Short Stacked Near the Bubble

I have never played in a tournament where the LOWEST payout is going to be a good deal of money, so I usually don't change the way that I play.

That being said, here is my question: If you are in fact short stacked when the bubble is nearing is is

A.) better to wait for the best hand you can find including
folding if a good chunk of your stack is in the blinds) in a
hopes to make the money. This of course makes you
dwindle down to nothing with the blinds alot of the time,
which makes you have much lesser of a chance
of coming back after the pay structure comes.

OR

B.) Not letting yourself get dwindled down by being
agressive with more mediocre hands in the hopes
of stealing the blinds or hopefully doubling up. This
option makes you be either back in it or out totally.

Option B for sure because barely making it barely pays but winning pays big!

I kinda disagree. If you are really short-stacked the chances of you winning it all is going to take a lot of luck before skill can help you.

If it is a big field, I'd say play super tight until the bubble pops, chances are someone from the other tables will get knocked out. You've probably invested a lot of your time into the tourney and need to get something out of it.

If it is a small field, then you can go with either option, but I'd still wait to go in until you can limit yourself to one (or no) callers.

A , I think it better to wait,

mmm i go with option b, simply because, if u keep playing aggressive, no one wants to go out on that bubble, so chances are you will pick up a lot of blinds

The problem with option B when you are short stacked is what are you going to do if you are raised holding a mediocre hand. You will be in a difficult position especially if you are too aggressive. You really can't afford to call. Best to wait for premium hands and then bet aggressively.

The answer is a matter of choice, would you rather win fewer times for more money or win more often for less. Of course we would all love to win all the time but that isn't reasonable. There are cases that can be made either way, it will really come down to what you prefer. Playing to win results in much higher variance I believe.

I think it depends on just how short stacked you are. If you have any decent amount of chips it might be best to go all-in on a weaker hand, as you retain the possibility of someone folding and picking up the blinds. Whereas if you catch aces but only have 3 BB to bet, you might find yourself in a hand with a whole bunch of players.

Plus you have the added bonus that pushing with more chips could mean a larger double up and a chance to continue in the tournament (of course I really recommend always playing to win instead of playing to get in the money, but it's up to you)

i don't have a big bank roll so i always try to cash even if it doen't seem like much to others. positive roi

Each situation is different and you couldnt generally apply your choices. If you get in on the Main Event at the wsop via satellite. You are on the bubble and I say wait to get into the money. Double up your buy in and then play like hell. At least you go home with 10K.
If you are in a tournament one hundreth of your BR i.e. $20 guaranteed 15K and you have 2K in your pocket. I say go for the gold.

If im approaching the bubble id definitly say wait for the best possible because by then you have to figure theres at least 2 ppl maybe 3 at the table will no that desperation will start to set in. So might as well go for the best shot at a win even if it requires some time on your part/