Satellite Play Multi-Seat Guarantees
 

When playing a satellite tourney where the top 10% all pay out equally for a seat into the next stage, what differences are there from a normal tourney?

When do you make the adjustment from a normal MTT to a satellite that awards seat to say only the top 10?

Things to ponder:

A) Do you set a specific goal or target to reach in order for you to be able to fold non-stop during the bubble period?

B) If you're short stacked nearing the bubble, is there a player you want to target? Eg. Do you concentrate on attacking a middle stack that can get crippled if they call and lose to you? Or do you still just play your cards?

C) How does the pay out structure affect your blind stealing strategy - especially when it's bubble time?

D) Where do you draw the line between playing your chip stack vs playing your hand?

E) If you're 5th in chips with 15 to go, how do you adjust your play for these situations?

i just played one!!! my answers from how i played it...

1 - I dont make a target, i play mornal and auto rebuy to the max if i lose a hand.

2 - If im shortstacks, i play the cards and position. More often than not if a huge stack is in the blinds and i have Ax, ill move, and hope for a loose call.

3 - The structure affects everyhting. I was just 4th in chips with 35 to go, and got AK under the gun. I moved all in instantly, as i had the table covered, the blinds were 10k/20k, and i had 70k. it was crazy blinds at the end. I knew the SSs would fold, and the only large stack was a sit out. That steal with AK, without wanting a flop, got me in for sure.

4- i play with my gut.


5- 5th in chips with how many left? if its quite a few, sit out to the seat. if not many, get stealing from mid stacks

It's hard to give specific advice without knowing a specific situation (how many seats, how many players left, your stack size, average stack size, # of big stacks, # of small stacks, blind size, etc, etc).

But, generally speaking, yes - there tourneys play significantly different than normal MTTs do. In a normal MTT, the big stacks pick on the small stacks. But in a satellite such as this, it's exactly the opposie - the short stacks (should) pick on the big stacks. Why? Because the big stacks are all but guaranteed to win UNLESS they start losing hands. And if they don't play, they can't lose. I see big stacks playing aggressively ALL THE TIME in these types of situations, and that's ridiculous. Why take a risk when you can ust walk away and win? Late in ourneys like this, you need to remember that you aren't playing to win - rather, you are playing to NOT LOSE.

Let me give you an extreme example: Down to 51 players with blinds of 1000/2000 and the top 50 all win the same prize, you are on the button with AA. You have 10x the average chip size. The shortest stack at the table, who has maybe 2 BBs left, goes all in from EP and it folds around to you. What do you do?

Answer: Fold. You shouldn't even be watching the screen. With 10x the average stack, you should be watching tv in the other room. There is no way it is mathematicaly possible or you to get blinded out at this point, so just go away. With 51 players left, there are about to be 50 winners and more importantly ONE loser. And the only way you can lose is by playing. So don't play. Just walk away.

That's an extreme example, and in reality, I would probably call the 2 BB bet and hope to end it right there. But I still believe the correct decision is to fold.

How many people were going to win? If it was only 3 or 5, sure - no problem. But if it was 20, I think this was a big mistake. Why put your stack at risk with the whole table left to act behind you, when you could just fold and coast to the win?

I have to disagree with the example. It would only be correct if you are in no danger of elimination (guaranteed a seat) and a person with more chips than you goes all-in. There, folding is correct. This example is not.

Why? With 10x the average stack, there is a 0% chance of you being blinded off. Just fold. Calling here costs you 2 BBs if you get sucked out on, and potentially a lot more if either of the blinds comes along and you get involved in a bigger hand.

There is no reason to play.

Edit: What if instead of 2 BBs (extreme example), the short stack had an average stack? 10% of your chips? what if he had 1/4 of your stack? What about half?

He has you covered in none of those examples, and I think they are all clear folds.

Good.

Oh well: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Talking Poker again.

I tried. :)

25 win, but the blinds were that big if i didnt win one id have 11k left, with 10k/20k blinds, and big antes.

Right from HOH Volume II for sattellite touranments.

"Correct strategy for the leaders is to avoid confrontations with each other and cooperate to eliminate the small stacks."

nice on paper.....

While TP's initial example is a little extreme :), I agree with him - if I can fold my way to a place and am mathematically guaranteed NOT to be blinded out, I put on my fold hat and away I go. The 'sit out' button works wonders for that sort of thing :) Even with Aces, I'm not going to risk some donkey catching his one-outer to double up off me, possibly putting me in a situation where I now HAVE to play to make it through.

ps. Like Aeq, I too must spread some love around before hitting TP again

I'll give TP some of the love (no spreading around for me to do). I liked what he said as well. It's nice to try and eliminate that last person, but I don't want to sacrifice my seat to do it.

I gave him some points for that excellent advice post.

Mathematical win > eliminate small stacks

This ( ^o^) is me, for anyone who doesn't know it, yet.

but, all i am saying, s that on my hand, i had the third best hand UTG, the huge stack was sitting out, and the others were all stalling and folding. if i folded i was in the BB for half my stack, with 5 more out to go. If i go in and steal, i am through guaranteed. if i go in and get called by a lower stack, i have enough for the BB if i lose, and if i win im safe. So IMO it was the proper move