4 left/top 3 pay a seat. Strange situation for a stealin' fool like me

[PocketJokers72]

Just a situation I ran into, and wanted some advice.
$11 MTT Satellite.
4 players left.
Top 3 all pay the same (a seat)

Blinds 500/1000

Seat 1 - 12k (me)
Seat 2 - 30k (30% vpip, semi-tight, defends against my steal)
Seat 3 - 30k (30% vpip, semi-tight, defends against my steal)
Seat 4 - 8k (22% vpip, tight, doesn't steal too much)

Normally, I'm aggressive on the bubble, picking up blinds and such, but I think this is one of the few situations where I should play uber-tight and not get snapped off stealing? My only goal is to outlast Seat 4 and limp into the money, isn't it?

Results:
This is what I did, and it worked, and Seat 4 blinded down. I just want to make sure I'm not being results oriented and that my thinking was appropriate.

[durron597]

I would play when I have something resembling a hand, and always for all my chips. So like SB pushes with A9 etc. But no pure pure steals.

[schwza]

you need to make sure you stay ahead of the short stack. if he's not dumb, he'll be stealing liberally. absent the reads, your steals should be against the big stacks, as they have little to gain in defending.

[PocketJokers72]

[ QUOTE ]
you need to make sure you stay ahead of the short stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was pretty much what I was thinking was correct, being that 3rd was just as good as 1st. He made 1 steal raise before he got to 3x BB, then pushed with AK from UTG, and lost to 99 from one of the giants.

It seems like a fine line to walk here. Thanks.

FWIW, I think he horribly misplayed it.

[nath]

If he only stole once before dropping that low he got what he deserved. As the small stack on the bubble you have to fight your way ahead of the second-smallest stack. The converse for you is that if the big stacks enter a pot in front of you you stay the hell away from them without a major hand.