Playing tight on the bubble is basically asking to get run over. Sure, you’ll sneak into the money more often, but you’ll do it with a crippled stack and no shot at a deep run. The bubble is where aggressive players print chips because everyone else is scared. If you’ve got a medium or big stack, you should be the one applying pressure, not folding everything. Min-cashing is fine, but the real value comes from building a stack that can actually win the tournament.
ITM has always been my primary goal. Any plus is always a plus. If there are more pluses than minuses, then I believe that the player has potential for development. Step by step. Of course, there are situations when it is not worth avoiding risk, but understanding how to act comes with experience, and here, in my opinion, the main thing is not to rush.austral said:
Its a little more complicated than this. The bubble is a good time to take advantage of other players risk aversion by applying pressure to them, when the stack sizes are correct for doing so. But its not a good time to play loose by opening a lot of hands, if a big stack on your left is going to 3-bet you a lot, and you will then need to fold to this 3-bet. And you should in fact be quite tight when putting the majority of your stack at risk without fold equity. Making bad calls on the bubble and not cashing as a result is not "brave", its just bad poker 😉
I don't think you can generalize and say that playing passively on the bubble is a mistake. It depends on the specific situation, the tournament you're playing, your opponents and your reads on them, your own stack, and so on.
If it's a tournament that's not normally within my bankroll, since I usually play it through a sat or ticket, and I'm close to the money with a small stack, then I'd rather try to reach the first prize tier and boost my bankroll significantly instead of playing for the tournament win. If it's a freeroll or a tournament with a buy-in that matches my bankroll, then I can be aggressive on the bubble and try to collect chips and put pressure on my opponents.
It's like everything in poker—not so simple and quite complex.
If it's a tournament that's not normally within my bankroll, since I usually play it through a sat or ticket, and I'm close to the money with a small stack, then I'd rather try to reach the first prize tier and boost my bankroll significantly instead of playing for the tournament win. If it's a freeroll or a tournament with a buy-in that matches my bankroll, then I can be aggressive on the bubble and try to collect chips and put pressure on my opponents.
It's like everything in poker—not so simple and quite complex.
Why would it be a mistake to not take risks in the bubble phase, but to try to be patient and wait? This is not a mistake, it is a rational play. After several hours of fighting, if you are only a hair away from ITM, it is worth being a little more patient. Your suggestion is wrong.
You are completely wrong! Getting into the money is more important than doubling up when you're short stack. We should play aggressively when the bubble scenario allows it. Getting into the money makes a huge difference in the long run.
t
that's a rather simple generalization austral . tight is right with a middling stack . aggro bullying is correct with a big stack vs a middling stack . and open shoving widely in reasonable spots when too low to fold thru the bubble is also correct .austral said:
yesterday on the bubble I pushed AJ with sb. I was closed with Q2s and I lost, I had a passing stack in the prize, but I did the same bi again - of course, the point is in the right pressure if you have a relatively large stack, but I played in the tournament not for getting into the prize- but for the first place
That depends on the table, the stack and position.
Sometimes, when the table is very loose, the only option is wait for good cards and spending all the time. You will be called if you raise 3 BBs.
When you have a spot with players with short stacks on your left, that can be eliminated if they loose the hand, shoving can be the best decision.
If your the stack is so small that doubling up doesn't represent a significant increase in the premium, it's better play to get a minimum prize.
But it's always a uncomfortable situation...
Sometimes, when the table is very loose, the only option is wait for good cards and spending all the time. You will be called if you raise 3 BBs.
When you have a spot with players with short stacks on your left, that can be eliminated if they loose the hand, shoving can be the best decision.
If your the stack is so small that doubling up doesn't represent a significant increase in the premium, it's better play to get a minimum prize.
But it's always a uncomfortable situation...
Honestly, everyone has their own opinion on the matter, but in my case, I don't care if people say I shouldn't play like this in the bubble because I'm not progressing, or that this kind of thinking is for weak players, or all that stuff they say. I focus first on making it into the money (ITM) and then I do what I think is necessary to advance in the tournament. I don't see the need to risk it when I'm close to making it into the money.
