Tourney Strat: Super short in BB on stone bubble of satellite (1 Viewer)

[jbutler]

Not my spot, but a very interesting one. We'll look at it from the perspective of the BB.

Situation: on the stone bubble of a satellite for entry into a $5k live MTT. 21 players remain; 20 receive seats; final 20 are playing hand for hand on 3 tables (7/7/6) until final elimination, of course.

We are in the BB with 81k and blinds are 40k/80k (no antes). UTG has 50k, so will automatically be all in next hand. Two players limp for 80k each, SB completes to 80k, and we check through with 1k behind holding T4o.

Flop (320k): Q54r

Next hand player who is currently UTG will be all in for less than the BB and we will be all in for (far far far lol) less than the SB. Right now we have bottom pair versus 3 random hands. For the sake of the question assume: (1) that there a couple of similar short stacks at the other tables, but we don't know their positions; and (2) that if we check someone will bet and get at least one other caller.

Our action?

 

[courage]

Stand up, kick yourself in the nuts, then bink trips.

If we weren't going to be all-in on the next hand also, then maybe I could find an lol fold, but to quote a famous magician: "it's tough to make a pair in hold 'em." Even though we have bottom pair multi-way, let's ride this donkey!

 

[gopherblue]

I'm with courage. He and I will be at the bar drinking pints after we get our bottom pair sucked out by a runner runner straight.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I think I would check, hoping for it to check all the way down, but with the intention of folding. We gain nothing from betting anyway; no one is folding to 1K more, so hang onto it if possible.

With two other tables running and blinds so astronomical, there's a pretty significant chance that that 1K stack will be enough to lock up a seat. Someone at our table (BB, for example) may even feel compelled to get it all-in on this very hand. Even if no one else busts on this hand, we'll have another chance to hang around on the following hand. (Are there antes? If not, surviving the SB would buy us a whole orbit, basically locking up the seat, which leans me way more toward folding. If we do get that whole orbit, fold every hand without looking.)

Folding here is a better gamble than hoping bottom pair, mid kicker will hold up 4-handed in this spot, anyway. We're almost guaranteed that everyone will call our 1K and check to the river. We may be getting 320:1, but that doesn't really matter. We're looking at pure survival, and I think that folding here gives us a better chance at that.

 

[DrStrange]

A rules clarification would be handy - what happens if several people go out at the same time? Shortest stack loses?

I agree, hero is in no position to fold at the moment. However, I would put on the breaks and slow this table to a crawl to see if one of the other tables knocks off someone. Obviously hero is happy to fold if someone goes out at the other table. But if the issue is pressed, then Hero has to call his last chip and pray.

 

[gopherblue]

I think I would check, hoping for it to check all the way down, but with the intention of folding. We gain nothing from betting anyway; no one is folding to 1K more, so hang onto it if possible.

With two other tables running and blinds so astronomical, there's a pretty significant chance that that 1K stack will be enough to lock up a seat. Someone at our table (BB, for example) may even feel compelled to get it all-in on this very hand. Even if no one else busts on this hand, we'll have another chance to hang around on the following hand. (Are there antes? If not, surviving the SB would buy us a whole orbit, basically locking up the seat, which leans me way more toward folding. If we do get that whole orbit, fold every hand without looking.)

Folding here is a better gamble than hoping bottom pair, mid kicker will hold up 4-handed in this spot, anyway. We're almost guaranteed that everyone will call our 1K and check to the river. We may be getting 320:1, but that doesn't really matter. We're looking at pure survival, and I think that folding here gives us a better chance at that.

I don't disagree, but if we are forced to fold to a bet on this hand, we are all-in as the SB for $1k on the next hand.

We should definitely slow down the action at our table though. Since it is hand-for-hand at 3 tables, optimal strategy would be to make the action go slowly at our table, since if someone busts at another table, we can fold and we will cash, making our all-in SB irrelevant on the very next hand.

