On the bubble question.....

[korneel]

I would call when I hav a pretty big stack.
When my stack isn't that big, but big enough to survive the bubble I would prob. fold.

 

[milencenov]

Easy call. You should always, always be aiming to win the tournament and this is the best chance you can have to double up your chips as the chip leader will play a wide variety of hands. Just because it is the bubble doesnt change anything, with 30% of the people still playing instead of 10%, you would've called without thinking twice.

No, you should not !!!

Before I aimed at winning tournaments (and I won 9 in the previous month ranging from 250 to 1500 guaranteed), I first carefully grew my bankroll.

You cannot afford to be careless about your money.

First, secure a nice bankroll. And then, shoot to the stars.

 

[Gh0stL]

Call obviously because you have more probabilty to win and increase your cheaps.

 

[el Jefe]

On bubble question

If you are going to be a winning tournament player you need to always get it all in with AA pre-flop whenever you can.

One person is here talking about ICM, but you can't make those kinds of considerations with 10% of a large tournament still in play.

If you even think of folding you shouldn't play the tournament. It's either too big of a buyin for you to play properly or you don't have the heart for it.

 

[Broon1234]

easy call. min cashing is not going to get you much in the long run, need to play for higher places

 

[Snakester420]

Bubble play

Hey guys,

I was wondering, lets say you play in a big tournament with a lot of money on the line. 90% of the players are out and its time for the "bubble" player, you hold an average stack.

You get pocket aces (AA), you raise and then you get re-raised by the chip leader for your entire stack!

Do you call it or fold it ?

So you can expect the big stacks to be way more aggressive on the bubble, as they should, and they will always bully medium stacks and be aggressive toward them. Because of this, you can almost always assume your opponent is making a light 3 bet (often with a naked ace or low pair) and you will have them dominated much of the time) so while you may become unlucky and bust out on the bubble, 5/6 times your aces will hold up after the 5 cards are down (the worst your opponent can have is another pair in which case you are still 80-20 roughly). Hope this helps.
PS- I would not follow this guideline with kings because your opponent usually needs an ace to bust you and has a decent chance of catching it.

 

[Fr0Man]

You've definitely have to call here. If you are worried about this spot, then just go all in pre-flop to avoid a raise, or fold without raising...seriously. You have the best hand always, a lot of the time dominating AK or AQ. If you are playing to min cash then just fold everything until you make the bubble. If you are trying to actually compete in the tourney, you cannot fold ever. When you first bought in, were you hoping to play for multiple hours just to double your money???

 

[Nutcracker69]

You didn't say what is wild? Deuces? Jokers? We need to know if AA is the best starting hand here.

No, I'm kidding. Call it off and you're playing on ACR you will lose most of the time. Then go on 10 poker sites/groups/forums and bitch and get laughed at.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[ph_il]

I looked at all answers to your question.

They ALL made the SAME mistake !!!

When we calculate the odds (and we know AA is favorite against all hands, except AA), we all assume that +EV is decided by CHIP COUNT.

NO - it is NOT.
...EV is, in fact, determined by stack sizes as you're trying to calculate how much value you can expect to make/lose in certain situations. It's impossible to calculate your EV without knowing stack sizes.

Knowing how to calculate your EV will determine if certain situations are +EV, in which you would call or -EV, in which you should fold. Without stack sizes, it's impossible to know.

At the bubble, +EV is decided by: 1. You are eliminated with lost buyin and 0 prize, and 2. You are in the money (and then, the question is - how deep in the money will you go).
...No, it is not. EV doesn't change just because you're on the bubble. Calculating your EV depends on stack sizes and hand strength. It doesn't matter where you are in the tournament, you still calculate your EV the same way to figure if you're in a +EV or -EV situation.


If you call with AA, and run into lower pair (like 10-10) - you will double up at 82% probability.

But you face elimination at 18% risk.
...This is correct, but this isn't EV. This is your equity or how often you can expect to win with your hand.

With 80% equity, you're always +EV in this situation, making the shove profitable in the long run. Lets say blinds are 50/100 and lets say OP has AA w/ a 2K stack. OP raises to 300 and chip leader shoves all in. The pot is now 2K [villain put OP all in] + 300 + 150 [blinds] = 2450. OP has to call 1700 to win a pot of 4150.

So, if we calculate EV, we get:

EV = [$Win x Equity] + [$Lost x Equity]
EV = [4150 x .80] + [-1700 x .20]
EV = [3320] + [-340]
EV = 2980

Which means OP is winning nearly 3K in chips every time they play out this situation with the given stack sizes.

It's +EV and, therefore, an easy call.

