888 have always run satellites to a variety of live event games around the world: From the Aussi Millions, to the Canadian Heads up Championship in Calgary. One thing these games all have in common - They are always Winner-Take-All.
It is a fantastic opportunity that is available to every online player, whether they play professionally or are just a casual weekend player. Anyone has the opportunity to play in games like the World Series, usually for as little as $5.
Recognizing that winner-take-all formats require a drastic change in approach is essential if you want to have success in these types of games. This is easier said than done. Consider the average player who decides they want to try to qualify for the World Series of Poker. To play in this qualifier, they aren't likely to pay the entire $300 - $500 buy in the qualifier would normally cost. So instead, they opt for the satellite route.
Our hero begins his journey to the WSOP playing the cheapest satellites he can find. We'll use $5 satellites for the sake of this example. In this $5 game, 1 in 5 players move on. This particular satellite manages to get 120 players. So the top 24 finishers in this game will move on to the next satellite. The best strategy for our hero to adopt here is <strong>patience</strong> and <strong>survival</strong>. We probably don't need more than 2 double ups to have enough chips to slide into the top 24. Obviously if we had more, it would make life alot easier, but we aren't under pressure to go aggressively looking for chips.
When playing a satellite, finishing 24th is the same as finishing 1st. This means that accumulation of chips really is secondary to survival. An example of this:
You're on the bubble, 25 players left.
Blinds are 500/1000
You're seated on the button with <strong>3000 chips</strong>
In big blind and small blind are the two tournament chip leaders.
You are dealt <strong>Kc Ks </strong>
The action is folded around to you.
Rather than instantly shoving, consider the make-up of the table and the chip stacks of the remaining players. You notice that in seat 6 there is a player with 1200 chips, who has been taking his time before folding every hand.
You could shove your hand here, you have Kings afterall. But with the two chip leaders still to act, and only 1 person left before everyone wins, you can expect that you're going to get called fairly often. You'll be a favourite almost always, but even as an 80/20 favourite, we're taking a 20% risk here that may not be necessary.
By folding our Kings in this spot, the blinds will soon reach the player in seat 6. Perhaps they even go up to 600/1200 before they reach him. At any rate, player 6 is likely to be all in, playing for his tournament life with a hand he probably doesn't like that much (since he waited so long his options are limited). By opting for survival here rather than accumulation, we avoid unnecessary risks to win the same prize. Now obviously if there was an increasing prizepool, where finishing 19th is worth more than 24th, then we certainly would be playing those kings.
<ul>How is this different from the Main Event qualifier?</ul>
Skipping ahead, our hero has managed to win the $5 satellite, as well as the $20 and $100 satellites that follow, and has earned his seat into the main event qualifier.
Now our hero is in a game with only 30 players. 30 other players who have either bought in directly via the expensive buy in, or have also qualified through one or numerous satellites. Either way, the competition and dynamic of the game is night-and-day from the original $5 satellite.
Of these 30 players, only 1 is moving on, and 2nd place will earn exactly the same thing as 30th. So what does this mean? This means that from start to finish, our hero needs to be collecting chips. There is very little to be gained from patience. There is no prize pool money ladder to climb. So sitting back and letting other players get eliminated doesn't do you any favours.
Someone may argue, "but Aaron, every person eliminated brings our Hero one step closer to 1st, and one step closer to winning!" I would argue that every elimination made by someone else brings us one step further away. Rather than looking at it as outlasting 29 other players, consider it this way:
30 players, each starting with 3000 chips. That's 90 000 total chips in play. In order to be considered a winner in this game, you need to collect all 90 000 chips. So Player A knocks out Player B, putting you 1 player closer to 1st. You STILL need to collect that players 3000 chips. Only now they might be in the hands of a stronger player, and harder to get.
Obviously we are very rarely going to have games where we eliminate everyone. Most games we play, we probably only eliminate a handful. The point of this argument isn't to suggest our Hero goes into this game trying to knock out every person he can. It is to remind our hero that aggressive accumulation of chips will make sure he is actively working towards winning. Rather than patiently riding the wave to the final table, where he is now outchipped and looking at a very steep hill to climb.
I'd argue still, a player who takes a coin flip for a 30 000 chip pot with 10 players remaining, is giving himself a better chance to win, than a player who has limped into the final four and picks up Aces with a 3000 chip stack. Even if the second player doubles up with the Aces, they will likely still be the short stack. Also, given that they have played so tight, they aren't likely to be called lightly by the remaining 3 players. However the first player, who takes a coin flip for 30 000 chips with 10 players left, is going to be eliminated 50% of the time. The other 50% of the time, he's going to be holding 33% of the entire tournament chips with 9 players left, and will be a clear favourite to win.
An example of an accumulative play during a Winner-Take-All format:
<strong>Hand 1</strong>
There are 6 players left. Through either a cold deck or bad beats, our Hero is the short stack.
Blinds are 400/800
We are on the button with<strong> 4800 chips </strong>
The first three players fold the action around to the Hero.
Hero looks down and sees that he has a <strong>Qd 3h</strong>.
Previously, I suggested that we fold Kings in a similar situation on the bubble of a satellite. Here, there is no bubble except for the one between 2nd and first. Waiting for others to get eliminated won't help us win. So I suggest we shove.
By shoving, we are putting the pressure on both the blinds to pick up a reasonable hand to call us. If they both fold, we will have added 25% to our stack uncontested. A very large, and important amount. If we are called, it isn't the end of the world. We can always catch a Queen or a three. We might even be called by hands like 89, 9T, JT where we are a slight favourite.
A move like this is dependant on the blinds. If there is a monstrous chip leader in big blind who isn't likely to fold any Ace, King or Queen, then we might want to let a hand like this go, and look for a hand like 67s or any ace instead.
The point is, the cards in our hand are probably the last thing to consider when considering an all-in at this stage of the game. How much can we add? How many chips do the people still left to act have? Are they likely to fold? Can I find another spot to steal soon if I fold? These are all far more relevant questions to ask.
These games aren't easy, and they don't come around very often. It is easy to fall into a defensive mindset when playing one of these. Especially if they extend beyond your normal buyins allowed by your bankroll. Although it may be difficult to accept at first, playing it safe is probably the most dangerous strategy you could take.
-------------------------
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo
Home
Login
Register
Member List