Last night I played a small $15 no limit multi-table satellite tournament. Of the seventy-three participants, nine would gain a seat for a $100 tournament to be played later in the week. Thirty minutes into the start of this tournament I also joined a $24 satellite for a $200 buy-in event. For the second tournament, three seats would be given. I was playing the tournaments on the same site and became struck at how differently the two tournaments played.

For the sake of summary, the cheaper tournament had more players competing for a smaller ultimate prize (a seat into a $50k guaranteed tournament compared to a seat into a $200k guaranteed tournament), but the quality of play seemed much better. I ended up losing to a bad-beat in the second tournament just as we were approaching the final two tables in the first tournament. As it turns out, I was thereby able to really evaluate what evolved into some very solid bubble play by many players.

With 18 of us left, the blind structure was still mild enough to afford the small stacks plenty of time for making some moves. The top four chip leaders were well within striking distance of one another and changed leads frequently. The difference in chips between 4^th place and 9^th place hovered around the 2:1 range, so one double through would easily change the nature of those “temporarily in the money”. The chip difference between 9^th place and 18^th was hovering in the 3:1 range so. Likewise, standings were capable of changing significantly on any given hand. I was fortunate enough in the middle of the tournament to hit a few hands that kept me in the 3^rd – 6^th range for most of the tournament, dabbling as chip leader on a couple of brief occasions. Given the close range of stacks, I was able to leverage a lot of mid-stack players against one another to keep my own stack relatively free from risk of finding myself at the true bubble.

As can be expected with this sort of shallow chip dispersement, people exiting the tournament just before the true bubble were not blinding out, but became victims of big hands falling to even bigger hands. I pulled Aces twice in these rounds and set myself up to be third stack with 11 players left. The three shortest stacks, however, were still not in immediate danger of blinding out and could afford to tango with one another (can you tango with three people?) as they jockeyed for that 9^th position. They were still hovering in the 8xBB and 9xBB range, thereby holding on to a fair amount of folding equity. At this point in the tournament, my table was defined as follows:

Seats one and two were empty.

Seat three held short stack #1 with approximately 8BB left.

Seats four and five were empty.

Seat six held 2^nd chip leader.

I sat in seat seven as 3^rd chip leader.

Seat eight held a middle stack well within striking distance to my own stack.

Seat nine held short stack #2 with approximately 9BB left.

The third short stack sat at the other table and the three shorties rotated in rank for a few orbits. Then bubble play began in earnest and I realized just how strong my fellow chip leaders were. We quickly fell into this silent “agreement” that the short-stacks would not get a cheap or heads-up flop. I was fortunate to sit in the cutoff when the two shorties at my table were in the blinds. Given that the button for those hands was semi-protective of risk, I would just raise for ¾ of their stacks and steal the blinds without contest. If the large stack to my right came into these situations (UTG) it would be for a minimum raise that was easily affordable. I would call the raise, alerting the two shorties that they needed a big hand, they would fold, and the other big stack and I would play one another cautiously, not risking any more chips but forcing the shorties to fold any opportunity at a free flop. This smooth-call into a check-fest became key strategy.

The player on the bubble finally called my first-in raise, also alerting the two shorties of significant strength (given his protective nature). When he bet the flop, I folded and preserved my chip stack which was now fourth in rank. Have you picked up on the fact that I’ve not yet mentioned any specific cards? Please realize that the cards were no longer the most dangerous parts of our game at this point in the tournament. Three sizeable stacks were merely doing their part to apply leverage on a consistent basis in order to keep the two short stacks from having any control whatsoever. If a shorty did answer a raise, we could play the flop and still have plenty of chips for continued leverage despite the minor increase in the short-stack’s arsenal if they picked up the hand. The key here was unrelenting pressure. Ninth place was as good as first place and we had three, and then eventually two, players trying to sneak into that prized seat. With three equal short-stacks left to this grind, the first one to double up would still not have much additional leverage against the middle-stack players. Finally, with ten players remaining, the shorty in seat #9 went all-in from UTG. I had an easy call for only a few more chips from the SB (I happened to be holding pocket 7s) and the BB, now holding an equal stack to mine, had an even easier call. We checked it down and the turn brought my set which held up against the big blind’s pocket tens and the short-stack’s A7s.

I’ve been on the bubble of some big multi-table tournaments where an unrelenting big stack would not let me get into a flop. Often times, the table will allow that one bully to take on the solo task of eliminating the bubble players. I was struck last night at how three of the five remaining players at my table realized the important role they played in ending the satellite tournament and how they were able to do so with savvy play that remained well within the scope of solid, strategic play. In these satellite tournaments, such a role is an important one to take and differs from that you would play at the bubble of a straight tournament with significant differences in payout between all placings.

Play well,

BD