Is It Getting Bubbly In Here?

Posted on Dec 5, 2006 3:00 pm PST - Contact the poster - All items by Tysen Streib - Report
bad item
Details
Author: Tysen Streib
Publication Name: 2+2 Internet Magazine
Publish Date: Sep 1, 2006

Description
Article describing a concept called the "bubble factor" which represents the degree of non-linearity in tournament chip
values. Below is the text of the article, download the attached document for the imbedded images.

Experienced tournament players know that each chip that they gain in a tournament is worth less
than the one before it. If you double your chip stack, your expectation from the prize pool will go
up, but by less than two times. This is because part of the prize pool gets awarded to people who
bust out throughout the tournament. Getting 100% of the chips doesn’t equate to 100% of the
prize pool. This non-linearity of chip value is generally strongest right at the prize bubble, but its
effects are still present at all stages of the tournament, until it reaches heads-up. But how does
this artifact of tournaments affect your decisions at the table? Sometimes very strongly, but we
should try to quantify its effects first.

Jogadores de torneios experientes sabem que cada ficha que eles ganham em um torneio...???
Se você dobra seu stack, sua expectativa de chegar a zona de premiação aumente, porém menos
que duas vezes. Isto ocorre porque parte do prêmio vai para as pessoas que continuam no torneio.
Ganhar 100% das fichas não significa que você irá ganhar 100% do prêmio. Esta não linearidade
do valor das fichas geralmente é mais forte perto da bolha, mas este efeito está presente em todo
torneio, até no heads-up. Mas o que estas particularidades dos torneios irão afetar em suas
decisões na mesa? As vezes fortemente, mas temos que saber quantificar estes efeitos primeiro.

I’ve described the Independent Chip Model (ICM) in previous articles as a way of estimating
each player’s prize pool equity depending on everyone’s chip stacks. In this article I will use
ICM to define a new concept that I’m going to call the “bubble factor” to help illustrate how
much the tournament structure distorts normal pot odds situations. This bubble factor is going to
vary on an opponent-by-opponent basis. I’m defining it as “if you go all-in against that opponent,
what is the ratio of the cost of losing compared to the gain from winning?” If chips had a linear
value, like in a cash game, this number would always be exactly one. If you went all-in for $500
against another opponent (even if one of you had more chips), then

the cost of losing = the gain from winning = $500

Eu descrevi o ICM em artigos anteriores como um método onde a equidade de cada jogador
ganhar o prêmio sempre depende da quantidade de fichas (chip stacks). Neste artigo eu vou usar
ICM para definir um novo conceito que eu vou chamar de “bubble factor” para ajudar ilustrar
como a estrutura de muitos torneios distorce as situações normais de pot odds. Este fator de
bubble vai variar de oponente para oponente. Eu estou definindo isto como “se você vai all-in
contra determinado oponente, qual é a relação entre custo de perder comparado ao lucro de
ganhar?” Se as fichas tivessem valor linear, igual em um cash game, este número sempre seria
exatamente um. Se você fosse all-in com $500 contra qualquer oponente (mesmo se um de vocês
tivesse mais fichas), então “o custo de perder = o lucro de ganhar = $500”.

But in a tournament, the cost of losing is always higher than the gain, so the bubble factor is
always 1 or higher. For example, in a 20,000 chip single-table tournament, the average
distribution of chips (and prize equity using ICM) when there are 4 players remaining is:

Mas em um torneio, o custom de perder é sempre maior que o de ganhar, então o fator bubble é
sempre 1 ou mais. Por exemplo, em um torneio single-table de 20000 fichas, e distribuição
comum de fichas (e equidade de prêmio usando ICM) quando há 4 jogadores permanecendo é:

Share of the
Chips
Prize Pool
Player A 8,300 33.94%
Player B 5,300 27.36%
Player C 3,900 22.74%
Player D 2,500 15.96%

If you were Player B and went all-in against the short stack, your equity would be 35.41% if you
won and 17.38% if you lost. So your bubble factor is:

Se você fosse o jogador B e fosse all-in contra o short stack, sua equidade seria 35,41% se você
ganhasse e 17,38% se você perdesse. Então seu fator bubble é:

(27.36 – 17.38) / (35.41 – 27.36) = 1.24

Losing hurts 1.24 times as much as winning. You can do the same calculations going up against
Players A and C and you would get bubble factors of 2.54 and 1.54, respectively. So what does
that mean? That bubble factor of 2.54 against the chip leader means that the chips you are risking
are 2.54 times as valuable as the chips you are hoping to win. So if you feel that your chances of
winning against the chip leader are about 33%, then the normal pot odds of 2-to-1 are no longer
enough to justify a call. You now need pot odds of over 5-to-1 just to make it a break-even
situation.