There is also the chance that if we check, the other hands at our table check it down if no one has the goods and no one wants to commit more chips at such a high blind level.

So I've changed my view. We try to slow the action waaaaaaay down, and check/fold unless we see another card that makes our hand. We hope for a bubbleboy at one of the other tables. And if nothing else, we still have a chance as the SB to survive another orbit.

 

[jbutler]

Seems like the consensus view is this is a fold unless we know someone at the other table busts this hand during hand-for-hand. I agree.

But is there a mathematical way to consider our overall equity to make it clearer what we should be doing? We're getting better than 320:1 on a call right now if we check and someone bets, but those aren't really the odds we should be looking at, right? We should be looking at our equity in the main event seat which is valued at $5k, but I'm not sure how to work out what our equity is in that seat at the moment.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Check and fold to a bet, like everyone else says. Hope someone busts this hand. Also, I'm normally not an advocate for tanking, but since we're hand-for-hand, I'd definitely at least take some time to try and hear if there is a bustout at one of the other tables, like @gopherblue suggests.

 

[DrStrange]

If the strategy is to fold, there is no purpose to tanking. The only reason to tank is if Hero was calling absent hearing about a bust out at another table.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

If the strategy is to fold, there is no purpose to tanking. The only reason to tank is if Hero was calling absent hearing about a bust out at another table.

Not true, if you call right away and bust out, it may keep another player from making a bad call.

 

[BGinGA]

Same if you fold right away. Milk it, but don't be an asshat about it.

 

[gopherblue]

Same if you fold right away. Milk it, but don't be an asshat about it.

"Nine high, like a boss!" Is the new "I'm an absolute tosser!"

 

[Jimulacrum]

It would be nice to know if someone else busts out at another table, but I think it's a fold whether or not we know that someone else busts out.

Calling gives us exactly one chance to win, and it's a pretty shitty one. Folding allows us to win if (a) someone else busts on this hand (which, with 3 tables, seems more likely on its own than T4 winning this pot) or (b) no one else busts, but we survive being forced all-in on the SB—though chance b is way more valuable if there are no antes.

It's not really a great play, but it's less bad than getting all-in now with a pair of fours, even if we'd auto-shove in a cash game getting 320:1. The number of chips we could win is immaterial.

 

[jbutler]

Calling gives us exactly one chance to win, and it's a pretty shitty one. Folding allows us to win if...someone else busts on this hand (which, with 3 tables, seems more likely on its own than T4 winning this pot)...

...even if we'd auto-shove in a cash game getting 320:1. The number of chips we could win is immaterial.

These two seemed to me to be the primary reasons to just fold here. I think the likelihood of winning with bottom pair is overrated on first glance and I think the absolute irrelevance of getting 320:1 is initially difficult to get your head around (at least for a cash game player).

 

[derekdd23]

Barry Greenstein once said "math is idiotic" and this is a great example, your one and only move is to tank for about 2 minutes and check then fold if someone bets which should not really happen. Odds do not matter in this situation at all since it is a satty.

 

[upNdown]

I've never played in a tournament like this - does the tournament simply end when there are only 20 people left, or is there some incentive to finish it out?

 

[jbutler]

I've never played in a tournament like this - does the tournament simply end when there are only 20 people left, or is there some incentive to finish it out?

It ends.

 

[DrStrange]

So lets say we get to the next hand. hero is all-in with one chip. BB is all in to pay the blind. The right thing for the table to do is for everyone to limp and check dark to showdown, knowing that either BB or Hero will be eliminated thus ending the tournament. That gives Hero one chance in seven to win the pot, (and BB one chance in six to survive by winning the side pot)

It is asking a lot of the players at the table for no one to do something foolish. Most of us have seen tournament situations where some LAGtard bluffs a dry side pot only to fold out the winning hand and let the short stack survive with ace high.

