On the bubble question.....

[milencenov]

I forgot one very important aspect of "on the bubble" play - the various regulations of the various poker rooms regarding hand-for-hand and ranking of eliminations on the bubble !!!

So, when you are holding AA on the bubble, you might as well consider some "stalling" and using the whole your time bank. Also, you must consider the way poker rooms rank busted players on the bubble.

There are rooms which, even if they apply hand-for-hand, they still rank players "chronologically", i.e. if you bust 10 seconds later than someone on another table, you are above him in the ranking. So, stalling and using time banks can be a good idea even in hand-for-hand, and even with AA.

There are rooms (like ACR for example) which apply hand-for-hand and do NOT rank players chronologically.
If several players bust in hand-for-hand, ACR's "tie-breaker" is... the number of chips before each player went all-in !!!
So, if you bust with a small stack - you are out of the money.
If you bust with a huge stack (and there are enough busts to pop the bubble), you are in the money.

You should also consider those factors when you decide whether to call (or push) all-in with top hands.

 

[TimovieMan]

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...

You underestimate ohshootmybad's ROI.

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.

If you mincash, you win 1 additional buy-in. If you make the final table, you make 20-300 buy-ins.
I agree with ohshootmybad that mincashing is meaningless if it hurts your chances of making a deep run. One final table beats 20 min-cashes.

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...

But if blinds and antes cause you to dwindle your small 6bb stack down to a 4bb stack to make the money, then I'd rather risk busting to make sure I have a 14bb stack past the bubble.
That 14bb stack is going to take me a lot further than a 4bb stack will.

 

[ph_il]

...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.
...EV is not a theory. Again, it is a proven mathematical formula used to determine how much money one can expect to win or lose.

Lets look at a coin flip. Not a poker coin flip, but an actual flip of the coin. We know the equity of landing on heads or tails is 50-50. So, if I were to offer you $1 for every time heads came up, but you had to pay me $1 for every time tails came up, your EV would be $0. How? By plugging it into an EV formula that is: EV = [$ won x Equity] + [$ lost x Equity]

EV = [$1 x .50] + [-$1 x. 50]
EV = [.50] + [-.50]
EV = [$0]

However, if I were to off you $2 and you pay me $1, you get:

EV = [$2 x .50] + [-$1 x .50]
EV = [$1] + [-.50]
EV = [.50]

Meaning that you're expect to make .50 per coinflip over a large sample size, or in the long run, making it a +EV decision. If someone offered you this, you should accept it.

This same formula applies to poker. Let's say have 1K w/ blinds at 50/100. You have AA and a player before you goes all in. It's the money bubble and you have to decide whether to call or fold here. If we plug this into the EV formula, we get:

EV = [2150* x .80] + [-1000 x .20]
EV = [1720] + [-200]
EV = [1520]

You're expected to make 1.5K in the long run in this situation, making this a +EV decision and there for a good decision to get you money in with this hand.

*1000 + 1000 + Blinds*

...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.
...I probably wasn't clear on this. Looking this from a short stack point of view, my tournament chips have very little money value to me until I've reached the point where pay jumps are significant. And that's at the final table, where ICM comes into play.

So, my decisions in MTTs are the ones that I the best ones that'll allow me to finish deeper in the game. Again, min-cashing and not min-cashing doesn't mean anything to me, so I'm not going to look at a short stack and think "well, I just have to wait out 1 more player before I make the money." if I have a hand strong enough worth getting my chips in. I'm not afraid to bubble an MTT for a better chance at a deeper run.

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.
...Well, for me +EV will always mean Positive Expected Value. I'm not sure how you expect to make more money or finish better without increasing your stack size. Since my goal is to win, I want more chips to allow me to have a better chance of doing such. I'm not going to get there if I'm folding key spots like AA on bubble.


...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 depends on the player. It sounds like you're more concerned with making the money first before risking your tournament life/short stack. And that's cool.

I'm not like that.

A min cash is insignificant to me, so the risk for a bigger stack is a much more better reward than min cashing. And yes, doubling up does increase your chances of finishing higher. Would you rather have a 10 BB stack or a 20 BB stack? Compared to a 10 BB stack, a 20 BB stack has:

-More fold equity
-More 3 bet fold equity
-Can play a slightly more selective range than 10 BBs

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.
...Nice job. Again, without some clarification, this just comes down to preference. You'd rather secure an ITM first before switching gears and become more aggressive.

