STT Bubble and Stack Sizes

[cjatud2012]

I know the STT community here is kinda small, but this topic can be applied to parts of tournaments as well, so it’s still worth learning about.

Basically, we’ve all heard about ICM and how the cEV of our decisions isn’t equal to the $EV, which is what we really care about, since of course we don’t want to win chips in the long run, we want to win money. The real question though is how can we use this to our advantage? Well, there are times in a STT, especially on the bubble, where we can be really aggressive with a big stack or even a medium/short stack and force our opponents to make -$EV plays. It is important to recognize these opportunities, which are based on stack sizes, the blind level, position, player reads, etc. We’ll assume from this point forward we’re playing the bubble of a 9-man STT with t1500 starting stacks, and the current stacks will all be listed before posting any blinds. Also, if anyone catches any errors with my math, please let me know. Let’s go ahead and look at a couple of different spots.

First, let’s look at a situation that’s probably pretty intuitive.

Blinds: t200/t400.
UTG: t800
BTN: t1000
SB (Hero): t8500
BB: t3200

Here, there are short stacks UTG and on the BTN, and the big blind is sitting semi-comfortably at 8bb’s. If UTG and BTN fold to us on the SB, we should be pushing any two cards. The reason is that it would be a disaster for the BB to get knocked out with a short stack about to be pot committed on the next hand. He would have to risk an almost guaranteed spot in the money, and is therefore going to call a very small percentage of the time. How often? Let’s look at the math:

The current equities are--
UTG: 0.128
BTN: 0.157
SB (Hero): 0.416
BB: 0.300
Should the BB call and win, the equities would be--
UTG: 0.122
BTN: 0.151
SB (Hero): 0.352
BB: 0.375

We can find the percentage of time the BB has to win with the following equation:
0 = x*(0.075) + (1-x)*(-0.300)
x = 0.8

So the BB needs an 80% chance to win for the call to be profitable. If we are pushing any two cards, only a range of QQ+ is going to be able to call profitably. Any time he calls wider than that, he is making a -$EV play.

So that’s an easy one. What do we do, though, when we don’t have the biggest stack at the table?

Blinds: 300/600
UTG: t5500
BTN: t1400
SB (Hero): t3300
BB: t3300

In this situation, the BTN is very short with less than 3bb’s. The BB has a little more than 5bb’s left before posting. Due to the imminent doom waiting for the small stack, the BB is making a mistake by calling too wide. Let’s try to look at the $EV of the decision again:

Current equities--
UTG: 0.338
BTN: 0.136
SB (Hero): 0.263
BB: 0.263
If BB calls and wins--
UTG: 0.366
BTN: 0.248
SB (Hero): 0.000
BB: 0.386

0 = x*(0.386-0.263) + (1-x)*(-0.263)
x = 0.681

This means the BB can only call profitably with the top 10% of hands or so, assuming we push 100% of our hands.

This situation would be very different if you put the player with the big stack in the BB:

Blinds: 300/600
UTG: t3300
BTN: t1400
SB (Hero): t3300
BB: t5500

Current equities--
UTG: 0.263
BTN: 0.136
SB (Hero): 0.263
BB: 0.338
If BB calls and wins--
UTG: 0.322
BTN: 0.254
SB (Hero): 0.000
BB: 0.424
If BB calls and loses--
UTG: 0.272
BTN: 0.147
SB (Hero): 0.368
BB: 0.213

0 = x*(0.424-0.338) + (1-x)*(0.213-0.338)
x = 0.592

Now, pushing any two cards in the SB is very exploitable, as villain can profitably call with 33+, Ax, Kx, Q3s+, Q6o+, J6s+, J8o+, T7s+, T9o, 98s.

It may also be a mistake to shove on the short stack.

Blinds: 300/600
UTG: t3300
BTN: t5500
SB (Hero): t3300
BB: t1400

Just looking at it from a cEV perspective, the villain has to call 800 to win 2000, getting 2.5:1 pot odds, so he’s getting the right price to call with any two cards. In terms of $EV:

Current equities--
UTG: 0.263
BTN: 0.338
SB (Hero): 0.263
BB: 0.136
If the BB calls and wins--
UTG: 0.258
BTN: 0.1335
SB (Hero): 0.173
BB: 0.233

0 = x*(0.233-0.136) + (1-x)*(-0.136)
x = 0.584

Once again, shoving wide isn’t the greatest play for us.

