds) the payout gets larger. imo thats what you have to weigh up, can you afford it, how much is the extra player going gaining you.

I can see that getting rid of the shortstack before you go out increases your payout. But what matters is not that you get rid of him now, but that you get rid of him before you go out. What's clear is that by calling, you increase the chance of getting rid of him now but decrease the chance of getting rid of him later if he wins the hand (because he gets more chips). What's not clear (to me) is that the first outweighs the second. And it has to outweigh by enough to compensate for the extra chips that you'll almost certainly lose on average by paying $24,000 chips to play an inferior hand.

[Valiant23]

Re: Cooperation Play I've been in that situation, although these experiences come mainly from STT's the principal is the same. Small stack goes all in - I and one other call. The other player rather than checking it down to the river (common practice in our local casino*) tries to create a side-pot. I do one of two things - if I have in my opinion the best hand I will also go all in or put the other in. If I have nothing I will fold, sometimes its happened where I was holding the hand that would have eliminated the short-stack, who then survives. I have also told him that he owes the other player for betting me off the pot and keeping him in. *At our local casino it was near the bubble, and a short-stack was allin. I was not involved in the hand,but at the table when a 'new guy' from out of the area bet into the 4-way pot (3 callers+1 all in). The 'experienced' guys snorted, gave the new guy a look that was a mixture of disgust and amazement, then folded. At the break they gave the new guy an almighty bollocking for risking their prize money by betting them of the pot. One last thing (that answers your question to an extent). Assuming the short stack has the best pre-flop (AA); against one opponent he has an 84% chance of winning against two opponents his chances decrease to 73% of winning So obviously you have (imo) to weigh up all factors before following this idea, but the maths does support it, as a way of getting rid of another opponent.

[slapdash]

Re: Cooperation Play

Since you're a mathematician and asking a maths retard like me' date=' that makes me think I've probably analysed this all wrong and you're waiting to politely correct me :D[/quote'] No, it was a genuine question. I'll have to think about that (and that's not a polite prelude to telling you you're talking rubbish, either ... well, at least not until I have thought about it ;)), but thanks for the answer.

[Norfolk Enchance]

Re: Cooperation Play Interesting….. I think it depends a lot on the standard of players you are up against and also the stage of the tournament. Good players generally would check this hand down most of the time unless they hit something very very good on the flop. There is no extra money to be won by betting in this situation unless you happen to have the better of 2 very strong hands after the flop. In this situation the guy who called the all in probably has high cards, so with you having medium cards hopefully one of you will hit the flop and knock the short stack out who could really have anything. So yeah I would agree with Harrington as long as I was pretty sure the caller in this situation was a good enough player to not bet the flop unless he makes a very good hand. I guess you’ve also got to bear in mind that the final tables Harrington plays on have a higher standard and higher prize money than the one’s we play on

[slapdash]

Re: Cooperation Play

*At our local casino it was near the bubble, and a short-stack was allin. I was not involved in the hand,but at the table when a 'new guy' from out of the area bet into the 4-way pot (3 callers+1 all in). The 'experienced' guys snorted, gave the new guy a look that was a mixture of disgust and amazement, then folded. At the break they gave the new guy an almighty bollocking for risking their prize money by betting them of the pot.

If that had happened to me, I wouldn't have gone back to that casino. What a fcuking cheek!

[PAULM03]

Re: Cooperation Play

If that had happened to me, I wouldn't have gone back to that casino. What a fcuking cheek!

Poker certainly brings out the worst in people. This is an interesting topic. After reading a little about this strategy, calling a short stack and checking it down (hopefully) is something I now do as a matter of course with any reasonable hand if and only if I've got about 20BB. I don't know why I've imposed this criteria on myself I've never thought too much about it.