As mentioned already, I didn't care about busting out on the bubble. In fact, most of my busts came way before the bubble reached as I was making plays well before the bubble came along during the mid-late stages for a chance at making final table with a large stack size. I was giving up value with easy, frequent min-cashes in exchange for deep runs, FTs, and wins that netted more significant profit than just min cashing.

Above.

 

[ph_il]

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.
...Well, yeah. I mean, assuming it's not a re-buy or re-entry, this very true. But if you're following BRM, losing a buy-in is insignificant.

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.
...Well, that's not how it works. Over a large sample size, you're expected to win 4/5 times with AA vs JJ. However, because of variance, it's not going to always come up with you losing 1 out of every 5 tries.

It's like flipping a coin. It's 50-50 for either side, but does that mean that with every flip it's going to alternate between heads and tails? No. If you flip a coin ten times in a row, will it come up 5x heads and 5x tails? No, because of variance and a small sample size. It's very possible that heads comes up 7x vs tails 3x, but that doesn't mean heads has a better chance of coming up. It's just your sample size is too small and more times you flip the coin the more balanced out the 50-50 equity will become.

The same goes with AA vs JJ. Just because you're in this situation 5x doesn't mean you'll win 4/5. You can easily lose 5/5 in this situation because of variance, but over a large sample size (or long run), it'll even out in AA's favor. If you pitted AA vs JJ 10K times, AA will win close to 80% of the time or 8K/10K.

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.
...Well, if I bust out on the bubble, oh well. It happens. It's variance. As long as my opponent has some equity, they'll can win.

But busting out here has no relevance on the next time I'm in a situation where I'm all in with AA. I'll still make the same play because a) I know AA is a huge favorite to win and b) it's a +EV decision.

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.
...I'm going to have to go back on your math. Something doesn't make sense or I'm missing something. It's also pretty late and I'm really tired and, for all I know, it's perfectly fine and my brain isn't functioning correctly.

Does your math take into consideration situations where you fold and don't make the money? Or you call, win, and eventually finish in a much deeper position?

Honestly, and again, maybe I'm just missing it because my brain is mush at the moment, but it seems like there are too many things to factor in to make this math plausible. But, I'm not knocking it just yet. I'll look at it with fresh eyes tomorrow.

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.
...True, but doubling up does improve your chances.

Above.

 

[ph_il]

So, when you are holding AA on the bubble, you might as well consider some "stalling" and using the whole your time bank. Also, you must consider the way poker rooms rank busted players on the bubble.

You should also consider those factors when you decide whether to call (or push) all-in with top hands.

Meh, stalling is a waste of time is done by players who are afraid of losing a buy-in or not min cashing.

The only thing you need to consider when getting your money in with a top hand is "Do i want to call and give myself the best chance of winning this MTT?" or "Do I want to fold and feel like I wasted 3-4 hours just so I can make an insignificant min-cash?"

 

[ph_il]

...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...
...Well, if I'm getting my money in mostly +EV decisions, then i'm not losing money in the long run. Even with variance and downswings.

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".
...Not sure how following BRM is being irresponsible with buy-ins, but ok.

Well, sure having 200 buy-ins would be great, but do you not realize how long that would take on min-cashes alone? Lets say you have 100 buy-ins for $1.10 MTTs and a min cash = $2.2 or double your buy-in.

To show a profit, you would have to min-cash in 51/100 MTTs, thus giving you a total profit of $2.2. Woo-wee!

Of course, this is a bit extreme as there would be times you min-cash and finish much deeper, but this is just an example.

A single win would easily surpass that. Which is why I play to go for deep runs and not min cash.

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...
...If your hand and stack warrants it, it's always better to risk your tournament life to increase you chip stack.

I guess another way to look at it is: I'd rather bust out on the bubble shoving AA and losing, because it's on my terms. I made that decision. Instead of folding AA, having a short stack, then an even shorter stack as blinds go up, and eventually i'm forced to shove a much more weaker hand than AA with no fold equity because I have no more options.

Even if I min-cashed, it's significant because jamming AA would have been the much better option and I missed it. Even if I lost with AA, it's still the better option.

Above.

 

[touchmytallalla]

How can you win tournament if you are even thinking about fold in such spot.

