I'm Coining a New Poker Term

marble said:

the big stack has NO responsiblity for knocking out players so you can make the money or to just move up in money.

Click to expand...

Sure, he's got no responsibility to help me in any way. Poker is every man for himself, after all. But, by eliminating a shortstack when close to (or in) the money, he's helping himself. He's increasing his own equity in the tournament, and he should be looking to do that any time the odds warrant. The responsibility is to himself, and his own performance.

And don't forget, it could be the big stack that ends up getting Uncle Benned. So, what goes around comes around.

PokerVic said:

Sure, he's got no responsibility to help me in any way. Poker is every man for himself, after all. But, by eliminating a shortstack when close to (or in) the money, he's helping himself. He's increasing his own equity in the tournament, and he should be looking to do that any time the odds warrant. The responsibility is to himself, and his own performance.

And don't forget, it could be the big stack that ends up getting Uncle Benned. So, what goes around comes around.

Click to expand...

so what's it to you whether he calls or not? he's looking out for himself for not calling in HIS opinion.

Spidey fans understand the concept, but I just can't see "Uncle Benned" joining the ranks of "rivered" and "sucked out".......... tough break with the QQ, but in my opinion, the BB big stack is not obligated to call the shortstack all inner with atc..... how many chips would you risk in that position holding, let's say, 7,2 off? I'm not calling any all in bet with weak holdings (you didn't specify the amount of the push) to try to eliminate someone, especially if I have a big stack..... I guess I'd rather be Uncle Benned after I was ITM.

"Uncle Benned" can certainly work on two levels.

On the other hand.

There is a big stack strategy in this situation that folds even with pot odds to preserve the very small stack at the bubble.

The theory being that the presence of the little guy has frozen the table/field and the big guy can keep stealing from the "Uncle Bens" who are waiting and he can make more money. Even though it would be +EV to eliminate someone, it's more +EV for the other small stacks. So you are helping others more than yourself. Oh, and 1 other thing, it pisses off uncle Ben

There is actually some good logic to it and I could see using it at some tables. I have seen it used effectivly.

I was also involved in 1 sattelite where it was horribly mis-applyed by a jerk who cost himself a seat. I had called a small all-in and he reraised all my chips forcing me to fold a med pair or something. He had 56 and tripled the guy up. The jerk ended up going from "megastack gauranteed a seat" to out 1 short after a couple more of those.

goldog

Tweak it up and call it being Benned. That way no more rice references.

good 1 sure would be 1 long explanation in a poker room though

K_Kahne_Fan said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtycoon
I'm not sure I have the guts to ever use the phrase "I got Uncle Benned over last night while playing poker".

FYP

Click to expand...

bubbasbestbabe said:

Tweak it up and call it being Benned. That way no more rice references.

Click to expand...

I got Benned over at the game last night. That about says it

Goldog said:

There is a big stack strategy in this situation that folds even with pot odds to preserve the very small stack at the bubble.

The theory being that the presence of the little guy has frozen the table/field and the big guy can keep stealing from the "Uncle Bens" who are waiting and he can make more money.

Click to expand...

just ask Greg Raymer.