Slowing down play at the bubble when you're shortstacked obviously makes a lot of sense and is a very valid strategy.

But what about players who deliberately slow down play hoping to get to higher brackets leading up the FT?

Pay jumps b/w brackets are negligible. Biggest ones happen at the FT. If our goal is to get the MTTs wouldn't we ideally want more hands (better chances of increasing our stacks)?

I see this happen enough times and just noticed this in the money in the PS FR game I'm currently playing in atm. I believe being a short stack we should be making snap push/fold decisions instead of tanking and making it more difficult for ourselves with increased blinds/antes coming up.

Thoughts?

I believe online that a lot of peeps are multitasking, so it is not always about tanking to move up positions after the bubble.

Maybe the #1 advantage of online poker is the opportunity to gain experience by playing many more hands, in a given period of time, than one can play live. Deliberately giving up this advantage strikes me as mostly -ev.

When on the bubble I take my time to get ITM unless I am a pretty big stack. When I am a really big stack I play "normal speed".

Once ITM I will tend to play normal regardless of stack size again.

Then when close to making the FT I will again play slow unless I am the big stack.

I can't say I even understand my own logic in this but this is how I tend to play.

Many people do it and lose everybody's time - that's the fact. I used to do it when I started playing, but now I don't. I think the better option is to focus on making your game better for the next tournament.

-evI can see doing this in a satellite when you have a large number of short stacks & typically nobody is deep.


There's a player in the monthly Titan points 'rebuy' freeroll who does this every single month, every single hand during the first hour. Meanwhile other tables are shoving allin like crazy, building up HUGE stacks & getting a ton of chips on the table(s) but if you're stuck with 'Mr. Timedown' you'll be at a HUGE disadvantage (as they will be as well). Can't find the logic in that one (but it does remind me that poker is still +ev)

If you're short-stacked and close to the bubble, then it makes sense to tank. Otherwise, you want to play as many hands at the current blind level before blinds go up. Time bank should be used for making difficult decisions, not for wasting time.

I would distinguish between "taking one's time" and "stalling". Some people play at a slower pace than others whether because of multi tabling, computer/connection speed, or just slow thinking.

I always try to play as quickly as is reasonble. I try to pace myself at a rhythm that allows me to take more time when I wish to use the hesitation for image purposes. When I am new to the situation, that rhythm is slower than when I've been in the tourney, at the same table, for what seems like forever.

I can recall that in the Fall, I received a ton of $1.10 satellite tickets from PartyPoker. Often, the field would barely cover the payout (eg 50 tickets to the next step). So I always took 4-5 seconds to make every decision until the late registration period was over. On several occasions, there were less players than the guarantee remaining when late reg ended.

Even though for me, 4-5 seconds seemed like an eternity, it is on pace for some, and it didn't require use of time bank. I don't consider this stalling. I was simply playing the tourney at a pace that helped everyone on the table to money.

Now stalling, that's different. Stalling eats up your time bank in an effort to completely slow the game. If someone feels that this is their surest way to the money (and the accompanying short stack) there's not much you can do about it. I do it very rarely, and only when making it past the bubble (whatever bubble I am considering) is worth getting short. This occurs most often in satellites where you "make it" and get a stack reset at a certain point. Unless you're the shortest stack in the field, you can wait it out. It is definitely not a great strategy in most situations, and completely idiotic in others (eg Hand for Hand play). I once played in a huge freeroll where the hand for hand play began across multiple tables and multiple players on some tables refused to act. They milked their time until they were sat out!! When others chimed in that they weren't accomplishing anything, they got really pissed off. The bubble took twenty minutes of hand for hand in order to eliminate ONE player - you can't change the fact that some people are stupid and rude.

for me to be wasting time only when you are near the bubble or win a ticket in a satellite

Originally Posted by mtl mile end

It is definitely not a great strategy in most situations, and completely idiotic in others (eg Hand for Hand play). I once played in a huge freeroll where the hand for hand play began across multiple tables and multiple players on some tables refused to act. They milked their time until they were sat out!! When others chimed in that they weren't accomplishing anything, they got really pissed off. The bubble took twenty minutes of hand for hand in order to eliminate ONE player - you can't change the fact that some people are stupid and rude.

