From Sklansky's Tournament Book

[Reel Deal]

You're the big stacks at your table in a MTT (top 10 pay) and you're down to the final two tables with 11 players left... the short stack at your table moves all-in ahead of you and you sit with QQ, what do you do?

I'm sure with the poker savants we have here this will be a no-brainer (but I thought this might be an interesting topic on a slow day)...

[BrianSwa]

how many people are to act behind you? your gonna play this but it depends how many people are behind you if you just call or raise.

Also would like to know stack sizes.

[Zybomb]

I haven't read the book (although I have read a small exert where he describes "The System"...kind of interesting to read) but I can't see how you can justify folding. Depending on the stacks at the table (how big of a leader was I) and my position, Id probably reraise, sometimes a big amount sometimes all in myself. This forces everything outside of AA and KK (including AK, unless the stack is very short) to fold... if you get unlucky and are up against AA or KK you may take a huge hit, which is why other stacks and positions would play into my decision.

If I had AA here, 70% of the time I'd flat call, and see if one other person may come along for the ride (or maybe even reraise with a hand like AQ, KQ etc to try and get me out so he has dead money in the pot and only one opponent) then reraise all in. The other 30% Id make a big reraise just like above -- that way people won't take my reraise in a situation like this as a strong but not great hand.

[2Tone]

How much would depend on a few of the factors mentioned, but I'm going to raise here nearly every time.

[Reel Deal]

Assume you're last to act... you're the big stack at the table and he's the short stack.

[Reel Deal]

So far no one has hit on the way Sklansky would play it.

[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.

[junYUN]

.. you also can't assume the shortstack has only 2xBB... theres a good chance that a short stack at 1k/2k could have something like 10-12k chips. i'd rather take my chances with QQ and move on to the final table...

however, considering your scenario, folding QQ is probably a better idea, considering the pot is so small.

[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?

[Windbreaker]

I think you're missing the point Zybomb.

Obviously, if the blinds are relatively small compared to the stack size of the small stack, then you should at very least call.

However, considering the situation you're on a short handed table with 3 opponents with stacks of say 5,000, one short stack of 2,00 and you have 50,000 chips. The blinds are 250/500.

However there are two players on the other table with relatively the same chip stacks as you or more.

If you fold the pocket Queens now. And let the short stack take the blinds and antes (assuming everyone folds). Then he probably will have about 2750 chips. Now since only the top 10 pays. Players are naturally going to play a bit tighter.

This gives you the opportunity to steal blinds and bluff people off pots relatively easily. You can easily make up the 2750 or so you dropped off by folding.

If you call the bet and win in that situation, now you're on the final table...great job....but you have 3 people with about equal chips...stealing will be a lot harder now people are paid...they'll be more willing to take a chance and go over the top of any steal attempts.

Making the fold a better option, since you have the opportunity to cripple several other players and pile on the chips.

[Talking Poker]

Precisely. I understand it in my brain, but maybe I didn't explain it very well with my example.

[Zybomb]

I disagree with the logic behind it, although I totally understand what you are saying. In your example it is very extreme (one player has only 4xBB, 2 others only have 10x BB while you have 100x the BB, but so do 2 other players at the other table). This *may* come up every time to time, but Id think its fairly rare. Even so, the field (the other players at your table combned) are going to be raising as often if not more often than you if 3 out of the 5 (or 6) have less than 10 BBs in their stack. This limits your steal posibility. Even on the bubble, they don't want to sit and be blinded out so they are forced to make moves (and the majority of people dont wanna sneak into the final table and then just bust out -- they are going for a W)

Lets assume you and one other "chip leader" are at your table and the last one is at the other table. I don't think you stand a great chance of bullying. Ok sure players are going to play tight being that its a bubble situation, but what about your position relative toward the other big stack? Is your BB in his button? Is his BB in your button? etc. furthermore the other big stack is likely to try and bully just as much as you are going to try to, so you lose steal attempts often as well. Also players with decent stack sizes know that it is the perfect time to play back at you (their all in can make you the new short stack/medium stack) so are assuming players are going to play extremely tight being on the bubble (which is a good assumption, but that doesnt mean there wont be other players stealing as well, players playing back etc)

With a chip stack like you mentioned (100x BB) and the short stack having 4x and having both other chip leaders at the other table as well I can see an arguement that you have more to gain by folding here (and losing your BB by the way), but if you continue to shy away from calling players all in bets you are giving away money that you are suppose to be making more of. At some point you are going to need to call an all in bet before a 4th chip leader emerges. You may be able to steal more and bully more in this situation, but players arent going to sit there, they know what your doing, you can easily double up a short stack 1 or 2 times, and other players will be raising too. I completely understand your point here, but I still cant find a way to fold this hand.

So I ask the same question again, in these circumstances, is what you are recommending, folding in the dark to a short stacks all in everytime, since you stand to gain more by keeping them around? And if so at what point does it stop (assuming no one gets eliminated)

(PS...unless reel deel didn't give us alllll this extra information we are probably waaaaaaaaay off what sklansky's scenario was lol

[Windbreaker]

That scenerio I gave was just an extreme example of a situation where folding is more advantagous. I'm pretty sure this is pretty much what Sklansky is thinking (I've never read the book).

For players to push all in with relatively low stacks to a chip leaders raise during this stage of the tourney is wrong, UNLESS they have one of the top hands. They are one away from the money and are going to get called by the chip leader. If they instead fold, they can move up a few positions and get paid a lot more.

The time in point where calling an short stacks bet is better is simply when it gives you a better opportunity to win more money - (not chips). Eliminating a very small stack right result in you gaining a relatively small and *insignificant* amount of chips. Eg. What good does adding another 2 or 3% to your chips stack at this point? Will it improve your chances to win the tourney drastically?

Instead, if you're sitting at the 5 or 6 handed table. And you have the second most chips at the table, with about half the size of the big stack. You come in from the cutoff position with a 3x the BB raise in cutoff....and the big chip stack reraises it to 12x BB, are you really going to be pushing back when it's bubble time? You stand to gain a lot 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.