Are the idle bystanders the main beneficiaries of SNG bubble mistakes?

[CurryLover]

I've only just started playing, and thinking about, SNGs. So please don't slate me too badly if what I'm about to say is either total rubbish or 'obvious' knowledge that everyone here knows and isn't worth even discussing. Ok, here goes...

I've been thinking about bubble play and how some of the mathematically correct decisions you must make are not especially intuitive. I read through Harrington's bubble examples in Book III. And I started to think that many times it must be annoying when someone makes a 'mistake' against you on the bubble, because you are not the beneficiary of their mistake - your other two opponents are the ones who feel the benefit (the ones who aren't even in the hand). You know, you push correctly, and opponentt calls with a hand that is a 'mistake' to call with. But his hand is still much better than (or at least even money with) the hand you pushed with etc.

So it seems to me that, in many situation, when player A pushes and player B calls 'incorrectly', the result of Player B's 'mistake' is a loss of equity for both Player B AND Player A. In other words, the other two players gain just by sitting at the sidelines and watching.

E.g. It's on the bubble. Blinds are nice and high (doesn't matter exact blind and stack size since I know you'll get the idea). Player A pushes on the button with 99. This is 'correct' play (make up blind and stack sizes so it becomes correct play). Player B in the SB calls with ATo. This is a 'mistake' by Player B. But Player A, who has played 'correctly', does not gain from Player B making a mistake against him. In fact, this mistake loses equity for both Player A and B, whilst C and D are very happy since they both gain equity (both of them are now guaranteed to get in the money etc.).

So this isn't rocket science I know. But remember I have only just started thinking about SNGs. I am only a cash game player really. And in cash games, if your opponent makes a mistake in a hand against you then YOU are the sole beneficiary of their mistake and THEY suffer the consequences of their mistake themselves. So it just seemed weird when I realised that it doesn't work this way at all in SNGs. In many circumstances you gain the most from an opponent's mistake when you are not actually in the hand. And the poor guy who played perfectly and had someone make a bad error against him does not gain at all. In fact, he actually suffers due to his opponent's mistake, whilst you gain just from having passed your cards. That just feels odd to me, but I guess it makes sense.

So now I got to thinking. How does this effect the optimum way to play the bubble? I always thought that you should be doing lots of stealing on the bubble as a general and oversimplified principle. They want to sneak into money so you steal lots of blinds to give yourself a good stack and a good shot at first place - you know all that textbook tourney advice. But, since you often gain most from opponents' mistakes when you are not in the hand, does that mean that you should actually tighten up on the bubble in certain situation? After all, the more hand you play, the more chance there is of an opponent making a 'mistake' against you that would cost you equity as well as them.

The more I think about, read about, and play these SNGs, the more it becomes clear that they are a completely unique form of poker. Especially around the bubble. It all gets, well, weird. I know that you all know this already (you see my 2nd level thinking at work!), but it is like a brand new toy to me at the moment...

[aujoz]

yes. you are right.

that's why most people won't make a push if it is less than +0.5%.

You can also do ICM calculations for other players. So, for example, if you fold on the button, you can calculate the pushing range of the small blind, and the calling range of the big blind, and the expected results of that.

of course, there's a chance that one will knock the other out - leading to an increase in equity for you.

however, it is unusual for both players' respective pushing and calling ranges to be so wide that the +$ev is more than 0.5% - so, if you're pushing only those hands that give you more than 0.5% +$ev, you're almost always taking the most +EV situation.

Folding can be +$ev as a result of possible other confrontations. However, because the +$ev you get from other players' confrontation enhances your chance of coming third, and decreases your chance of coming first (stack sizes, etc.) these are typically not massive +$ev situations.

I hope that I've explained myself a little. I'm sure someone can explain it better, but I've tried.

[adrockuk]

That post seems to demonstrate a pretty sound level of knowledge.

As far as my understanding goes - and i've only been playing seriously for a few months, and thinking theory for even less - there are two distinct areas to think about

1)How many times your pushes will be incorrectly called
2)How much you expect your ev to change on average if you just fold.

1.
When you have players who often make 'mistakes' you need to widen their range to accomodate this. Remembering that the range you do your calculations with is an average of the hands they call with is important. Ie sometimes they might fold A10 but call with A4 when you get a feel for their range you might end up working your calcs with A8+. Obviously if an opponent is in the habit of occasionally making spite calls/tilting this will widen out their average range

2.
In the lower stakes, ie $3s and $6s there are a lot of situations where you can gain ev by folding due to the opponents willingness to gamble it up. In my experience this happens a lot more just after the bubble than whilst in it.

