The Bubble Dilemma and Mental Aspects of Poker 2

[pirateglenn]

So as part of my journey exploring the mental aspect of how we play and how our styles determine our results, here is my question/scenario for today.

How many of you devote all your energies into making sure you cash as your first priority rather than focusing on the long term goal of winning the tournament?

Let me explain further - i have seen many good players play some superb, expansive poker all the way up to the bubble and then immediately tighten up, even those with huge stacks who avoid playing hands against smaller stacks and forcing the play.

Listening to pros talking about this kind of play can often mean you are missing out on valuable blinds as you can bet your last dollar, those smaller stacks are focusing only on surviving to make the cash.

I come across various players who have specific goals, for example:

1. Some are results orientated only to the point that once they make the money, they feel their race is run and they relax (this can also however have a positive effect i must add).
2. Some are purely bounty orientated.
3. Some are final table orientated and anything less than this is considered a non success.

Where do you see yourself, are you goals/results orientated, is it only about the $ or do you see poker as a recreational/social hobby and just enjoy the fun of the game?

The acid test for me, was a hand i saw a few years back between Mike Matusow and John Juanda - both were dealt Monsters (Matusow had KK) and Juanda had AA - both were in top 4 of chips and had 11 players left.

Matusow played for the win despite tanking for some time as Juanda played the aces beautifully across what i believe was a wet board with straighty/boaty options.

Juanda had Matusow crushed and after being eliminated - Mike simply said - i play for the win man, i would not change anything
Now whislt i appreciate these are Pros and money to them is a world away from us mere mortals, i kind of respected Matusows outlook and thats hard for me to say as i am not a fan of his style.

Keen to know your views here.

 

[eetenor]

So as part of my journey exploring the mental aspect of how we play and how our styles determine our results, here is my question/scenario for today.

How many of you devote all your energies into making sure you cash as your first priority rather than focusing on the long term goal of winning the tournament?

Let me explain further - i have seen many good players play some superb, expansive poker all the way up to the bubble and then immediately tighten up, even those with huge stacks who avoid playing hands against smaller stacks and forcing the play.

Listening to pros talking about this kind of play can often mean you are missing out on valuable blinds as you can bet your last dollar, those smaller stacks are focusing only on surviving to make the cash.

I come across various players who have specific goals, for example:

1. Some are results orientated only to the point that once they make the money, they feel their race is run and they relax (this can also however have a positive effect i must add).
2. Some are purely bounty orientated.
3. Some are final table orientated and anything less than this is considered a non success.

Where do you see yourself, are you goals/results orientated, is it only about the $ or do you see poker as a recreational/social hobby and just enjoy the fun of the game?

The acid test for me, was a hand i saw a few years back between Mike Matusow and John Juanda - both were dealt Monsters (Matusow had KK) and Juanda had AA - both were in top 4 of chips and had 11 players left.

Matusow played for the win despite tanking for some time as Juanda played the aces beautifully across what i believe was a wet board with straighty/boaty options.

Juanda had Matusow crushed and after being eliminated - Mike simply said - i play for the win man, i would not change anything
Now whislt i appreciate these are Pros and money to them is a world away from us mere mortals, i kind of respected Matusows outlook and thats hard for me to say as i am not a fan of his style.

Keen to know your views here.

Thank you for posting

This is a good meta game topic which many players may want to study in depth so thanks for starting the thread.

Table dynamics-tournie dynamics-stack dynamics all dictate how we play the bubble.

I play to min cash when I have to but the goal is always to win. The payoff for winning is so great compared to a min cash that taking some increased risks on the bubble to build a stack in a standard MTT is a must.
What we want to do is use the dynamics data to know how much risk, when and vs who.
Studying the most effective bubble risk strategy pays huge benefits.

The issue with increasing our risk as you pointed out with the hand example with Mike is when we take too much risk and excuse it as "playing to win"

ICM model is used to let us know that we lean to risk aversion when having a top 4 stack with 11 left. That suggests we not make a big hero call vs a strong V with a bigger stack.

