From Sklansky's Tournament Book

[junYUN]

well regardless of how squeeky tight sklansky plays this (and i'm really hoping his answer isn't fold)... if i'm last to act i'm obviously calling because theres nothing else i can do besides fold or call and i'm not folding. (that is, assuming nobody else called -- because this brings a whole new plethora of problems)

[Talking Poker]

If there is no one left to act behind me, raising and calling are the same thing. Based on what you have written, I get the feleing Sklansky is going to sugest otherwise, but this is a no-brainer call, IMO.

Sklansky might be thinking this guy must have a monster to move in in early position (I'll assume that too) on the bubble, but Sklansky is used to palying with talented players... NOT the average players we see online. Folding here may be the correct play at the final table of the WSOP (I'd still call), but no way is it correct in your typical online MTT.

[Windbreaker]

I think the answer from Sklansky is to fold. Basically, you are the big stack at your table and have to opportunity to earn more chips by bullying that table. If you knock this player out, you're at the final table, but may have lost the opportunity to gain more chips off your opponents at your present table.

But I still think it should depend on the blinds, the amount of the short stack and your chip stack relative to everyone else.

If you know you're the chip leader of both tables left...should be to raise. If you're like 3 or 4th in chips overall, and can outplay the other players, it may be more advantagous to fold.

I know it sounds stupid, but I'm pretty sure that's what Sklansky will say.

[Talking Poker]

I don't think that sounds stupid at all. I think it's brilliant and I hate that I didn't think of that.

I'm changing my response. I won't say it's a definite fold, but I will say there is more to consider than I had been considering.

[Zybomb]

If you fold QQ in the big stack to a short stacks all in you are playing too tight PERIOD. There is no justification whatsoever you can tell me that folding is the correct option.....none whatsoever. And keep in mind this isn't an early position raise, its simply a raise ahead of you...you dunno what position they are. QQ is behind 2 hands AA and KK anything else is a coin flip at best (AK) otherwise an underdog..... if those arent odds you are prepared to take as a big stack to a short stack you are playing entirely too tight.

I can think of approx. 30 hands that a short stack would push with, 2 of which are ahead of you, 1 of which is a coin flip....... the other 26 of which are an underdog.

Bubble or not, you can not prove to me folding is the correct option.

You also dont gain any extra chips by letting this player win..... you lose their chips, its that simple, you cant think what if in the long run etc....... in the long run there are still the same amount of chips at your table. You cant be in a better spot than you are now.

[Talking Poker]

You are missing the point (as per Windbreaker). It all depends on the exact chip counts, but let me give you an extreme example.

Let's say you have 100,000 chips, and the blinds are 1000 and 2000. Let's say the next highest stack at your table has 35,000 chips and the short stack guy has 5000. If he goes all in from the and you are on the BB, that means there are 8000 chips in the pot. Let's assume you are a huige favorite to win the hand if you call (just 3000 more). This is a no brainer, right? Ordinarily, yes, but think about the situation a little bit more. If you call and win (and nothing guarantees you will win), you gain 8000 chips, putting your stack up to 108,000 and now the final table begins.

But.......... if you FOLD, how many chips do you stand to win by bullying the rest of the table until someone is eliminated? You're going to be in the SB next hand with the BB being the short stack (he'll fold when you raise him, so there is 2000 back right there). And then you're on the button. If you keep raising and playing aggressively with your big stack, you probably stand to win a lot more than the 8000 chips we just talked about by the time one player is eliminated and the final table starts. Every single time you steal the blinds, you'll be picking up 3000 chips! And in a bubble situation with you having a massive chiplead, you're going to be able to steal a LOT of blinds. Are you guaranteed more chips than the 8000 you probably would have won with the QQ? Of course not....... but it's quite likely. And keep in mind, you also weren't guaranteed those 8000 chips with the QQ... you very easily could have lost with that hand to Ax, for example.

This is a great topic of discussion. Thinking about the stack sizes really helps illustrate it, but I think there are absolutely times when folding the QQ here would be the best play.

I'm happy to announce that I just learned something.

[2Tone]

This is a great thread. TP, I believe I'm following your logic, but think I have to disagree. Especially since this guy is short stack, I'm going to assume that I'm a favorite, and am going to win the hand. Doing so brings me to one player closer to winning overall, and gives my chip stack a healthy boost. The lost opportunity of not doing this strikes me as being greater than the opportunity gained by further bullying my the table later on. And if I'm going to bully, I'd sure rather do it with QQ than with an inferior hand.

I'll say this. If I push my short stack in from early position, and the chip leader lays down QQ -- I'd be a very happy player indeed.

[Zybomb]

So you are giving up chips that odds say you should win for potential winnings that may be more.......key word potential. With your big stack you can bully the table in the same manner after this last man is eliminated, as u plan to if he's not -- there are just extra people at the table now.

So in essence you are saying, as a big stack, you should fold in the dark to a small stacks all in every time in a bubble situation where its down to the final table, since you stand a chance at bullying the small table and winning more chips?

[Reel Deal]

We have a winner.

[Zybomb]

I would like to know the exact circumstances of the situation in which Sklansky described before I express how much I am against his decision.....

[Reel Deal]

Here's the text:

Suppose there are only two tables left, with five players at each table. If one more player goes broke, the tables are combined. The tournament pays nine places, At this point all of the short stacks are desperately trying to survive.

The difference between tenth place and ninth place is usually pretty significant (when the last table starts with nine players), even when 10th place pays a nominal amount. With the combination of the two tables imminent, these short stacks will tend to throw away all but their very best hands rather than risk the booby prize (coming in 10th). Because of that, the chip leader at both tables is in a wonderful position, especially in games with blinds. When no one has yet opened, he can raise with an awful lot of hands since his chances of stealing the pot are so high (the player with the second largest stack at each table is in a similar positoin if the largest stack has already folded, as long as that second largest stack is also pretty big).

It is not uncommon for the largest stack at each of the two five handed tables to significanly increse his chip position during this time, even without ever playing a hand to the river. He merely steals the blinds hand after hand.

In addition, because of this syndrom, the chip leader at each table has an opportunity to make a very unusual strategy adjustment. Suppose he is on the button with QQ and the player with the shortest stack raises, almost all-in. The two queens should probably be folded. Do you see why? The gain from playing this hand, perhaps a small bet in expected value, is not worth the fact that if you do win the pot, the tables are combined, and you can no longer run over the game.

This of course is a rather unique situation to be in, so knowing it will not help your long term tournament results very much. I bring it up more to show how the nature of tournaments is such that they can occasoinally indicate a strategy far different from what you are used to.

[2Tone]

Got to love Sklansky -- he makes a great case. A very well put argument.

But I'm still going to bust the short stack if I can.