 

[milencenov]

The only thing you need to consider when getting your money in with a top hand is "Do i want to call and give myself the best chance of winning this MTT?" or "Do I want to fold and feel like I wasted 3-4 hours just so I can make an insignificant min-cash?"

Bullsh*t !

Sorry to say that, but this is complete bullsh*t !

"the best chance of winning this MTT" ?????????????

So, if you have 5 BBs and double up to 10 BBs, that gives you "best chance to win MTT" ?????????????

Sometimes, you just have a small stack and know that even doubling up will NOT help you rank very high.

And in those moments, min-cash with min-stack is much better than risking to have played 5 hours for ZERO cash.



Yes, I always played to min-cash first, and after that, to test if I can push higher.

With this strategy, I won several 1st places in tournaments from 100$ to 1500$ guaranteed.

But without this strategy, I would have lost my initial bankroll before even getting the chance to fight for 1st place !!!

 

[milencenov]

How can you win tournament if you are even thinking about fold in such spot.

I won a 1500$ guaranteed tournament at ACR and before the bubble, I folded QQ, KK, AK and JJ.

However, 2 hours before that, in a 2000$ guaranteed tournament, I had a big stack before the bubble, and the chip leader pushed all-in with 10-10. I called instantly with A-A.
He hit a 10 on the flop, I did not hit any A on any street.

I was furious. But I realized that if I am ready to play 5 hours before Late reg ends and 1 more hour before we arrive at the bubble, I should not risk my whole stack and tournament future, only because I am excited by a big hand.

And then, I was super-careful and folded top hands before the bubble. You cannot even imagine what bullsh*t boards I avoided !!!
Then, I was in the money and decided that I can test my luck with AK or QQ... And I little by little climbed to the top positions...

If I had not folded with top hands before the bubble, I would have busted out of the money, hoping that "next time variance will not hit me"...

I suppose millions of poker players think the same when they play "correctly" and still lose.

And I suppose millions of poker players curse and shout when they see how the bingo donks and idiots reach final tables, while they "play correctly" and lose.

 

[milencenov]

You underestimate ohshootmybad's ROI.

If you mincash, you win 1 additional buy-in. If you make the final table, you make 20-300 buy-ins.
I agree with ohshootmybad that mincashing is meaningless if it hurts your chances of making a deep run. One final table beats 20 min-cashes.

But if blinds and antes cause you to dwindle your small 6bb stack down to a 4bb stack to make the money, then I'd rather risk busting to make sure I have a 14bb stack past the bubble.
That 14bb stack is going to take me a lot further than a 4bb stack will.

Maybe I and ohshootmybad have both good ROIs, although each of us has a different approach.

In general, my ROI is infinite, because I have never deposited my own money to play poker.

I made my first 10$ deposit, when I was already at the final table of a tournament that earned me 380$.

In the last 2 months, I played more at ACR. I deposited 25$, but I earned and cashed 500$. I don't know if this ROI of 2000% is "good enough".

For me, it is.

I grew a good bankroll by minimizing my busts before the money.

Yes, this means that many times, I would min-cash.

But I still had my chances to push higher. I won several 1st places, I had numerous final tables and top 18 finishes (last 2 tables).



The difference is big between a small and a big stack on the bubble.

A small stack of 5 BBs was still enough to last until after the bubble pops, while risking it did not double my chances for higher prizes. If I doubled, 10 BBs are still a small stack, the fold equity is low and I still would need a sequence of huge luck in order to reach final table.

A big stack is worth pushing with (if you have a top hand) - if you double up from 50 to 100 BBs for example, you really improve a lot your chances to reach FT and even to win the tournament.

 

[rule72]

In most cases you call. Stack less than half your stack for sure. But for stack bigger than yours you have to consider the pay jumps and the other stack sizes. A scenario I might fold is several smaller stacks and folding means at worst cashing in the middle of the pay jumps and you still have a stack to win first with.

Calling and winning this hand you double up and have a monster stack, will happen 80% of the time.

Calling and loosing you have nothing, will happen 20% of the time.

If you can walk out empty handed satisfied that you got it in good and not beat yourself up, or the other guy, call all-in regardless. And don't start telling another "how I got my aces cracked" story... very boring and nobody cares. lol

Going through this interesting thread I just realized I made an earlier statement the opposite of what I meant.

