Minimum bets = stupid

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $10 + $1 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 23:23:37 ET - 2007/06/18
Seat 1: (520)
Seat 3: (1,350)
Seat 4: hero (1,500)
Seat 5: (1,470)
Seat 6: (1,500)
Seat 7: (1,500)
Seat 8: (4,160)
Seat 9: (1,500)
Seat 3 posts the small blind of 15
hero posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [7c Tc]
Seat 5 folds
Seat 6 calls 30
Seat 7 folds
Seat 8 folds
Seat 9 folds
Seat 1 raises to 135

He was short enough that he could have gone all-in here, I think. If he'd have had more than one limper, he would have surely had to to try and isolate.

Seat 3 folds
hero folds
Seat 6 calls 105
*** FLOP *** [8d 3h Qs]
Seat 6 bets 30

Let's see... There's more than $300 in the pot and you want to bet $30? Why not just check?

Seat 1 raises to 270

Duh.

Seat 6 calls 240

Check-call?! Normally that's a sign of a draw of some sort, but the only 1 card draw possible with that flop is an inside straight draw. Hardly worth calling a pot-sized raise with that. Besides, seat 1 only had another $115. Why not push in? If he was bluffing, perhaps he'd fold to save his last chips for another hand.

*** TURN *** [8d 3h Qs] [3d]
Seat 6 bets 30

Now there's more than $800 in the pot. That $30 bet is worse than just a nuisance, it's an obvious sign of weakness.

Seat 1 raises to 115, and is all in

He could have 27o at this point and he'd be right to do exactly that.

Seat 6 folds

Wow. He must have either really had crap or had no understanding of pot odds. He would have been getting better than 9:1 to make that call.

Uncalled bet of 85 returned to Seat 1
Seat 1 mucks
Seat 1 wins the pot (915)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 915 | Rake 0
Board: [8d 3h Qs 3d]
Seat 1: collected (915), mucked
Seat 3: (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 4: hero (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 5: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: folded on the Turn
Seat 7: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: didn't bet (folded)