So what do you need to know? Basically, the presence of a short stack in relation to the blinds will allow us to make some aggressive plays. If we have a big stack, we can pretty much abuse the table no matter what. If we have don’t have a big stack, then we want to target players that are short but not desperate, probably between 5-10bb’s. These players will want to play tight, especially in the presence of a player who is about to be eliminated. Being able to recognize the opportunities will help us take control of the bubble and make good decisions. I'm not sure not all the math is perfect-- I feel like I ignored the blinds in most decisions, not to mention the equity associated with folding-- but the point of the post was to get players thinking about situations, based on stack sizes, where it is profitable to be very aggressive. Besides, it's late here, I'm tired, and I'm only halfway done with packing for my travels tomorrow, . So if anyone can catch mistakes, feel free to correct me, and I encourage everyone to discuss similar situations or other things we should consider here in this thread.

 

[Debi]

Very good post (Not gonna bother with the math bit tho lol). Your points are well made anyway about playing with a short stack at the table.

 

[atlantafalcons0]

Very good post but I'd like to add that in these situations I like to base my decisions on more than math. Like what kind of players am I up against and what they are capable of.

Here, there are short stacks UTG and on the BTN, and the big blind is sitting semi-comfortably at 8bb’s. If UTG and BTN fold to us on the SB, we should be pushing any two cards.

I'm not pushing atc against just anyone. Maybe if i'm up against the right player for this action.

only a range of QQ+ is going to be able to call profitably...

It really depends on the buy in and the skill set of player i'm against.

In short - I like to use math as a guide but not the only factor when making decisions close to the money in a STT.

 

[WiZZiM]

Very good post but I'd like to add that in these situations I like to base my decisions on more than math. Like what kind of players am I up against and what they are capable of.



I'm not pushing atc against just anyone. Maybe if i'm up against the right player for this action.



It really depends on the buy in and the skill set of player i'm against.

In short - I like to use math as a guide but not the only factor when making decisions close to the money in a STT.

Perhaps you should rethink your Bubble play in stt then?

Not shoving in this spot is as bad as calling a shove when you shouldnt. The situation is perfect, the math, irrelevant to a point, just think, what call he really call with here? AK? maybe, if hes bad. even if we shove, happen to get called and lose, were not losing our tournament here. What we want to accomplish in this situation is to take chips off the biggest stack at the table. When im the big chip stack, i WANT the bubble to continue, i WANT to own it, taking chips off the guy in the BB is my number one concern, because, im not worried about bubbling myself, it could happen, but very unlikely. So oince the bubble bursts i want the remaining players to have as few chips as possible, and i cant do that by folding to the BB here. lol.

so im defo shoving anytwo, against probably any type of opponant, i cnat really think of a calling range wide enough that its going to make it unprofitable for us to shove.

And im shoving the next hand too, if it's folded to us..

 

[atlantafalcons0]

Perhaps you should rethink your Bubble play in stt then?

Not shoving in this spot is as bad as calling a shove when you shouldnt. The situation is perfect, the math, irrelevant to a point, just think, what call he really call with here? AK? maybe, if hes bad. even if we shove, happen to get called and lose, were not losing our tournament here. What we want to accomplish in this situation is to take chips off the biggest stack at the table. When im the big chip stack, i WANT the bubble to continue, i WANT to own it, taking chips off the guy in the BB is my number one concern, because, im not worried about bubbling myself, it could happen, but very unlikely. So oince the bubble bursts i want the remaining players to have as few chips as possible, and i cant do that by folding to the BB here. lol.

so im defo shoving anytwo, against probably any type of opponant, i cnat really think of a calling range wide enough that its going to make it unprofitable for us to shove.

And im shoving the next hand too, if it's folded to us..

The part I highlighted is the signifigant part of your post.

Probably any? If it is ANY then it's ANY. Not "probably" any.

It's the same damn thing I said except I said not all instead of probably any.

I'll change mine to I'd shove in this spot against PROBABLY any opponent.

Just not any opponent. Almost though.

 

[cjatud2012]

bump

Something I don't have a lot of time to sift through right now and figure out, but would like to know more about, is finding similar spots for 3-betting... Like, if someone open raises on the button, what are the stack sizes and blind levels needed such that our opponent can't call with a wide range profitably, without having to shove like t2500 into a t225 pot (I hope that makes sense, or is even a relevant question lol). If anyone wants to tackle that one, that'd be sweetttttttttt.

 

[cjatud2012]

Very good post but I'd like to add that in these situations I like to base my decisions on more than math. Like what kind of players am I up against and what they are capable of.



I'm not pushing atc against just anyone. Maybe if i'm up against the right player for this action.



It really depends on the buy in and the skill set of player i'm against.

In short - I like to use math as a guide but not the only factor when making decisions close to the money in a STT.