What I meant was a scenario I might fold AA is stacks that are larger or crippling me if I loose.

Most the detailed discussion I've read here is considering the individual hole cards and the likelihood of winning heads up. More to it than that in my mind.

 

[ph_il]

I think I need to clear up some of my replies I made to your posts.

Bullsh*t !

Sorry to say that, but this is complete bullsh*t !
...This reply that I made is how I approach and view MTTs. I wasn't saying that this is how you or others should play, but I do believe calling here is and always will be the better option when you have AA facing an all-in on the bubble.

I play to win, not to fold a key spot like this after 3-4 hours just to min-cash.

"the best chance of winning this MTT" ?????????????

So, if you have 5 BBs and double up to 10 BBs, that gives you "best chance to win MTT" ?????????????
...Mayber 'better' chance would've been more appropriate. And yes, if you're short stacked, doubling up your stack again and again, will give a much better chance to win.

Larger stacks have more maneuverability, can be more hand selective, aren't forced to make plays, have more fold equity, etc. So many more benefits having more chips and larger stack than having a smaller stack. Especially when blinds and antes are high. A 10 BB stack is still a short stack, but is still a much better option than a 5 BB stack.

Also, I'm not saying that doubling to a 10 BB stack will give you the best chance to win because that's all you have to do. You still have a long ways to go, but each time you double up, you increase your chances to finish deeper. You double up from 5 to 10, you have a little bit more fold equity and can shove a little bit wider in certain situations. Double from 10 to 20, now you have 3 bet fold equity and can resteal a little easier. Double from 20 to 40 and now you have a decent, around average sized stack to play with. You aren't forced to shove hands to pick up blinds, you be slightly more selective of hands you play preflop, etc. Then as blinds go up, you can re-adjust.

Increasing blinds will always be a problem for short stacks, so I'd rather shove with a strong hand and best chance of doubling up with a short stack as it's more beneficial to me. Than to fold and have an ever shorter stack to shove after blinds increase. I have no fold equity and depending on preflop action, most hands will be getting a great price to call my shove. And if I'm not shoving AA with 5 BBs, what hands am I shoving when I have less than that that puts me in a better position to win that AA couldn't? None.

Just to add, I'd never let myself get blinded down to 5 BBs before I shoved. I'd be shoving way before that.

Sometimes, you just have a small stack and know that even doubling up will NOT help you rank very high.
...True, but doubling up gives you a better chance at finish much deeper in an MTT. Especially if you're doubling up with a playable short stack and not waiting until your severely deep.

Doubling up from 10 BBs to 20 BBs will put you in a much better position with more options than doubling from 5 BBs to 10 BBs.

And in those moments, min-cash with min-stack is much better than risking to have played 5 hours for ZERO cash.
...I disagree with this. I think folding key spots like AA on the bubble is costing your more money in the long run and that min-cashing isn't worth it.

Again, I think this comes down to preference and if you're rather min-cash than risk your MTT life, that's up to you. I, however, aim to win when when I play MTTs and folding spots like this do not give me the best chance of winning.

Yes, I always played to min-cash first, and after that, to test if I can push higher.
...I always aim to win and finish as high as possible. Min-cashing is fine, but it's not a goal and I don't care if I do or don't min-cash as it's meaningless to me.

With this strategy, I won several 1st places in tournaments from 100$ to 1500$ guaranteed.
...Congrats.

But without this strategy, I would have lost my initial bankroll before even getting the chance to fight for 1st place !!!
...I'm not sure how this would work. Are you saying that you had to min-cash in order in assure that you wouldn't bust your BR? That's just bad BRM, yo.

You should be able to play MTTs without that worry of losing your BR. It makes your life and decisions so much easier. With proper BRM, who cares if you don't min-cash! Go for the gold! But..if you're playing where you have terrible BRM, then I can see how min-cashing (because you're afraid of busting your BR) can be more important.

In that case, your problem isn't your bubble play, it's your BRM.

Maybe I and ohshootmybad have both good ROIs, although each of us has a different approach.
...I agree, our approach is different. I don't think either of us are wrong, because I know a ton of members agree with your style and maybe some...hopefully...agree with mine...?

In general, my ROI is infinite, because I have never deposited my own money to play poker.

I made my first 10$ deposit, when I was already at the final table of a tournament that earned me 380$.
...I thought you never deposited. And why did you deposit when you were already at the final table of an MTT?