[AJ]

Re: Cooperation Play

And if the other caller hasn't read the script, and makes a decent sized bet after the flop, you're going to have to fold most of the time and lose your $24,000

Great thread, hadn't thought about it to this level. I generally play stts and I suppose this could happen at the bubble. I'm unlikely to do this for three reasons, I don't trust the first caller, not to reraise post flop, I assume the all-in has a marginal hand and is calling because he has to, I have trash Chances of me winning this hand are virtually zero, if the short stack does win, I don't want him to have an extra 24k chips and become a danger to me later, also even if the short stack loses, I don't want to give the other caller 24k of my chips to attack me with next hand. My general princple is I don't put a single chip into the pot, unless I expect to win it. If I had a better hand 88, then I'd call and try and check down

[slapdash]

Re: Cooperation Play

Chances of me winning this hand are virtually zero,

Actually, it surprised me when I looked, but 97o is only marginally worse than average against two random hands. It wins about 30% of the pot on average. Of course, here the hands (especially that of the other caller) are not random. But if you could guarantee that the hand would be checked down, you're probably not that far off having pot odds to call.

[ubermonkey1]

Re: Cooperation Play i tend to call and check down if i've got a large stack and the small stack is in the brown zone (less than 5x bb).but if i hit a really good hand on the flop,i will go at the other players as long as im pretty certain im winning . no reason to waste a chance to get some more chips;) especially as theres usually alot in the pot and you can usually squeeze a bit more out of players because of it. if i do call i tend to go for smaller suited connectors because ive usually got 2 live cards for the check down and possible straight or flushes to hit ,i do this because im more likely to see the whole board without anybody betting, giving me a better chance of hitting a nut hand without risking a huge amount drawing to a hand

[AJ]

Re: Cooperation Play since reading this post, I've done this several times. really helped my game, thank you

[PAULM03]

Re: Cooperation Play

If i do call i tend to go for smaller suited connectors because ive usually got 2 live cards for the check down and possible straight or flushes to hit ,i do this because im more likely to see the whole board without anybody betting, giving me a better chance of hitting a nut hand without risking a huge amount drawing to a hand

I had my dream scenario with this in a game a few days ago. Short stack goes all in, I call with 34 suited and one other player calls. We both check it down to river where he hits trip As after calling with A rag and I'd already flopped my straight. He went all-in with his trips and I, of course, called:nana

[Valiant23]

Re: Cooperation Play

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hand #298645072 at table: V-point FR Started: Sun May 14 21:43:37 2006 thelonglad is at seat 1 with 16930.00 JulioArca is at seat 2 with 22440.00 akw144 is at seat 3 with 86552.00 PV23pl is at seat 4 with 1182.00 cutty1 is at seat 5 with 12600.00 rooney08 is at seat 6 with 5860.00 stephi is at seat 7 with 9580.00 cadzow is at seat 9 with 20326.00 TwistedNic is at seat 10 with 4940.00 akw144 posts the large blind 2000.00 JulioArca posts the small blind 1000.00 JulioArca: --, -- akw144: --, -- PV23pl: 9s, 8s cutty1: --, -- rooney08: --, -- stephi: --, -- cadzow: --, -- TwistedNic: --, -- thelonglad: --, -- Pre-flop: PV23pl: All in cutty1: Fold rooney08: Fold stephi: Fold cadzow: Fold TwistedNic: Fold thelonglad: Fold JulioArca: Call 2000.00 - It is here that akw suggested to Julio Arca that they check it down, and he agreed. akw144: Check Flop (Board: 5s, 5c, 9h): JulioArca: Check akw144: Check Turn (Board: 5s, 5c, 9h, 8h): JulioArca: Check akw144: Check River (Board: 5s, 5c, 9h, 8h, 7h): Here akw typed "Haha - I have the straight" JulioArca: Check akw144: Check Showdown: JulioArca shows: Ac, 7s (two pair, Sevens and Fives) akw144 shows: 6h, Jd (straight to the Nine) Sidepot 2: akw144 wins the pot of 1636 with straight to the Nine PV23pl shows: 9s, 8s (two pair, Nines and Eights) Mainpot: akw144 wins the pot of 3546 with straight to the Nine (0.00 rake were taken for this hand)

Andrew: Hello PV23pl' date= my name is Andrew, How may i help you? PV23pl: Hiya Andrew - so is mine I was just playing in a Virgin MTT - to play for V-points (a freeroll). PV23pl: I was severly short-stacked, and went all in, and both the SB and BB called, but before the flop showed they agreed in the chatbox to check it down and not play each other PV23pl: I understand it is done frewuently, but surely its collusion or cheating to verbally agree? Andrew: That would mean that they were colluding which is not allowed. I am not able to do anyhting about this on LiveHelp, however our fraud and security team can. Andrew: Please send us an e-mail about it PV23pl: Ok - will it be examined even though it was a free roll? PV23pl: I must admit I would have had a chance with 2pr PV23pl: and am severly annoyed Andrew: Yes. It does not matter what kind of game. Our main interest is to maintain the integrity of the poker room PV23pl: Andrew thank you very much :) Have a good night Julio Arca and akw144.

