The Hyperturbo Bubble

As I alluded to in a previous column, I’ve played a few thousand hyperturbo sit-and-gos (HTs) over the past few months. And given that I’m seeing new opponents in them on a regular basis, I have to believe that they are gaining popularity. As such, they probably deserve a little more attention.

A typical HT is six-handed, and each player begins with 500 in chips. The blinds start at 25-50 and double every three minutes. The top two players win about 2.5 times their buy-in, while third place basically gets his money back.

On a whim, I did a Web search for HT strategy just to see what’s out there. A lot of what I saw was fairly straightforward, such as the need to play aggressively, to push with any decent hand, and so on. But something else that was consistently stressed was the need to avoid the bubble, which is fourth place. I found that advice to be somewhere between misleading and just plain wrong. Obviously, finishing on the bubble is displeasing, but it’s a serious mistake to play too cautiously out of fear of bubbling.

Let’s look at an $87 HT. Third place pays $86, so that represents the money jump between fourth and third. But then second place (and first place) pays $215, or 2.5 times the third-place prize. In other words, finishing one rung higher more than doubles your prize money. This tremendously devalues the need to secure a top-three finish, since one second-place finish pays $43 more than two third-place finishes.

Strategically, that implies that anytime you can take a 50-50 chance between finishing in the top two spots or fourth, you should clearly take that chance. Not only does that opportunity come up fairly often, but lots of times you have better than a 50-50 chance of securing a top-two finish. Yet, many players practically auto-fold in those situations due to their fear of bubbling. Maybe they sometimes have weak hands, but I’m sure that they are folding plenty of decent hands, too. That often works in my favor, since I like punishing the short stacks as much as the next guy. But when I’m the one facing a larger stack’s aggression, I take a stand more often than I think he expects me to. It’s worked for me, and the math supports my strategy.

Here’s a hand that came up recently: The blinds were 50-100 with a 20 ante, we were down to four-handed play, and I was in the big blind (BB) with 650. The player who was under the gun (UTG) had 100, and he folded, meaning that he would be put all in on the next hand in the BB. The button was the chip leader with 1,500. Most of the time, a player in that situation would raise, but he folded. Maybe he was inexperienced, or maybe he just had a truly awful hand.

That left it up to the small blind (SB), who had me covered slightly with 750, and he pushed all in. The SB was an experienced HT player who clearly understood the situation, and I’m quite sure that he would raise every time there. He figured that I would fold almost any hand, knowing that the UTG player would be all in on the next hand. In a sense, he was right, because I was certainly folding the majority of my hands. But given that winning an all-in confrontation would almost guarantee a top-two finish, I was also willing to gamble if I thought I had the best hand.

I had A-5 offsuit, which was right on the borderline. On one hand, I knew that I probably had the best hand, given that I was putting him on any two cards. On the other hand, even a random hand would beat me about 40 percent of the time, and if he happened to have picked up a pair of fives or higher, or a bigger ace, I was about a 70-30 underdog.

If I were playing strictly to avoid the bubble — thus following the advice from the HT discussion that I’d seen online — I would have folded. But that would have really hurt my chances for a top-two finish. It would have dropped me down to 530 in chips, while the SB would have climbed to 910, and of course the button was still sitting there with almost 1,500.

Besides, I would be counting on the UTG player to go broke on the next hand, but that certainly was not guaranteed. Furthermore, if he survived, it would probably be by doubling up against me! The most likely way for him to survive would be for the other two players to fold, and for his random hand to beat my random hand. And if that happened, I’d be the one running the risk of bubbling.

The only correct play I could see was calling with the A-5. Sure, I could finish fourth, and possibly cost myself $87 and a chance at $215. But, I had to take the shot at practically locking up the win with a hand that figured to be the best. If I felt that I would be about a 60-40 favorite, on average, the 60 percent chance of winning $215 was worth the risk. I called, and was fortunate to find him with J-5. My ace high held up, and he was left with 100. Two hands later, both he and the UTG player were eliminated. Obviously, I was lucky to have him dominated and be about a 3-1 favorite, but I liked my chances, regardless.

The strategy that I just recommended applies only to HTs. Multitable tournaments (MTTs) are a whole different animal. Let’s look at a $55 MTT that starts with 2,250 players and pays 324 spots, with 324th place paying $79, so that represents the difference between bubbling and making the money. To win twice that amount, you have to finish 117th or higher. And to win at least $200, or 2.5 times the bottom rung of money, you have to finish 63rd or higher.

The strategic implications are clear. If you are near the bubble and low on chips, a survive-until-the-money strategy seems fairly prudent. As a short stack, doubling up typically doesn’t increase your expected value by more than the $79 that you could win by waiting it out, since you’d still have to outlast over 200 more people before that payout doubles. So, if you can survive until reaching the money as a short stack, you should risk your stack only if you are very confident that you have the best hand.

Also, my double-up in the HT practically locked up a win, because it simultaneously crippled the person I beat. In the MTT example, you’d be hurting the chances of the person you double through, but that would be practically meaningless, because you have to make it through so many other opponents.
Let’s face it, it sucks being low on chips near the bubble, no matter what tournament format you’re playing. But there’s a time to risk a bubble finish, and a time not to. If the reward is worth the risk, as it often is in an HT, don’t be afraid to take it.

Matt Lessinger is the author of The Book of Bluffs: How to Bluff and Win at Poker, available everywhere. You can find other articles of his at www.CardPlayer.com