In the last 2 months, I played more at ACR. I deposited 25$, but I earned and cashed 500$. I don't know if this ROI of 2000% is "good enough".
...This is not how ROI is calculated when it comes to MTTs.

Unless, you're saying that in the past 2 months, you deposited $25, played only 1 MTT with a $25 buy-in, and won $500.

For me, it is.
...That's a pretty sick ROI when you consider the top MTT grinders probably have an ROI of 10-20% over huge sample sizes.

I grew a good bankroll by minimizing my busts before the money.

Yes, this means that many times, I would min-cash.
...I grew my BR by not worrying about min-cashing and focusing on building a bigger stack to make my deeper runs.

Again, just preference.

But I still had my chances to push higher. I won several 1st places, I had numerous final tables and top 18 finishes (last 2 tables).
...Ditto.

The difference is big between a small and a big stack on the bubble.

A small stack of 5 BBs was still enough to last until after the bubble pops, while risking it did not double my chances for higher prizes. If I doubled, 10 BBs are still a small stack, the fold equity is low and I still would need a sequence of huge luck in order to reach final table.
...Well, as I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't even be at the bubble with 5 BBs and would be shoving/looking to double up way before then. With that said, I'd rather risk busting out with the chances of doubling up to 10 BBs than to fold and min-cash. Then, I'd find spots to shove 10 BBs, even if the bubble hadn't popped. I'm using the bubble to my advantage to steal blinds and build a bigger stack instead of just waiting.

Again, preference.

A big stack is worth pushing with (if you have a top hand) - if you double up from 50 to 100 BBs for example, you really improve a lot your chances to reach FT and even to win the tournament.
...Well, while I wouldn't fold AA if I had 50 BBs and someone shoved an 50+ BBs on the bubble, no body is open shoving 50 BBs with AA. That's just stupid.

The only way I can see this happening is in cooler situations with AA vs KK or AA vs AA and we get into a 3bet-4beet war preflop.

above.

 

[grzech]

with pairs of aces I check on the flop, and how he sees the spread in you do not flop a unique identifier for any within the color or straight climbing for 50 percent of their tokens and the river already all in

 

[ph_il]

I won a 1500$ guaranteed tournament at ACR and before the bubble, I folded QQ, KK, AK and JJ.

However, 2 hours before that, in a 2000$ guaranteed tournament, I had a big stack before the bubble, and the chip leader pushed all-in with 10-10. I called instantly with A-A.
He hit a 10 on the flop, I did not hit any A on any street.
...So, you lost with AA because of variance. Do you think you made a bad play by calling here?

Just because you lost doesn't mean you made a mistake.

I was furious. But I realized that if I am ready to play 5 hours before Late reg ends and 1 more hour before we arrive at the bubble, I should not risk my whole stack and tournament future, only because I am excited by a big hand.
...Well, you had the best hand PF and had 10-10 dominated. Sounds like a great spot to get your money in, regardless of the results.

Remember, poker is about making correct decisions, not always having the correct results. Losing 20% with AA vs 1010 doesn't make it a wrong decisions to get your money in.

And then, I was super-careful and folded top hands before the bubble. You cannot even imagine what bullsh*t boards I avoided !!!
Then, I was in the money and decided that I can test my luck with AK or QQ... And I little by little climbed to the top positions...

If I had not folded with top hands before the bubble, I would have busted out of the money, hoping that "next time variance will not hit me"...
...It's just how poker works. Again, decisions > results.

I suppose millions of poker players think the same when they play "correctly" and still lose.
...Well, playing correctly as in making the most +EV decisions is how you profit in the long run. So, if you do that, then the bad results don't matter.

And I suppose millions of poker players curse and shout when they see how the bingo donks and idiots reach final tables, while they "play correctly" and lose.
...Well, I'm sure they do because losing sucks. I don't because I don't care about losing when I know I'm making the correct decisions. With that said, it's still better to make the correct decision and lose in the long run.

If we go back to your AA vs 1010, you're losing 20% of the time but winning 80%. That's makes you a huge favorite and getting your stack all-in, in this situation, will always be a more favorable play in your favor in the long run. Making those few times you lose pretty meaningless.

above.

I'd like to add that I don't think anything you're saying is wrong, per se. I think we just have different views on how we would approach things and that's fine.