I think Hero's chance of winning now is better than the chance of winning the next pot six vs one plus the chance that someone busts out this hand at the other tables. It would be even worse if the other tables understood the situation at Hero's table where someone is likely to bust out the next hand. There would be a lot of situations where the whole room should be jointly involved with an implied collusion to force out Hero or UTG in the next two hands.

Hero's chances change once someone bets, assuming the bettor knows what they are doing rather than bluffing with ace high. If the bettor has the better hand, Hero is the same 6-1 dog as he will be the next hand.

 

[Jimulacrum]

So lets say we get to the next hand. hero is all-in with one chip. BB is all in to pay the blind. The right thing for the table to do is for everyone to limp and check dark to showdown, knowing that either BB or Hero will be eliminated thus ending the tournament. That gives Hero one chance in seven to win the pot, (and BB one chance in six to survive by winning the side pot)

It is asking a lot of the players at the table for no one to do something foolish. Most of us have seen tournament situations where some LAGtard bluffs a dry side pot only to fold out the winning hand and let the short stack survive with ace high.

I think Hero's chance of winning now is better than the chance of winning the next pot six vs one plus the chance that someone busts out this hand at the other tables. It would be even worse if the other tables understood the situation at Hero's table where someone is likely to bust out the next hand. There would be a lot of situations where the whole room should be jointly involved with an implied collusion to force out Hero or UTG in the next two hands.

Hero's chances change once someone bets, assuming the bettor knows what they are doing rather than bluffing with ace high. If the bettor has the better hand, Hero is the same 6-1 dog as he will be the next hand.

Even if we go with your presumption about being a 6:1 dog on our SB (which I think is monsters under the bed anyway), and we give our current hand 6:1 (which I believe is more like 6.5:1, and that's when we assume we're 100% live), it's still a clear fold here.

Our SB hand alone, even in your dystopian view, offers us the same chance of survival as getting all-in with T4 now. That means the chance that someone busts on this hand—which I think is pretty significant—is a freeroll.

 

[DrStrange]

The search is for a mathematical / logical best solution.

Hero gains nothing by betting, no winning hand folds for one chip. I doubt any hand folds for one chip.

If the hand checks down, Hero takes the result without making a decision and goes on to the final hand unless someone busts prior to that.

If someone bets, Hero is a 6-1 dog unless it is a misguided bluff.

If hero folds this hand he has an unknown chance to survive if someone gets busted at one of the other tables.

If the tournament gets to the next hand. Hero will be no worse than a random 6-1 dog there and might be better off if one or more of the villains play in a sub-optimal way.

 

[Jimulacrum]

If hero folds this hand he has an unknown chance to survive if someone gets busted at this table or one of the other tables.

FTFY. A player busting at our table is quite possible, especially with the player to our left in such a similar spot as our spot.

So DrStrange, it's not clear, are you now in favor of checking with the intention of calling or checking with the intention of folding?

 

[DrStrange]

I am checking with the intention of folding. I had not properly assessed the implied meaning of someone betting - there should be no chance of the bet being worse than Hero's bottom pair if the players are knowledgeable about tournament strategy.

 

[Trihonda]

I keep thinking about relative stacks at the other tables. Are there short stacks hitting blinds soon? Are the blinds going up?

If I am on a short stack at another table, and I know there is someone with one big blind or less at another table, there is no way I'm putting any money in the middle that I do not need to. In other words if I'm on another table with pocket aces and our hero has one big blind on his table, I am going to fold my Aces. I think it all depends on how perceptive and observant the other players are being, and what sort of stacks they have.

We have One big blind, and if we fold our pair now to survive until the next hand, I think it's very likely we will be in against all the players at the table. Even if we get lucky in a flip, we will still only have 7000 chips, or 1/10 of a big blind. We will be getting all in very soon. Under the circumstances, there is less likelihood someone at another table will put money in the pot and put themselves at risk for illumination.

