Prolonging the bubble

[Klak]

Chris V just made reference to a strategy in a recent post that i had never even thought of. the concept of the strategy is that when you are the big stack in a bubble situation, you want to keep it at 4 players for as long as possible so you can keep leaning on the rest of the table to build an insurmountable lead. this would entail helping out the small stack at every situation like checking down pots with him or folding down blinds. this seems like a smart way to play as the big stack. are there any drawbacks to using this play? are there any other ways you can keep it at 4 players?

[JaBlue]

there's a famous example poker question where it turns out to be correct for the big stack to fold AA to a small stack's all in push, being last to act, for this very reason.

[pshreck]

It is highly overrated in lower buy in SNG's, when the 2nd and 3rd stacks will not fold AQ or PP 8's or higher, no matter what the 4th stack is at.

It is great for 50's and up, but be cautious when doing it in the lower buy ins when the players have no appreciation for chip stacks, when it comes to hands they simply dont fold 4 handed.

[Voltron87]

The point of the strategy is to keep the 4th place SS in play while you have 3K+ in chips. The idea is that the 2nd and 3rd chip positions will make big laydowns to you if they think there is a SS who will be blinded out.

I am not a huge fan of this strategy, I have tried it once or twice and it didn't really work all that well for me. When I am a big stack I tend to play v. conservatively for 6 or so hands, not playing any non blind hands. The smaller stacks will start fighting which is good for me. Then I will change gears and go into super aggressive mode.


As a big stack I never try to end the bubble but I never really prolong it either.

[Gramps]

The downside is that sometimes the other stacks will start making "spite calls" against your raises, even if it's -EV on their part (due to being on the bubble, their hand not being a big favorite against a random hand, etc.), that makes continuing to steal blinds difficult.

I say if in doubt, just play a good hand instead of making a "fancy fold."

[ChrisV]

You want to be careful with going all out with this strategy - it can blow up in your face sometimes. There are a few prerequisites:

(1) The opponents are fairly cautious types, aware of the situation. I wouldn't try it against maniacs in a $5.

(2) You really want to be SB when the short stack is BB. This gives you a lot of control. The other guys will be reluctant to raise throuogh you so you can fold the SB to him whenever you like.

(3) The other stacks need to be short enough to not seriously hurt you if they make an angry call. Ideal is something like short stack 600, other stacks 1500 and 1700, you 6200, at 150/300 blinds (assuming a tourney where you start with 1000 each).

Even with these prerequisites, don't go overboard. If you get dealt AA, nail the short stack and take the 750 chips.

The concept manifests itself in more subtle ways much more often than often than the full-blown coddling the short stack. For example, let's say you're on the button 4 ways with something like A6o. UTG folds, short stack is in the BB with 600, of which 300 is posted. If you're a medium stack here, something like 1800 chips, you'd probably go allin in an attempt to nail the short stack. But if you have over 6000 chips, fold. You've got no fold equity, A6 isn't that great a hand, and you don't really want to nail the short stack. In this case the slight equity of the raise is offset by the loss of equity caused by breaking the bubble. (If you don't like my example of A6, adjust it to taste).

EDIT: The thread this poster was referring to is here - this is a good example of a situation where the big stack has control. BB has to consider folding a hand as good as 99 because of the short stack. If the big stack plans to coddle the small stack then the choice is between making a stand now and raising allin on the button this round or next round.

There's an interesting game theory dynamic here where the big stack exerts a "credible threat" against both the other two stacks (there's probably a more technical name for it than that). The threat is to call when they move allin against the short stack. The short stack then folds and the big stack has a shot at busting the short stack. It's credible because the big stack can afford the equity loss from calling. To put this in non-poker terms, suppose two people had a chance to push a button. If one of them pushes it and the other doesn't, the pusher gets $10,000. However if both of them push it, person A loses $10,000 and person B loses $100. Person A has to decide first. B can threaten A that he will push the button if A does. Even though it's negative EV for him to push the button, he fully intends to do it because he's exerting a threat over A. This threat will be sufficient to cause A not to push the button. How credible the threat is depends on how large the penalty is to B. To return to poker, if you're raising allin for 800 on the button and the big stack has already posted 100 in SB, plus there will be 200 dead money in the BB, the equity loss for the big stack is a tiny penalty.

[Klak]

thanks! great post Chris. thats prolly the most useful thing ive read on here in months.

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
It is highly overrated in lower buy in SNG's, when the 2nd and 3rd stacks will not fold AQ or PP 8's or higher, no matter what the 4th stack is at.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, even at the 30s people can be such idiots. Just recently there was a 600 stack with blinds at 2-4 and QJo minraises, and I push as the bigstack with A8s. He wasnt commited at all and he called me caught a Q and I ended up going out on the bubble shortly after.

Some people dont even use common sense when playing poker.

[tigerite]

For "some" read "most".. happened to me in an earlier game too with a small stack, no big stack and another med stack who JUST had me covered did a min raise, I had AQ so obviously pushed him back. He called with A9s !?! and hit a 9. WHY? He wasn't committed at all and must have known he was a dog. Blah, whatever.