 

[milencenov]

I think that this discussion was worth it ! It is a healthy and fruitful one.

There is not "right" or "wrong" approach, but there are arguments and facts that could possibly help people in their decisions.

Because poker is a game of decisions.

ohsootmybad and rule72 made good posts worth reading.

This does not mean that I neglect the other participants here !!! I just outlined their posts, because they contributed a lot to the discussion.

Cheers to everybody !

:beer:

 

[ph_il]

Cheers to you, too!

 

[dmitriy skripka]

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 ?

in this case I am not seeing the flop will always go number,and so the account of poker school,as if to play it's always different to play not learn, decisions in such situations should take the same always, and there is as lucky. But the map you have of potentially winning.

 

[rule72]

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".
...Not sure how following BRM is being irresponsible with buy-ins, but ok.
Above.

I think you two may be a bit closer to agreeing than you may think (re brm). My own perspective is you'd both make similar decisions on most hands when all factors other than just stacks and hand strength are considered.

For what it's worth the buy-in leaves my conscientiousness when I receive my entry form. I'm playing to win 1st and otherwise the most that I can and I'm assuming I've won when I sit down at level 1 and it's up to the others to prove me wrong.

Away from the table I believe that to win a single given tourney you have to be lucky. But to come out ahead long term you have to be good. So you'll loose some even if you play perfectly.

Off topic
A short, but true story: Player came in and was talking about a side bet he made in his previous tourney. Live tourney 50-60 players I'm guessing the buy-in is in $125-250 range, don't recall, he wagered $100 to win $1000 if he took 1st place, cashing is not good enough. Anybody that good (1st place in 10% of tourney's long term)??? In my tourneys you get down to the last few players the blinds are huge and winning 1st is a crap shoot.

Excellent thread!

 

[Dutchtegon]

If it was for example buyin 50 dollars and then for the top 5 500 dollars 490 dollars and so on then could folding be right on the bubble, because your place doesnt matter that much. The only importeny thing is making the cash.

 

[TimovieMan]

If it was for example buyin 50 dollars and then for the top 5 500 dollars 490 dollars and so on then could folding be right on the bubble, because your place doesnt matter that much. The only importeny thing is making the cash.

In that case ICM becomes more important than EV, so yeah, in that case folding would be right.

The same goes for satellites where the top 20 get tickets to a bigger tournament, for instance. If you're close to the bubble and have a comfortable stack, then you should even fold aces preflop because getting ITM is more important than trying to win the tournament in that case.

 

[Shumkoolie]

Easy call. If you're scared to lose your buy-in because it was so high, you're probably playing in the wrong tournament for your bankroll in the first place.

Exactly this. I do want to add one other thing to Abramo's comment, and that is if the min-cash is that important, then you're playing above your comfort level buy-in wise.

For me, I'm piling here because I'm looking to win the tournament, and you need to take advantage of spots where you're definitely ahead of your opponent. If you bust out, well, it happens (I was once the bubble boy in a $2.50 buy-in and I flopped a flush and got it all in vs. a set and lost). Had I won that hand, I would have been overwhelming chip leader.

 

[Talden]

Hey guys for some reason I really enjoyed reading this thread. I think you are.both right in your viewpoints. All it boils down to is one is "nittier" than the other. Ain't CC great? In January when I joined I didn't even know the definition of a nit. Lol I had heard it used but didn't know exactly what it meant. Y'all keep up the discussion, debate or whatever you want to call it. Food for thought is as necessary as food for the body. Y'all have a good day!

 

[Zacccpanec]

Easy call, if the money is not under pressure

 

[D V]

Yeah, no matter where in the tournament you are, this is a call.

Ignoring all the people who believe in rigged play making AA lose against chipleaders 27o 100% of the time, you will make a sure profit in the long run.

^This is certainly not a statement that AA is a sure winner (far from it), but pre-flop, being pushed all-in with AA by the stack leader, on the bubble, is something you should welcome with a big smile.

The stack leader will also have a wider range, especially during the bubble.

And if you lose (this lies within the realm of possibility's unlike some also think), you should know you made the right choice (don't TILT), the biggest part of online poker is making the right decisions. Live poker adds a bit more "dimension" to it where you can do some risky things if you know the players wel enough and the situation is right(CAUTION).

Greetz
D V.

 

[sar1767]

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 ?

I go to all-in in that situation