NOTE: doubling in chips does NOT mean doubling in prize !!! Very often, doubled prizes are higher in the ladder, and your doubling in chips does NOT guarantee the same growth in prize money.
...This I agree with. However, folding AA here with huge equity does improve your chances of finishing deeper. Much more than folding does in the long run. A lot more.

NOTE 2: In ACR, only in the last month, near bubble, I lost 4 of 6 with AA, 3 of 6 with KK, and AK is my top loser - 8 of 10 lost.
...Small sample sizes. Doesn't mean anything and is just variance.

On average, doubling on the bubble brought me only about 20 to 30% more prize money (compared to to the minimal win).
...Well, if you're a short stack, do you think you just have to double up once and you'll be golden. Lets say you double from 10 BBs to 20 BBs, that's great, but that's still a pretty small stack when blinds and antes are high. So, if you're not doing more to increase your stack, then yeah, you might survive a little longer, but you wont finish much deeper often either.

And also - if you factor in the buy-in cost, that makes folding AA a smart decision.
...The buy-in cost should not be a factor in anything. In fact, you should not even consider the buy-in cost at all. If you're playing to just make you're money back or worried about losing your buy-in, you're likely playing too high for you BR or stakes you are not comfortable playing in.

So, sometimes even folding top hands may be your key to winning.
...Yes, in certain situations, folding top hands could be good. However, in OPs question and on the bubble with AA, it's definitely not. Unless it's a satellite bubble and you have a seat locked, then folding is fine.

Again, you shouldn't be playing to min-cash and should be playing to get yourself as deep as possible. Getting your money in with AA gives you a much better chance at finishing deeper than folding does.

Above.

 

[ph_il]

No, you should not !!!

Before I aimed at winning tournaments (and I won 9 in the previous month ranging from 250 to 1500 guaranteed), I first carefully grew my bankroll.

You cannot afford to be careless about your money.

First, secure a nice bankroll. And then, shoot to the stars.

Getting your money in a +EV situation is not be careless about your money.

Players secure nice BR's by getting their money in +EV situations, not by folding in these situations. You win more in the long run getting your money in good and not being afraid of getting your money in these spots.

Yes, you will lose sometimes, that's just variance. Even a player with 1% equity is going to win eventually, but poker isn't based on your results. Instead, it's more about your decisions. Make more +EV decisions than -EV ones and you're good.

 

[partz]

First of all I think You need to pay attention to the game. Personally I dont play Aces when its about lots of money and the previous flop had at least one Ace, so its a big chance to get small cards into the flop and adversars have a straight or 66, 44, 88 and hit the flop with three of a kind

 

[ph_il]

First of all I think You need to pay attention to the game. Personally I dont play Aces when its about lots of money and the previous flop had at least one Ace, so its a big chance to get small cards into the flop and adversars have a straight or 66, 44, 88 and hit the flop with three of a kind

So, you're basically saying you don't like to play AA for big pots because there's a small chance you might lose with them?

 

[TimovieMan]

As long as we're preflop, I'm willing to go nuts with AA. If we get it in and lose, we still won in the long term.
We'll win far more often, and when we do so near the bubble, we stand a good chance of running deep.

Generally, running deep once is better than mincashing 10 times. I don't mind being the bubble boy if I got it in good, and if a win would've put me in a good position to run deep.



The absolute only exception where I would fold AA is if I'm just a few spots away from getting a ticket in a satellite, where sitting out will guarantee me a ticket, and where calling with AA might endanger that (either possibly busting me or crippling my stack).
And since I hardly ever play satellites, this won't happen.

 

[wc2hell]

One time I listened by a Brazilian Pro player AAKKARI if I was playing for be in ITM or playing for win.

 

[VinnyStrat]

If you aren't willing to risk your stack with Aces, then don't bet with them if there's a larger stack to act after you.

At the bubble, larger stacks are preying on smaller stacks who don't want to risk cashing. This is the opportunity you are looking for is doubling up against someone who has a weaker, and possibly much weaker hand.

 

[Two6JJ]

The equity lost in folding could cost you a chance at final table money. So if your okay with min cash's then you can justify the fold but if you want to a chance at winning more sometimes you have to take your 80% preflop edge and shove. And yes sometimes your tournament will be over but in most other you will cash at a level that will more than compensate for times AA gets broken.

 

[rule72]

Re read this thread just now and I think the biggest mistake I see is those that look down and see AA and think get it all in preflop in some manner regardless of all other information.

Now the following thought is for you being deep stack and the villain being deep stacked relative to the blinds. I've had my AA cracked many times, but being willing to play AA post flop and get away cheap when out flopped I often loose way less equity than the all-in preflop. On the other side I've picked up "customers" and made way more than I might have just getting all-in preflop.

