So now you know how to approximate bubble factors, but what are you supposed to do with these numbers? It’s a good idea to study the examples we give throughout this book to get comfortable with how high your bubble factor will be in certain situations. For example, there’s a lot of practical value in knowing that the bubble factor is high in big-stack versus big-stack and medium-stack versus bigger-stack clashes. The bigger the stack you confront, the higher your bubble factor. Picking on stacks shorter than yours is supported by the math. As you’re playing any tournament, you can start approximating your own bubble factors using the method we outlined.
You should also note what your opponents’ bubble
factors are against you. If they’re aware of this effect of tournament structure, then you can put yourself in their shoes and adjust accordingly. Opponents who know they have high bubble factors are much more likely to fold, so you’ll have a lot of fold equity against them. Examining everyone’s bubble factors will give you guidance as to how you should deviate from how you play far from the money, where everyone’s bubble factor is very close to 1. This 2x2 matrix is a summary of some of the playing adjustments you should make based on the bubble factor:
Both of your bubble factors are low. This will be fairly close to a cash game in strategy. Since chip values are fairly linear, normal pot odds can dictate many of your decisions. Just play normal poker. If in the Move-in stage, you can use the equilibrium plays discussed for far from the money.
Both of your bubble factors are high. Now you essentially have a game of chicken. Neither of you wants a confrontation, as there’s not much to gain and everything to lose. So you have two options: either avoid a confrontation (fold or just keep the pot small) or show that you’re 100%
committed (be the first to go all-in). If your opponent understands bubble effects, he should back down if you push first. There’s a “right of first bluff” in chicken situations
and it actually gives an advantage to those in earlier positions.
This is most explicit near the bubble of a satellite that offers multiple equivalent prizes. In satellites everyone, not just the chip leaders, has a high bubble factor. So the best strategy is usually to either fold pre-flop or push all-in, forcing everyone else to fold. Making a raise smaller than all-in is the worst choice. This gives someone else the initiative, allowing him to be the one to push first. If he comes over the top of you, you’ll have to let the hand go, sometimes even if you have pocket aces.
Yes, it’s sometimes right to fold pocket aces pre-flop, but only in satellite tournaments. Here’s an example of why.
Let’s say you’re in a satellite tournament that awards a seat into a larger tournament to the top five winners. There are six people left in the tournament. You’re the chip leader and are in the cutoff position. The stacks are:
The blinds are 200/400 and you’re dealt a nice pair of pocket aces. Players A and B both fold and you raise to 1,200 (a mistake as we’ll soon see). The button pushes all in and both of the blinds fold. Can you call with your aces?
To answer this, you need to figure out your EV of folding, winning an all-in, and losing an all-in. Using ICM, you can calculate that by folding, you’re left with 14,800 chips and a 97.5% chance of getting a seat. If you call and win with your aces, the tournament is over and you have a 100% chance of getting a seat. If you call and lose, you’re down to 3,250
chips and a 71% chance of winning a seat. This means you need to win more than 91% of the time just to break even!
(97.5% - 71%) / (100% - 71%) = 91.4%
Even if your opponent went all in without looking at his hand, you’d only be 85.2% to win. And if your opponent flashed a 72 offsuit, you’d only win 88.2%. Aces simply don’t win often enough to call. You can sit tight and wait for your seat. Losing that all-in hurts your chances of winning by a lot and winning the all-in doesn’t help much. You have enough chips; you don’t need to take the risk to try and get more. Your bubble factor is more than 10. His was almost 40! But you made the mistake of coming into the hand to begin with for less than all-in, giving him the opportunity to put you to the last guess. And this is a guess with only one right answer. Fold!
Your bubble factor is low, but his is high . Now your opponent can’t afford to lose chips, but they aren’t worth as much to you. This is the time to steal pots with reckless abandon. Your fold equity here is extremely high, so raise much more often than you would when far from the money.
Near the bubble of any major tournament, pro players take advantage of their opponents’ tight play. As the prize bubble nears, many inexperienced players act as though their bubble factor is a lot higher than it really is. More on this when we talk about specific bubble strategies for multi-table tournaments. more aggressively than against other players, since he’ll be more likely to pay you off. There can be extreme cases, such as satellite situations, where your bubble factor is so high that you can’t even be aggressive with your best hands. You should simply fold 100% of the time.
Quantifying bubble factors allows us to dispel a couple of big-stack myths as well.
Though the bubble factor is crucial, I probably use it more in SNGs and satellites than I do in MTT tournaments. In satellites and SNGs, the structure is invariably identical, enabling a mathematical system to encompass all the parameters Lee and his co-authors describe, such as the places paid, the CSI, each player’s stack size, the number of players left to act after you (from which the Power Number is derived), etc. In such situations, it’s almost mandatory to understand and master the bubble factor in order to avoid sub-optimal plays that will be costly in the long run.
In MTT tournament play, however, the structure varies greatly. Additionally, I’m personally not too concerned with the bubble factor, because my only goal is winning. Thus, I never feel the pressure of being eliminated before the money when the bubble is approaching. At the same time, I make a conscious effort to identify opponents who do worry about the bubble factor, because it gives me a great opportunity to manipulate and bully them as we get closer to the money!
To me, the bubble is one of the most exciting stages in a tournament; it represents an opportunity for me to steal a lot of chips from players whose primary objective is to make the money. At the bubble stage whenever my stack size allows it, I work hard to gain control over my table. As I’ve said many times already, I play to win. If a situation comes up during the bubble that can put me, should I win it, in a favorable position to win the tournament, the bubble factor doesn’t even cross my mind; I’m there to play! With the ultimate win as the only goal in mind, I’m never afraid of the big confrontation at any stage of a tournament, even if I have to put all my chips in the middle.
As highlighted by the authors, big stacks tend to attack medium stacks rather than short stacks during bubble time. Therefore, when you’re a medium-stack player in such a situation, it’s the ideal time to fight back at the big stacks; indeed, you’ll often make your big-stacked opponents lay down their hands with a pre-flop 3-bet or a raise on the flop.
Finally, I’m a firm believer that the bubble factor creates many sub-optimal decisions (including mine, sometimes!), and that the bubble is thus a highly opportune time to use your opponents’ weaknesses to your advantage.
In the second part of the chapter, the authors present many charts that discuss equilibrium plays in various situations and tournament types. These charts are filled with extremely valuable information. Take the time to study them and to understand the logical structure of the reasoning. However, watch out not to become over-analytical, which could lead you to build up a style that’s too
mechanical and stereotypical, devoid of creativity. Poker is first and foremost a live and dynamic game in which the key ability is to constantly adjust and adapt to new and different situations.