$100 satty to a $1500 WSOP event(online)

around 130 runners total with around 90ish remaining with 9 tickets total. Full ring tables.
We are around 30-40th ish as I remember around this hand

We get dealt QJs on the BTN with 27BBs. Both SB & BB are around our stack/cover us.
Everyone folds to HJ who jams for around 8.5/9.5BBs.
In game I rejammed & got called by SB with AKo. Here are my questions.

1. What is our calling range here?Do we have a calling range here??
2. Do we have a call fold to rejam range?
3. What's our iso jam range?
4. What adjustments, changes I should make in these kind of satty spots from regular/bounty tournies?

Would appreciate if a satty expert could help me

1) The issue here is, that while we are facing a jam from a short stack, we have two players behind with 3 times as many chips as the all-in player. This mean, that in a sense, if we give action here, we are risking 27BB to pick up 11-12BB by calling. This is a bad risk/reward, and we have no fold equity, so we need a pretty strong hand to get involved.

I dont know the theoretically correct answer (ICMizer does), but I would tend to fold here, unless I had a really premium hand. Maybe AJs+, AQ+, TT+. This might be to tight, but in a situation like this I will rather be overfolding slightly than the opposite. You still have plenty of times to look for better spots, and then it is ok to give up on one, which is very marginal and high variance, when you already have a perfectly workable stack.

I dont think, it makes a huge difference, if we just call or overjam, but I would tend to lean towards just calling. The reason is, I think, it can look like a trap, so it might actually get the blinds to fold a little more often. If someone call, we are protected postflop by the presense of the all-in player. He gives a disincentive for bluffing, so if we missed, we can usually just fold without making a mistake. And if we connected, we have a very easy get-it-in spot.

2) I guess, there is an argument for this following the same logic, which I applied to hypothetical flop play. Because of the all in player the value of bluff jamming goes way down, so if we get jammed on, we can usually assume, that the opponent was the goods. But even so I personally hate putting in a third of my chips without even seeing a flop, and since I would tend to only give action with very strong hands, I would probably always be calling it off.

3) Kind of answered that one under 1). I would play my entire range the same way and either call or overjam everything.

4) At this stage none. The bubble is still so far away, that the payout structure will not matter. When the bubble gets near, ICM-pressure is much higher in satellites, and this is the time, you need to start adjusting.

I would not have a calling range here at all except on hands where I decide that if I am over calling this raise then I am also always calling a jam from one of the blinds. My default play would be to jam or fold but if the one or both of the blinds are aggressive players with high 3 bet%s then I will call to induce a jam. Never though am I ever calling in this spot with the intention of folding to a jam.

As far as this hand goes, I think it is too weak to jam with players still to act also not strong enough to want to induce a jam so fold is the clear answer. My range here for jamming or inducing a jam would be pretty tight actually. Something like 1010+ and AQ+. AJ is where is gets tricky and would suck to have in this spot. It is tough to fold there but I think I would fold it and just deny that I ever did fold it if someone asked lol.

both of your ranges are way too nitty for regular or bounty games. QJ should be an easy nash call
I have no clue in sattys. considering it isn't that close to the tickets don't think it deviates that much

ICMizer actually allow non-subscribers to run a few free calculations, so I plugged the hand into the program making the following assumptions: MTT mode, 90 players left, average stack size 30BB, Hero, SB and BB are average stacks, HJ is jamming for 9BB. This should be close enough to the situation, which actually existed. QJs is just outside the range of hands, which Hero is supposed to call with, but the EV is listed as zero, so I guess, its fair to say, that our decision here pretty much does not matter.

Only giving action with the hands, I suggested, is indeed to nitty according to ICMizer. However in lower buyin MTTs up to say 12$ I dont think, the average player is jamming 33% of hands, as HJ is supposed to here. They are typically jamming less, because they are not comfortable to risk their tournament live with marginal hands.

In top of that it is possible to have a fairly large skill edge on the average opponent, and for that reason it is acceptable to take off some spots, that are very marginal but high variance. So after having run the calculation, my choise against an unknown opponent at stakes up to 12$ would be to give action with something like 99+, AJ+, ATs+, KJs+. This is taking off the hands, which ICMizer have as very marginal calls.

Originally Posted by fundiver199

Only giving action with the hands, I suggested, is indeed to nitty according to ICMizer. However in lower buyin MTTs up to say 12$ I dont think, the average player is jamming 33% of hands, as HJ is supposed to here. They are typically jamming less, because they are not comfortable to risk their tournament live with marginal hands.

This isn't exactly true. Generally people play a lot looser on smaller stakes punting a lot. way more than higher stakes.
Also I have a snapshove subscription. It's a great software to have to calculate some push/fold spots easily

Originally Posted by Alucard

This isn't exactly true. Generally people play a lot looser on smaller stakes punting a lot. way more than higher stakes.

Most of that looseness comes from recreational players, who call to much rather than jam to much. They also limp into pots etc.

Can't imagine this being a good rejam spot given ICM pressure in a sat. We rarely get it in good here (probably a slightly marginal call chip ev wise), but the risk of busting is too expensive.