Hope this helps

 

[pirateglenn]

Thanks for posting

Thank you for posting

This is a good meta game topic which many players may want to study in depth so thanks for starting the thread.

Table dynamics-tournie dynamics-stack dynamics all dictate how we play the bubble.

I play to min cash when I have to but the goal is always to win. The payoff for winning is so great compared to a min cash that taking some increased risks on the bubble to build a stack in a standard MTT is a must.
What we want to do is use the dynamics data to know how much risk, when and vs who.
Studying the most effective bubble risk strategy pays huge benefits.

The issue with increasing our risk as you pointed out with the hand example with Mike is when we take too much risk and excuse it as "playing to win"

ICM model is used to let us know that we lean to risk aversion when having a top 4 stack with 11 left. That suggests we not make a big hero call vs a strong V with a bigger stack.

Hope this helps

It's good to get feedback and I wanted to find out more about players experiences rather than theory so it's not really help I need but more how you play, I appreciate your post but wanted to make that distinction, having said that, your theory is useful to know so thank you.

 

[jordanbillie]

So as part of my journey exploring the mental aspect of how we play and how our styles determine our results, here is my question/scenario for today.

How many of you devote all your energies into making sure you cash as your first priority rather than focusing on the long term goal of winning the tournament?

Let me explain further - i have seen many good players play some superb, expansive poker all the way up to the bubble and then immediately tighten up, even those with huge stacks who avoid playing hands against smaller stacks and forcing the play.

Listening to pros talking about this kind of play can often mean you are missing out on valuable blinds as you can bet your last dollar, those smaller stacks are focusing only on surviving to make the cash.

I come across various players who have specific goals, for example:

1. Some are results orientated only to the point that once they make the money, they feel their race is run and they relax (this can also however have a positive effect i must add).
2. Some are purely bounty orientated.
3. Some are final table orientated and anything less than this is considered a non success.

Where do you see yourself, are you goals/results orientated, is it only about the $ or do you see poker as a recreational/social hobby and just enjoy the fun of the game?

The acid test for me, was a hand i saw a few years back between Mike Matusow and John Juanda - both were dealt Monsters (Matusow had KK) and Juanda had AA - both were in top 4 of chips and had 11 players left.

Matusow played for the win despite tanking for some time as Juanda played the aces beautifully across what i believe was a wet board with straighty/boaty options.

Juanda had Matusow crushed and after being eliminated - Mike simply said - i play for the win man, i would not change anything
Now whislt i appreciate these are Pros and money to them is a world away from us mere mortals, i kind of respected Matusows outlook and thats hard for me to say as i am not a fan of his style.

Keen to know your views here.

Thank you for this thought provoking thread.

The balance between cashing and remaining aggressive/playing "for the win" is part of the art of playing MTTs.

I found that by focusing on MACRO results and the math behind how these games will play out, I could better find my balance on the 'Min Cash - Play to Win' spectrum.

I strive to maintain my ITM% of 40 - 45% without compromising any aggressiveness/going for the win. What this translates to on the felt (near and at the ITM bubble) is jamming a lot of spots preflop where I interpret my equity to be 45% or greater, with good fold equity built in. The results of this approach is the ability to add valuable chips to my stack prior to the bubble bursting, and having an opportunity to double up if called (again, I don't want to jam a hand that will give me less than 45% win equity).

It's impossible to fully describe my thoughts on this in words, but basically (depending on the table) I conceivably am OK with jamming something like 10 8 suited in an unopened pot (where I have fold equity) because if called I have roughly 40 - 50% against the BBs (or whomever is calling) range.

Now that hypothetical situation is distinctly changed if I have a note/read on someone left to act that I know will call super light (thus diminishing my fold equity) or any other situational based difference. This is why I call this balance an art.

Great topic!

 

[pirateglenn]

Excellent Reply

Thank you for this thought provoking thread.

The balance between cashing and remaining aggressive/playing "for the win" is part of the art of playing MTTs.