As shitty as it is, I think I am in the camp of tanking until I see if another player goes Allin at another table. Then I might find a fold. Otherwise I think in this spot I have to get a few BBs under my belt as insurance for surviving another orbit or two. I think if the other tables play out without a bust out, i'm rolling the dice on my 4's.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I am checking with the intention of folding. I had not properly assessed the implied meaning of someone betting - there should be no chance of the bet being worse than Hero's bottom pair if the players are knowledgeable about tournament strategy.

Actually, anyone with any kind of stack who is knowledgeable about tournament strategy would have to have a serious brain fart to not put in one minimum 80K bet here, with as little as a gutshot or an overcard. From this other player's perspective (assuming there's a player with more than a few BB left), that play would be smart specifically because of the spot Hero and UTG are in. It's a double chance to win a seat for the mere cost of one big blind.

If they both fold, they're both guaranteed to be all-in next hand, which will probably end the tourney. If either or both call, the tourney could end right away. Because of the game dynamic, so there's almost no risk of a raise. Other players might call, but it will likely get checked down after that. It would be foolish to let Hero and UTG check all the way to showdown with chips left when you've got them against the rails like this, even with a very weak hand.

@jbutler, we would benefit greatly from more information here. Are there antes? What are the other stacks like at our table and the other tables?

 

[jbutler]

@jbutler, we would benefit greatly from more information here. Are there antes?

...blinds are 40k/80k (no antes).

What are the other stacks like at our table and the other tables?

For the sake of the question assume...that there a couple of similar short stacks at the other tables, but we don't know their positions...

That's all I got.

So far as I can figure, the question is whether we think it is more likely that (1) we will suck out with bottom pair here or (2) that we will survive our auto-all-in in the SB the next hand AND that one of the other four (assume two similarly short stacks per table) shorties will bust before the BB gets back around to us.

Assuming we will be against at least two other hands after we put in our last 1k and assuming that we're behind at least one of those hands at the moment and the caller - even when he has no pair - knows ICM dictates a call with a giant range of hands, we're what, 16% or so to win? And that's the best case scenario. As has been acknowledged, it would be correct for all the players in the hand to call a minbet at this point if I'm putting my last 1k in, in which case we have to be below 10% to win.

Maybe those numbers are slightly off? I just can't conceive of how we're in a better spot now than we would be taking a random hand to try to guarantee another free orbit to see if someone else busts before the BB hits us again. I see very little difference in the value of winning 7 BBs versus less than 10% of a BB. Which is to say it seems very likely that someone will bust within the next orbit.

 

[DrStrange]

Hero has some chance to be ahead with bottom pair on the flop. If that is the case, he is something like 40% to win the hand assuming everyone calls his single chip bet. Thing is, Hero might not need to bet that chip, the table could check it down.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Hero has some chance to be ahead with bottom pair on the flop. If that is the case, he is something like 40% to win the hand assuming everyone calls his single chip bet. Thing is, Hero might not need to bet that chip, the table could check it down.

Where exactly are you getting 40%?

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Where exactly are you getting 40%?

60% of the time it works every time, so 100% minus that is 40%. Duh

 

[DrStrange]

I dropped in a few sample hands through a poker odds calculator and made a rough approximation. There is a high degree of variance in Hero's equity based on what cards are in the other hands. I expect there are hands distribution where Hero holds the only pair on the flop but isn't even getting 25% equity and a few distributions where Hero's equity exceeds 50%.

What ever the actual equity is, the point is that Hero could be much better off with bottom pair in this hand than playing two random cards in the next hand, but he will be hard pressed to know he is in that situation vs drawing thin hoping to catch up to a better hand.

 

[Trihonda]

If hero is auto all in the next hand, and its hand-for-hand, any smart players at other tables are going to fold pretty much all their holdings to allow the .01 BB person to hang themselves. The other table's BB might even get a walk...

Best to count on the hero to bust than risk putting chips at risk.