Having seen both players hands, and the chip stacks at the time, it could be argued that it was in the shorter stacks interest to win the pot, and pre flop he had the better hand. They agreed verbally to check it down, and akw even announced before his cards were revealed that he had a straight. I'm mightily annoyed, but if I'm honest I would still check an all in down to the river if possible. I certainly would never make an agreement to do so though.

[guesswest]

Re: Cooperation Play You've every right to take umbrage at that V. Checking it down by implicit understanding is one thing, colluding to do so in chat is another thing entirely - hope they do something about it.

[Tax_Monkey]

Re: Cooperation Play From the point at which they verbally agreed to check it down it was cheating (IMO), but the rules of most sites say quite clearly that announce your cards before the end of the hand is prohibited. So even if you don't distinguish between an "unspoken" agreement and a verbal one there was still an element of cheating there.

[GaF]

Re: Cooperation Play It was blatent cheating and they SHOULD lose any prizes - however, Boss Media are pretty poor at dealing with breaches of their rules, so would be surprised if anything is actually done.......

[Valiant23]

Re: Cooperation Play

It was blatent cheating and they SHOULD lose any prizes - however' date=' Boss Media are pretty poor at dealing with breaches of their rules, so would be surprised if anything is actually done.......[/quote']Very true, although the, er Paxman like questioning by 'someone' ;) had several admissions of guilt, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.

[daftpegasus]

Re: Cooperation Play I sincerely hope they are thrown out as both got into the prizes and that is really unfair. Although I did not witness the cheating awk admitted it on the final table. If I can help in any way guys let me know.

[slapdash]

Re: Cooperation Play I'm sure everybody realizes, but just to clarify, my original post was about doing this kind of thing without discussing it. In fact, if I remember correctly, Harrington explicitly says that it would be unethical to come to an agreement to do it.

[PokerBarney]

Re: Cooperation Play Heh.. now it's getting interesting. :) Consider: 1. Harrington writes a book and describes this copperative play. 2. I read his book, and agree that, indeed, cooperating in this manner is a good idea. 3. We end up on the same table, and the all in happens... Isn't this the same as collusion and the cheating incident described above? We both know what's going on, we are both checking to give us (collectively - both myself and harrington, and the other players at the table) the best chance to lose the short stack, but this is all without speaking a word. Once the chips are in, we've already mentally agreed to this strategy. In various psychology books and throughout the acadmic world of communication theory, it is widely acknowledged that speech accounts for a very small percentage of human communication in any scenario (

[Masterplan]

Re: Cooperation Play openly discussing hands is the generally accepted term for cheating, agreeing via checks, does not violate this. in the second instance, although the result would be unchanged, the rule has still been broken, cheating and breaking rules are not neccesarily the same thing

[Valiant23]

Re: Cooperation Play Just playing in the $50 added on Mansion, and I'm moved to the final table onto the BB.:@

DEALER: Game starts, Hold'em, hand #412221 DEALER: Yetti must wait until the button passes DEALER: _okermoker_ must wait until the button passes DEALER: Your hole cards are 9 A DEALER: RBL1120, it's your turn DEALER: The flop is A 4 2 (2 diamonds) DEALER: Mr King, it's your turn DEALER: The turn is 10d DEALER: The river is 7d DEALER: Valiant23pl shows 9 A DEALER: Sleepy shows 3 A (no diamonds) DEALER: Valiant23pl wins 1,360 with a pair of aces Coos: good work quadrupling him DEALER: Game starts, Hold'em, hand #412228 DEALER: Your hole cards are 10 K Yetti: yeah, nice job Valiant23pl: I think so :) Yetti: lol. could have checked it out, im sure one person had a diamond DEALER: RBL1120, it's your turn Mr King: i did, blame sleepy Coos: totally Mr King: pointless bet Yetti: very

:lol :lol :lol Just to clarify - the $50 added with a $5 buy in. NOT the 1c one that Masterplan is doing well in. ;)