Value is created by sitting at the table, not just on the bubble...
Before you win a tournament, you NEED to survive the ITM...
Like everything in poker, it will depend on numerous factors, and besides, something (in monetary prize money) is still better than nothing!
As already mentioned... This is much more complex than simply labeling play A or B as the right one to make.
Obviously, you should apply more pressure if your stack allows, especially attacking those with medium stacks, but precisely because of the ICM you mentioned, this is a time when not losing chips can be more valuable than winning.
Before you win a tournament, you NEED to survive the ITM...
Like everything in poker, it will depend on numerous factors, and besides, something (in monetary prize money) is still better than nothing!
As already mentioned... This is much more complex than simply labeling play A or B as the right one to make.
Obviously, you should apply more pressure if your stack allows, especially attacking those with medium stacks, but precisely because of the ICM you mentioned, this is a time when not losing chips can be more valuable than winning.
I think it's a very very poor understanding of simple math.....
Most winning players long term ITM% is between 17-25%.
A min cash pays nickels and dimes above the buy-in.
Is there anyone that doesn't see the problem based on them 2 points?
Simply put unless sites change their payout structure(never happening to the extent need) and make it so last place in the money pays triple+ the buy-in playing only to min cash loses money hand over fist. Hell one may as well just take a lighter and burn their money. Even triple over the buy-in for last place isn't enough to make those who only finish in the ITM 17% of the time winners.
My last CC Freeroll is a perfect example. I missed the final table by 1 spot finishing 10th busting with AQos vs 88 when I shoved with I believe 12bb....yes I could have waited and made the final table easily. But so what......had I won with that AQos that would have been an easy 5th place finish with a good chance at a win $19(I believe)not just a final for a bit over a $1. So in this example I took basically a coinflip AQ vs 88 for a good chance at $19 while turning down a pay jump worth dimes and nickels and villain almost folded as he let the countdown go right to the end.
I hate online pay structures. Last place should at least pay double the buy-in+ the buy-in minus rake(if they have to). So basically triple the buy-in amount minus rake. When I run home game MTT's last place pays double the buy-in my players love it.
Cheers!!!
Most winning players long term ITM% is between 17-25%.
A min cash pays nickels and dimes above the buy-in.
Is there anyone that doesn't see the problem based on them 2 points?
Simply put unless sites change their payout structure(never happening to the extent need) and make it so last place in the money pays triple+ the buy-in playing only to min cash loses money hand over fist. Hell one may as well just take a lighter and burn their money. Even triple over the buy-in for last place isn't enough to make those who only finish in the ITM 17% of the time winners.
My last CC Freeroll is a perfect example. I missed the final table by 1 spot finishing 10th busting with AQos vs 88 when I shoved with I believe 12bb....yes I could have waited and made the final table easily. But so what......had I won with that AQos that would have been an easy 5th place finish with a good chance at a win $19(I believe)not just a final for a bit over a $1. So in this example I took basically a coinflip AQ vs 88 for a good chance at $19 while turning down a pay jump worth dimes and nickels and villain almost folded as he let the countdown go right to the end.
I hate online pay structures. Last place should at least pay double the buy-in+ the buy-in minus rake(if they have to). So basically triple the buy-in amount minus rake. When I run home game MTT's last place pays double the buy-in my players love it.
Cheers!!!
There's no simple solution here; many factors influence proper play at this point in the tournament. The tournament buy-in, its format, stacks and of course having a good hand. For example, if you're playing a Mystery Bounty tournament with 12-18 big blinds, it's still better to hang in there, even if you lose 1-2 big blinds, to see it through to the chests.
austral said:
I think it depends on each person's objective. Even knowing EV and ICM doesn't guarantee your hand will be a winner on the bubble, even if it's a pair of AA, KK, QQ. Poker is a game of variance and probabilities.