I agree with you, but I think we're just saying the same thing with different words. If you use a program like SNGWiz, you can account for how wide/ narrow the players are going to be calling. These reads are then accounted for in the math that the program calculates. So yes, reads are important, but I wouldn't really consider them separate from the math. Hope that makes sense.

As for the actual spot, I think SNGWiz will still suggest shoving very wide even if we think our opponent isn't playing optimally. Maybe WiZZiM can verify this, as I don't have the program right now. The bottom line is that if we have a read that he's playing more loose than he should be on the bubble, then he is making a -$EV decision, which is exactly what we want. So the fact that he's calling wide shouldn't really effect us too much, since he's still making a mistake that results in us making money in the long term.

 

[WiZZiM]

I agree with you, but I think we're just saying the same thing with different words. If you use a program like SNGWiz, you can account for how wide/ narrow the players are going to be calling. These reads are then accounted for in the math that the program calculates. So yes, reads are important, but I wouldn't really consider them separate from the math. Hope that makes sense.

As for the actual spot, I think SNGWiz will still suggest shoving very wide even if we think our opponent isn't playing optimally. Maybe WiZZiM can verify this, as I don't have the program right now. The bottom line is that if we have a read that he's playing more loose than he should be on the bubble, then he is making a -$EV decision, which is exactly what we want. So the fact that he's calling wide shouldn't really effect us too much, since he's still making a mistake that results in us making money in the long term.

Not really, villains calling wide hurts both us and them.. as we know getting called wide in late stage play is bad for us in terms of equity spewed.

And can you clarify that above question, im not sure exactly what your asking.

 

[WiZZiM]

The part I highlighted is the signifigant part of your post.

Probably any? If it is ANY then it's ANY. Not "probably" any.

It's the same damn thing I said except I said not all instead of probably any.

I'll change mine to I'd shove in this spot against PROBABLY any opponent.

Just not any opponent. Almost though.

Yeah, ok, but what im getting at is, it's probably better to be more on the aggressive side of things than the passive. Most villains will never call us wide enough to make it unprofitable, sure, sometimes you will have a loose maniac fish in the BB, then im probably not shoving anytwo. But if im up against a complete random, its going to be profitable to shove anytwo, blind on blind for under 10bb's. Perhaps i read into your post the wrong way idk.

But again i think i was talking about the first situation, tbh i haven't read through all of the OP. but that first situation i was talking about is an easy shove, unless i knew that the player was calling super wide here like Khigh wide, then i might consider folding out the bottom 10-20% of hands

Anyways i don't even know what im getting at here, im tired, back to work for me..

 

[cjatud2012]

Basically I am just curious what type of stack size we should be attacking if we want to 3-bet light from the blinds, what ICM might have to say about it, any hints SNGWiz has for it, etc. Are we looking at effective stacks between like 15-20 blinds? Less? More?

 

[WiZZiM]

We generally don't want to be "3 betting light" in turbo SNG's. There are certain bubble situations that it's very profitable to 3bet shove light when your the big stack. In the non turbos, 3betting light becomes more of a good play, but not in the turbos really.

We should be attacking decent players, who know that calling off is bad, and players who still have a decent chip stack left, like if someone with 10bb's raises to 3bb's were probably not going to get them to fold enough, but 20 bb's raises to 3bb's he's probably folding a much higher % of hands.

As mentioned ICM wont really like shoving over people light, unless they raise wide, and fold a lot. Or on bubble situations with a shortstack present.

I had a good situation in my Sng video, where i shoved over a regular villian with what i thought was a weak hand, i think it was Ax. I make that play a lot, and i have had a lot of players get frustrated, saying that they have folded Jacks etc. So the type of opponant and read you have is pretty crucial. So we don't really want to shove over bad players light, as they call a much higher % of the time.

Hopefully i will be writing a few threads that will cover some of these things, ill be searchign through HH, and either doing a video or jsut a thread, discussion points in early play, middle play and late play. You know, situations that come up often.

 

[JEP712]

I need a dictionary for all this poker lingo.

Great post. I'm going to read it over again to fully absorb it in.

 

[cjatud2012]

We generally don't want to be "3 betting light" in turbo SNG's. There are certain bubble situations that it's very profitable to 3bet shove light when your the big stack. In the non turbos, 3betting light becomes more of a good play, but not in the turbos really.

We should be attacking decent players, who know that calling off is bad, and players who still have a decent chip stack left, like if someone with 10bb's raises to 3bb's were probably not going to get them to fold enough, but 20 bb's raises to 3bb's he's probably folding a much higher % of hands.

As mentioned ICM wont really like shoving over people light, unless they raise wide, and fold a lot. Or on bubble situations with a shortstack present.