Oh gosh yes! I forgot about this. Stalling at hand for hand play. This really made no sense to me either. The only instance this made any sense to me was during those PP satellites you mentioned (multiple stacks < 1bb during bubble). Made sense because there were some weak players who'd still play with marginal hands because they were pot committed in the SB. But in general I observed that it works to your detriment more often than it does in your favour..

Originally Posted by darthdimsky

Oh gosh yes! I forgot about this. Stalling at hand for hand play. This really made no sense to me either. The only instance this made any sense to me was during those PP satellites you mentioned (multiple stacks < 1bb during bubble). Made sense because there were some weak players who'd still play with marginal hands because they were pot committed in the SB. But in general I observed that it works to your detriment more often than it does in your favour..

It does bother me when the tourney is in H4H play and others still slow play. I mean that's the point of H4H, right? Everyone plays the same number of hands before the bubble bursts.

Now if I am short and am about to go all-in during H4H I will use all of my time still hoping the other table(s) have someone go out before I get my chips in the middle.

i agree this can be annoying mid tournament but yes i also agree to it's benefits, the last thing me wanting to drop off just before placement however small a payout it may be and this tactic of including remaining time bank has saved my bacon more than once and kept my seat for me to resume normal play whether that be aggression or an instant fold, If I need to use my full time bank at the bubble h4h I will with the only exception being if i happen to be on a table with 1 or more of the shortest stacks and although it will not always be the shortest stack bursting the bubble it to me makes much less sense to partake in stalling here

Originally Posted by shikah

i agree this can be annoying mid tournament but yes i also agree to it's benefits, the last thing me wanting to drop off just before placement however small a payout it may be and this tactic of including remaining time bank has saved my bacon more than once and kept my seat for me to resume normal play whether that be aggression or an instant fold, If I need to use my full time bank at the bubble h4h I will with the only exception being if i happen to be on a table with 1 or more of the shortest stacks and although it will not always be the shortest stack bursting the bubble it to me makes much less sense to partake in stalling here

A good point here. If you have a very small stack at your table shouldn't we want that stack to see the blinds quickly? They are under more pressure than anyone else at the table, or in the whole tourney for that matter.

you have soooo little tools in onlinepoker, the timebank is one of them.I do make use of it in almost every single tournament.

Originally Posted by ucdengboss

A good point here. If you have a very small stack at your table shouldn't we want that stack to see the blinds quickly? They are under more pressure than anyone else at the table, or in the whole tourney for that matter.

So we should stall in order for someone at the table to see blinds more quickly?

Originally Posted by mtl mile end

So we should stall in order for someone at the table to see blinds more quickly?

No, no... he said it makes less sense to partake in the slow play when you have the short stack at your table. That sentence is the part I was agreeing with.

There is certainly an advantage at certain points of a game to stall which is why people do it.

While it is aggravating there are times it does make sense to stall during hand for hand play. If you know that the current blinds are small enough to allow a player to fold through them, but the next level will force them to win a hand, it could be beneficial to stall, make the blinds go up, and force a player to need to win a hand. If it means cashing instead of getting nothing, I can understand that move.

I do think it is smart to stall outside bubble time. Better to give yourself as many opportunities to chip up as you can.

Originally Posted by ucdengboss

No, no... he said it makes less sense to partake in the slow play when you have the short stack at your table. That sentence is the part I was agreeing with.

Gotcha. I still say more hands = better. Unless you're the second smallest stack, in a position to stall until the blinds go up missing you and hitting the shorty (in hand for hand, it's easy to determine if this is the case), and he's all in, I wouldn't bother. And if he flops the nuts, you've got less hands to try and double up to survive because you wasted everyone's time.


I understand the personal usefulness of stalling in very specific situations, but these are few and far between. In hand for hand, they are almost non existent.

You know, it's really interesting reading the opinions. Though I dismissed it earlier stalling at hand-for-hands appears to have merit in certain instances. Besides the one that Shikah brought up, let's say you're the in the bottom 5 and at late position. Stalling to apply more pressure on the smaller stacks in other tables even makes it a very valid strategy I believe.

Originally Posted by darthdimsky

You know, it's really interesting reading the opinions. Though I dismissed it earlier stalling at hand-for-hands appears to have merit in certain instances. Besides the one that Shikah brought up, let's say you're the in the bottom 5 and at late position. Stalling to apply more pressure on the smaller stacks in other tables even makes it a very valid strategy I believe.