The way I look at it I loose with AA 20% of the time, but my loss of chips/equity is less than 20%. Maybe some math guys know how to analyze this scenerio.

In my early poker days I was lost on how to play after the flop...but when you learn how to play the game post flop it's awesome fun!

 

[burdesasha]

snap call

 

[TeUnit]

its a snap call, unless you could basically sit out to the money

the other thing to consider is the steepness of the payout structure- the less the bottom place plays and the more the top plays the more you need to get it in with

 

[milencenov]

Above.

Believe me, I know well the mathematical equations you wrote in the red letter answers to my statements.

The reason I like poker is that this is a quite logical, mathematical, and at the same time unpredictable and emotional game.

Your theory about +EV is correct in the way poker books describe it.

However, I play for money, not for chips.

So, while at the bubble, +EV for me is based on cashing out money from the tournament or busting on the bubble.

Chip stacks (and you are biiiiig supporter of that concept !!!) are MEANINGLESS if the 2 outcomes are: 1. Doubling up that does NOT guarantee double prize, and 2. Busting with 0 prize.

OK, +EV... but can you afford the variance ?

If there is 18% risk that you lose everything and bust with a loss (the buyin), and 82% chance you get in the money, but without guarantee for double prize - you cannot afford the variance.
(especially, if your stack is relatively small)

 

[milencenov]

Getting your money in a +EV situation is not be careless about your money.

Players secure nice BR's by getting their money in +EV situations, not by folding in these situations. You win more in the long run getting your money in good and not being afraid of getting your money in these spots.

Yes, you will lose sometimes, that's just variance. Even a player with 1% equity is going to win eventually, but poker isn't based on your results. Instead, it's more about your decisions. Make more +EV decisions than -EV ones and you're good.

The concept of "long run" works well in cash games, but is not very applicable in tournaments.

The reason is that ONE loss can be enough to bust you from the tournament.

For example, "in the long run" you are expected to win 4 out of 5 times with AA versus JJ.

However, you cannot know in advance whether you lose the first clash, or the second, or the third, etc.

So, if your "luck" at the bubble was to lose with AA versus JJ, the fact that you could theoretically win the next 4 clashes with AA does not help you if you bust out.

And just to show the math:
In 4 cases you double up on the bubble and end up with X% of the minimal prize. (X must be >=100)
In 1 case you bust out.

The minimal prize is Y times the buyin.

So:
1st scenario - CALL with AA:

(4 * X% * Y * buyin) - (5 * buyin) = net winnings (averaged for 5 or multiples of 5 cases)

(buyin) * (4 * X% * Y - 5) = net winnings.

2nd scenario - FOLD with AA:

(5 * Y * buyin) - (5 * buyin) = net winnings /you don't earn X% by doubling, but you don't bust 1 time out of 5 either/

(buyin) * (5 * Y - 5) = net winnings.

To compare Scenario 1 with Scenario 2, you must divide by buyin:

4 * X% * Y - 5 ><= 5 * Y - 5

4 * X% * Y ><= 5 * Y

4 * X% ><= 5

X% ><= 1.25

Here is the break-even point !

If doubling up in CHIPS guarantees you minimum 25% bigger prize than the minimal prize, you call.

If you don't win more than 25% than the minimal prize, you fold.


Statistically, the % of the minimal prize is bigger if you have a bigger stack to call with at the bubble !

If you have a very small stack, even doubling up will not guarantee any % over the minimal prize.

 

[ph_il]

Believe me, I know well the mathematical equations you wrote in the red letter answers to my statements.

The reason I like poker is that this is a quite logical, mathematical, and at the same time unpredictable and emotional game.

Your theory about +EV is correct in the way poker books describe it.
...EV isn't a theory. It's a proven, mathematical part of poker. You either make +EV decisions, which net you profit in the long run. And making -EV decisions will cost you profit in the long run.

However, I play for money, not for chips.
...Well, in MTTs, chips = money once the bubble pops.

The way MTTs work, with the exception of satellites is you play until you either have no chips or all the chips. In most, not all, but most situations, making the most +EV decisions to increase your chip stack (and, thus, increase you chance of finishing deeper) will always be the more correct choice.

So, while at the bubble, +EV for me is based on cashing out money from the tournament or busting on the bubble.

Chip stacks (and you are biiiiig supporter of that concept !!!) are MEANINGLESS if the 2 outcomes are: 1. Doubling up that does NOT guarantee double prize, and 2. Busting with 0 prize.
...True, doubling up does no double your prize. However, doubling up does increase your chances of reaching a much higher finish than your current position does.