I found that by focusing on MACRO results and the math behind how these games will play out, I could better find my balance on the 'Min Cash - Play to Win' spectrum.

I strive to maintain my ITM% of 40 - 45% without compromising any aggressiveness/going for the win. What this translates to on the felt (near and at the ITM bubble) is jamming a lot of spots preflop where I interpret my equity to be 45% or greater, with good fold equity built in. The results of this approach is the ability to add valuable chips to my stack prior to the bubble bursting, and having an opportunity to double up if called (again, I don't want to jam a hand that will give me less than 45% win equity).

It's impossible to fully describe my thoughts on this in words, but basically (depending on the table) I conceivably am OK with jamming something like 10 8 suited in an unopened pot (where I have fold equity) because if called I have roughly 40 - 50% against the BBs (or whomever is calling) range.

Now that hypothetical situation is distinctly changed if I have a note/read on someone left to act that I know will call super light (thus diminishing my fold equity) or any other situational based difference. This is why I call this balance an art.

Great topic!

Thank you Jordan

This is exactly the type of valuable feedback I am looking for, glad it stirred some thoughts for you.

 

[eetenor]

It's good to get feedback and I wanted to find out more about players experiences rather than theory so it's not really help I need but more how you play, I appreciate your post but wanted to make that distinction, having said that, your theory is useful to know so thank you.

Thank you for responding

This is how I play.

I use the data at hand and then act on that data.
Basic examples are.

I do not play for the win with 2 bb on the 1 player left bubble it makes no sense to do that.

Neither do I go for the win by taking a flip vs the chip leader on the bubble when there are 7 weak players on my table and I am second in chips on table and top 10 in the tournament.

I also do not attack a BB player who calls wide ranges when I have a weak range relying on aggression only on the bubble.

I do attack mid-stacks by 3 bet shoving on them if they have shown me that they can fold hands.

I will min raise any two cards vs short stacks that over fold but I do not 3x "any 2" from the SB vs a player who will shove a proper range and I do not shove "any 2" hoping they will fold because I am going for the win.

I even use aggressive limping on the bubble vs some players and table dynamics.


In order to us our Poker Skills we make the best decisions based on the data we have, not on a one size fits all strategy. Bubble aggression is good, when it is a good spot to be aggressive.
We improve our skills by gathering data in game and knowing when to adjust from our standard level of aggression either + or - based on that situational data.

Yes many players tighten up on the bubble but what matters is, who is on my table, not the fact that 60% of the field gets tighter on bubbles.


Hope this helps

 

[pirateglenn]

Thank you Eetenor

Thank you for responding

This is how I play.

I use the data at hand and then act on that data.
Basic examples are.

I do not play for the win with 2 bb on the 1 player left bubble it makes no sense to do that.

Neither do I go for the win by taking a flip vs the chip leader on the bubble when there are 7 weak players on my table and I am second in chips on table and top 10 in the tournament.

I also do not attack a BB player who calls wide ranges when I have a weak range relying on aggression only on the bubble.

I do attack mid-stacks by 3 bet shoving on them if they have shown me that they can fold hands.

I will min raise any two cards vs short stacks that over fold but I do not 3x "any 2" from the SB vs a player who will shove a proper range and I do not shove "any 2" hoping they will fold because I am going for the win.

I even use aggressive limping on the bubble vs some players and table dynamics.


In order to us our Poker Skills we make the best decisions based on the data we have, not on a one size fits all strategy. Bubble aggression is good, when it is a good spot to be aggressive.
We improve our skills by gathering data in game and knowing when to adjust from our standard level of aggression either + or - based on that situational data.

Yes many players tighten up on the bubble but what matters is, who is on my table, not the fact that 60% of the field gets tighter on bubbles.


Hope this helps

Yes this is perfect and definitely helps and will benefit other players, its about sharing our innermost thoughts when put in certain positions, lots of valued information here. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Memphis legend]

in my case I would have to know if I have considerable more than the bubble players, but bottom line, get the money, then play for the win