But wouldn't it put pressure on them to play more hands, pay more antes, and just feel more pressed to act if the hands are going by. Blind levels are usually long enough that on a full table, you are getting multiple hands at each level. With a ten minute blind level on a table of nine, I can't see much of an advantage to making that equation two hands per level instead of ten. For example, you are targeting ONE person (on any table in the tourney) to bust next, with the great advantage of increasing the blinds paid by 50% if you make everyone's life miserable. If you yourself are short, but able to benefit from a blind increase (as it targets "the one") and this approach doesn't work (i.e. the one doubles up), now you could be the one under pressure. My bottom line is that I would actually rather play than concoct some time wasting strategy that only benefits one or two players IF it works - even if I am one of those players.

Originally Posted by mtl mile end

But wouldn't it put pressure on them to play more hands, pay more antes, and just feel more pressed to act if the hands are going by. Blind levels are usually long enough that on a full table, you are getting multiple hands at each level. With a ten minute blind level on a table of nine, I can't see much of an advantage to making that equation two hands per level instead of ten. For example, you are targeting ONE person (on any table in the tourney) to bust next, with the great advantage of increasing the blinds paid by 50% if you make everyone's life miserable. If you yourself are short, but able to benefit from a blind increase (as it targets "the one") and this approach doesn't work (i.e. the one doubles up), now you could be the one under pressure. My bottom line is that I would actually rather play than concoct some time wasting strategy that only benefits one or two players IF it works - even if I am one of those players.

I completely agree and I play quick too. It's mostly a waste of time.

But what about turbo MTTs or satellites where when the final 5-10 players have stacks of 1-2bb, when they are playing nitty hoping someone else will make a mistake? If you are among these players and are (for arguments sake) at the CO. The chances of busting most of these players by raising just one blind level is a very high probability by just stalling.

I mean, it's a rare instance when you are at this spot and situation but it's an interesting thought.

Originally Posted by darthdimsky

I completely agree and I play quick too. It's mostly a waste of time.

But what about turbo MTTs or satellites where when the final 5-10 players have stacks of 1-2bb, when they are playing nitty hoping someone else will make a mistake? If you are among these players and are (for arguments sake) at the CO. The chances of busting most of these players by raising just one blind level is a very high probability by just stalling.

I mean, it's a rare instance when you are at this spot and situation but it's an interesting thought.

I agree. I'm not saying it never happens, I'm saying it almost never happens.

I play a lot of $0.01 satellites at partypoker. It happens quite a lot because we are given 1k stacks (100bbs) but 2 min blinds. Dunno if this satt can be considered a hyper turbo because I don't play that many. Here's a screen of the bubble of the one that just concluded.

It's still a very rare instance because I haven't come across many that play these MTTs in the forums but stalling @ H-2-H will come in really handy here.

Originally Posted by darthdimsky

Slowing down play at the bubble when you're shortstacked obviously makes a lot of sense and is a very valid strategy.

But what about players who deliberately slow down play hoping to get to higher brackets leading up the FT?

Pay jumps b/w brackets are negligible. Biggest ones happen at the FT. If our goal is to get the MTTs wouldn't we ideally want more hands (better chances of increasing our stacks)?

I see this happen enough times and just noticed this in the money in the PS FR game I'm currently playing in atm. I believe being a short stack we should be making snap push/fold decisions instead of tanking and making it more difficult for ourselves with increased blinds/antes coming up.

Thoughts?

Stalling for payjumps is a very common and valid strategy.

Originally Posted by darthdimsky

But what about players who deliberately slow down play hoping to get to higher brackets leading up the FT?

When I am short-stacked (10bbs or less) I use a stall strategy in freerolls to level up. I don't typically access the time bank in the stall strategy UNLESS I am going to go all-in and there is someone on another table that is at risk.. in this case I wait until the last moment to shove in hopes that the person on the other table will bust out.

Many times using this stragegy is the difference between ~$0.11 and ~$0.33 if I can manage to outlast ~10-15 opponents who are also short-stacked. My determining factor is the moment I realize I'm going to need to get extremely lucky to do much better than a minimum cash - I slow down, hope that others bust out so I can level up in the $$, and I look for the all-in moment that will double my stack.