I think this is just coming down to preference. You would rather take min-cashes than risk busting out, while I'd rather take the risk of busting out but at the reward of potentially finishing higher.

OK, +EV... but can you afford the variance?
...Well, yes. As I do follow BRM. Not min-cashing doesn't bother me as I view min-cashing as a waste of time. I'm not going to spend 3-4+ in a MTT just so i can nit up on the bubble and min-cash. If that were the case, I might as well play SNGs as it would net me a larger profit.
If there is 18% risk that you lose everything and bust with a loss (the buyin), and 82% chance you get in the money, but without guarantee for double prize - you cannot afford the variance.
(especially, if your stack is relatively small)
...This makes such little sense. Why would I stress over losing a single buy-in (again, BRM) as an 80% favorite to win. I am definitely not losing sleep if I get my money in here and lose. I will however, be always second guessing my decision if I were to fold here as folding would be a -EV play and call would be +EV.

Again, min-cashes or not min-cashing is meaningless to me. If I have 100 buy-ins for an MTT, I'm not stressing over losing a buy-in. However, I'd rather lose one buy-in than to make a bad decision just so I can profit an extra buy-in when I could potentially be finishing with much more.

My decisions in MTTs are always to get as deep as possible, and folding on the bubble, with a monster hand like AA, is the complete opposite of that.

Above.

Again, this sounds like is just a matter of preference.

I'll answer your other reply when i get back from dinner.

 

[milencenov]

...EV isn't a theory. It's a proven, mathematical part of poker. You either make +EV decisions, which net you profit in the long run. And making -EV decisions will cost you profit in the long run.

Not true. EV is theory. its practical application deviates from theory, because of "variance". And I repeat - "Long Run" does NOT work in the same way in MTTs as it works at cash tables. In MTTs you do not have repeated same situations, and in MTTs one "variance" can bust you out.

...Well, in MTTs, chips = money once the bubble pops.

Not true. Chips CAN BE money even before the bubble pops, if you are wise enough. However, note that 2 times more chips is NOT 2 times more money. And in poker, we play for MONEY.

The way MTTs work, with the exception of satellites is you play until you either have no chips or all the chips. In most, not all, but most situations, making the most +EV decisions to increase your chip stack (and, thus, increase you chance of finishing deeper) will always be the more correct choice.
It depends what you call "+EV". For me, "+EV" means "more MONEY", and NOT "more chips". There are peculiar situations where you would NOT try to double up on chips, because you want money.

...True, doubling up does no double your prize. However, doubling up does increase your chances of reaching a much higher finish than your current position does.

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. If you have a SMALL stack, but good enough to survive the bubble - then doubling up on chips does NOT change your chances for higher prizes, but busting means ZERO from the prize pool. When you have big stack, doubling up can mean even more than doubling your cash prize ! So, it depends...

I think this is just coming down to preference. You would rather take min-cashes than risk busting out, while I'd rather take the risk of busting out but at the reward of potentially finishing higher.

NOT TRUE. Over the last 2 months, I was quite consistent in reaching numerous final tables, while winning 1st place in several tournaments. However, I was VERY careful not to bust on the bubble. Yes, before the bubble, I don't want to bust with 0$ ! But after the bubble, I was able to be aggressive again and push for higher places.

 

[milencenov]

...This makes such little sense. Why would I stress over losing a single buy-in (again, BRM) as an 80% favorite to win. I am definitely not losing sleep if I get my money in here and lose. I will however, be always second guessing my decision if I were to fold here as folding would be a -EV play and call would be +EV.

Haha, it is the "Long Run" that must be taken care of ! If you consistently lose more money than you win (and see my mathematical calculations !!!), then you have to reconsider your idea...

Again, min-cashes or not min-cashing is meaningless to me. If I have 100 buy-ins for an MTT, I'm not stressing over losing a buy-in. However, I'd rather lose one buy-in than to make a bad decision just so I can profit an extra buy-in when I could potentially be finishing with much more.

If you have 100 buyins, you would want some day (soon) to have 200 buyins... So, you cannot afford to be irresponsible towards your buyins. And "potentially finishing with much more" is very abstract and theoretical, until you make some calculations. I gave you a mathematical example how to calculate that "much more".

My decisions in MTTs are always to get as deep as possible, and folding on the bubble, with a monster hand like AA, is the complete opposite of that.

My decisions in MTTs is to get as high ranked as possible AFTER I survive the bubble. Risking elimination before the bubble is worth or is not worth it, depending on my stack, my opponent's stack and the number of players until the bubble pops...

 

[supernuts25]

you gotta call if its just against one player. online u should worry cause they probably get busted, but its still a call