I had a good situation in my Sng video, where i shoved over a regular villian with what i thought was a weak hand, i think it was Ax. I make that play a lot, and i have had a lot of players get frustrated, saying that they have folded Jacks etc. So the type of opponant and read you have is pretty crucial. So we don't really want to shove over bad players light, as they call a much higher % of the time.

Hopefully i will be writing a few threads that will cover some of these things, ill be searchign through HH, and either doing a video or jsut a thread, discussion points in early play, middle play and late play. You know, situations that come up often.

So those spots are more read-dependent than math-dependent... Well, the reads affect the math, that is. That makes sense. Maybe sometime this week (on my night off Wednesday, perhaps), I'll figure out the correct ranges for 3-betting with 15bb, 20bb effective stacks against a 2.5bb or 3bb raise, based on how wide we think we'll be called.

 

[WiZZiM]

This is actually something 'zerosum' touched on, in the learning thread. It's going to be hard to get past a certain range for shoving over, something like A9s, 66+ will be about as wide as we get.

If you still have sng wizard, there are some good charts which you can look at. A smart guy like you should be able to work out what they all mean, but they are really handy. "tools" then "charts"

 

[cjatud2012]

This is actually something 'zerosum' touched on, in the learning thread. It's going to be hard to get past a certain range for shoving over, something like A9s, 66+ will be about as wide as we get.

If you still have sng wizard, there are some good charts which you can look at. A smart guy like you should be able to work out what they all mean, but they are really handy. "tools" then "charts"

Will do!

 

[fletchdad]

This is a thread I need to follow.

So I am subscribing.

 

[paumarhas]

very good read and you've made your point nicely. thanks and gl on the felt. :willy:

 

[dj11]

I find in the late stages of STT's (6,5,bubble,ITM) that the important thing is First in Vigorish (FiV). I don't want to be calling light, I want the others to make mistakes.

OP deals with when that FiV should happen, and under what circumstances. We should all understand that most villains who get that far in a decent buy-in STT are not noobs (occasionally a luck sack will get that far, but not all that often). They understand most of the implications involved here.

That said, and the math explained, our reads will temper our math here fairly often. We sometimes will want to bypass a prime opportunity to let the small stacks quibble their stacks away. We may want to let the small stack work on the medium stacks.

But the opportunities at the 5seat and bubble time are great and I think what OP is aiming at is the math involved, not the tempering reads we got.

He mentions several times about the FiV of the situation.

If we extrapolate just a bit, we end up with many hands that are essentially HU hands, even with 6,5,4 seats left. Or we can effectively (more so than at a full/nearly full table) proceed as if it is a HU situation. We want no more than a HU situation at any time. So with the big stack we never want to be flatting without monsters in any position.

As for 3 betting and shoving, either light or heavy. 4 handed you might not want to do that against the shorties, they realize their situation, and know if they are gonna survive it will have to be thru the big stack, you!. Just as the big stack can shove ATC, so can the shorties. They've got nothing to lose. If we know a shorty has that much savvy we adjust accordingly. If we know the shorty DOES NOT have that much savvy, we also adjust, probably turning the aggression dial way up against the unsavvy player.

If we are middle stack? This is where the real challenge lies. 4 seated, MS (middle stacks) are keenly aware that they don't want to be doing stupid stuff. So they/we will not get into a challenge with less than very enticing opportunities. Bigger Ax+ in position, or broadway's AND FiV oop. This is way more important in turbo's where if you blink you may miss a whole blind level and be forced into stupidity.

With 5 seats left, the pressure is off some from the impending 4 seat situation and offers a few more stealing opportunites. But again, IMO the important factors might be;

1-FiV
2-Stack sizes (and table images)
3-Position.

and in that order IMO. Position at short tables will tend to affect 3 betting more than openings.

Many folks will avoid the hard math, I might be one of them to avoid the details, but I do understand percentages, which is what the equities are about. I won't go 3 decimal places, 1 works for me, or occasionally 2. It is usually easy to understand that you are or are not the big stack, and what will need to happen to get u first ITM, and then up the pay scales to a win.

The OP here is showing us that we really need to think about our stack size and how it relates to the dynamics of how each hand is played at a short table.

Another tactic a big stack might use is taking a long time to play. Especially in turbo's. Knowing the blind levels will help add presure on the shorties can be a powerful tool. As shorties in MTT's will often delay at the bubble to let other fools on other tables make mistakes, in a turbo STT, delay is a mistake for a shorty. Shorties should want to see hands at the lowest possible blind levels and as many hands as they can see before the blinds go up.