This happens a lot less as you move up and callers make fewer loose 'mistakes'

In summary it's not usually a case of sitting out and letting the other players battle it out, but it is a case of picking better spots and tightening up somewhat if you suspect your opponents are making plenty of loose mistakes.

I'm sure i've not said anything you don't already know but i'm bored at work and fancied a bit of a rambling post.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
When you have players who often make 'mistakes' you need to widen their range to accomodate this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and when you do this, your own range will narrow making those calls even worse.

Regards Mack

[modnareno]

I think "good" SNG players lose a decent amount of money from opponents that make mistakes in being too passive and not pushing enough. I see many hands in low buyin tournaments where the button or SB will open limp, and then the hands will get checked down. A "good" player would have pushed, where as the bad player limps in. Since no one gets busted, these mistakes end up costing the other players money in the long run.

[aujoz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think "good" SNG players lose a decent amount of money from opponents that make mistakes in being too passive and not pushing enough. I see many hands in low buyin tournaments where the button or SB will open limp, and then the hands will get checked down. A "good" player would have pushed, where as the bad player limps in. Since no one gets busted, these mistakes end up costing the other players money in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel that this is very results orientated.

Player A obviously gains when players B & C clash and one (or both) are all-in. It is self-evident that this will not happen every hand, but why you need to consider the ranges of other players to determine whether it is likely.

If Player B only pushes 1%, and Player C only calls 1% (obviously extreme example), there is only a clash one 10,000 hands. However, if those players are that tight, you should be pushing anyway.

It becomes a self-balancing circle - if Players B & C are loose, you should be tighter with pushes into them because:
a) they are likely to call, and thus, you have a chance of losing
and
b) they are likely to clash with each other due to being loose

[KampnagelKid]

I am not that sure, but I think there is a leak in your thinking:
If in your example it is correct for A to push with 99 IF ATo is in the calling-range of B, then of course you push.

If the calling range of player B make your push -$, you don't.

If one (or all) of my opponents have wrong calling or pushing-ranges it is very good for me.

So, were is the problem? (P.S.: I know the fact that in your situation A AND B are loosing equity, but if it is a +$-push you should do it anyway - B is not holding always hands in his range).

Though it might be me with the lack of understanding here, I am ready to change my thinking if necessary.

[djames]

[ QUOTE ]
(P.S.: I know the fact that in your situation A AND B are loosing equity, but if it is a +$-push you should do it anyway - B is not holding always hands in his range).

[/ QUOTE ]

If a push is known to be +$EV (i.e. you know your opponent's calling range exactly), then by definition it must gain you equity, not lose you equity. You shouldn't avoid +$EV pushes just because bystanders gain equity too.

You should just realize that as a bystander, you can gain equity by not joining in the action in marginal situations. So if the $EV of a push is +0.2%, but you're at an active, aggressive table, maybe the $EV of folding is +0.4%. So folding is better than pushing.

[el_dusto]

[ QUOTE ]
If a push is known to be +$EV (i.e. you know your opponent's calling range exactly), then by definition it must gain you equity, not lose you equity. You shouldn't avoid +$EV pushes just because bystanders gain equity too.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the problem, though -- sometimes we misunderestimate how totally not-awesome our opponents are, and that screws up our perceived equity.

I think the effect of being a profitable bystander is increased at bubbles with 2 or 3 bad players, just because you can gain that much more equity by not subjecting yourself to loose calls or bad postflop situations.

[jws43yale]

I really like the train of thought here so far and although I don't have anything majorly philosophical to add I can think of several situation where others bad play costs you or helps you.

First, there are times when you have 5 BB's or less on the bubble and are basically even stacked with one other player. The small stack player to your right is pushing every hand, gaining equity. Then the big stack on your left is a donkey prone to bad calls which will cost you EV. Then the big stack to the right of the other small stack never pushes from the SB but instead completes, letting the other small stack win pots for 2 BB's which further costs you equity. This to me is by far one of the most frustrating situations that occur due to poor bubble play.

The postive thing is when you are small stacked on the bubble and the two big stacks manage to get themselves tangled allowing you to get ITM.