“Lesões perdedoras 1,24 vezes tão grande quanto vencedora.??? “ Você pode fazer os mesmos
cálculos indo contra os Jogadores A e C e você terá os fatores bubble de 2.54 e 1.54,
respectivamente. Então o que isto significa? Aquele fator bubble de 2.54 contra o chip leader
significa que as fichas que você está arriscando são 2.54 vezes tão valiosas quanto as fichas que
você espera ganhar. Então se você pensar que suas chances de ganhar contra o chip leader são
aproximadamente 33%, então o pot odds normal de 2:1 não é o bastante para justificar o call.
Você agora precisa de 5:1 pot odds somente para ter uma situação breakeven.

To get a rough idea of how bubble factors vary with chip position, let’s calculate everyone’s
factor against everyone else:

Para se ter uma idéia de como o fator bubble varia com sua posição em fichas, vamos calcular o
fator de todos contra todos:

Opponent
2500 3900 5300 8300
2500 1.38 1.55 1.73
3900 1.26 1.97 2.24
Player
5300 1.24 1.54 2.54
8300 1.16 1.29 1.51

Or with more extreme stacks:

Ou com stacks mais extremos:

Opponent
700 3500 6300 9500
700 1.09 1.23 1.27
3500 1.05 2.91 3.21
Player
6300 1.04 1.27 3.40
9500 1.03 1.14 1.39

Or in a satellite tournament that gives equal prizes to the top 3 spots:

Ou em um torneio satélite que tem a mesma premiação para os 3 primeiros:

Opponent
2500 3900 5300 8300
2500 1.61 1.95 2.31
3900 1.44 3.29 4.06
Player
5300 1.47 2.37 6.03
8300 1.42 1.99 3.07

Bubble factors in larger satellite tournaments can get much higher. If 20 or 30 prizes are being
awarded and there is just 1 more elimination to go, everyone’s bubble factor is insanely high
(approaching infinity) except for the tiny stacks.
Bubble factors em torneios satélites maiores podem ser muito mais altos. Se 20 ou 30 estão sendo
premiados, e há apenas mais 1 eliminação para ficar ITM, o fator bubble de todos é insanamente
alto (aproximadamente infinito) exceto para os com stack minúlculos.

Stepping back to normal single-table tournaments, note that these bubble effects are persistent
throughout the tournament, not just on the bubble. Even with 6 players when 3 get paid:
Retornando aos SNGs single-table normais, note que estes efeitos bubble estão presentes em todo
o torneio e não somente no bubble. Até mesmo com 6 jogadores quando 3 pagarem.

Opponent
1400 2000 2600 3300 4300 6400
Player 1400 1.13 1.15 1.16 1.19 1.24
 2000 1.13 1.22 1.24 1.28 1.35
2600 1.12 1.19 1.32 1.30 1.47
3300 1.12 1.19 1.28 1.49 1.61
4300 1.11 1.18 1.26 1.38 1.79
6400 1.09 1.15 1.21 1.30 1.47

They also persist after the bubble has already been passed. This is a look at the entire final table
of a 500-entry tournament:
Eles tabém persistem depois que o bubble já tenha passado. Esta tabela mostra a mesa final inteira
de um torneio com 500 inscritos.

Opponent
21,500 36,800 51,100 62,400 77,700 94,100 111,500 136,000 170,800 238,100
21,500 1.21 1.24 1.25 1.27 1.28 1.30 1.30 1.31 1.33
36,800 1.15 1.36 1.38 1.40 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46 1.49
51,100 1.14 1.26 1.47 1.50 1.52 1.54 1.55 1.58 1.61
62,400 1.10 1.22 1.35 1.55 1.57 1.59 1.62 1.64 1.68
77,700 1.10 1.19 1.29 1.40 1.64 1.67 1.68 1.72 1.76
Player
94,100 1.09 1.16 1.25 1.32 1.46 1.72 1.76 1.79 1.84
111,500 1.08 1.15 1.21 1.27 1.38 1.53 1.81 1.85 1.90
136,000 1.04 1.10 1.17 1.21 1.29 1.39 1.54 1.91 1.97
170,800 1.07 1.11 1.15 1.18 1.23 1.31 1.40 1.56 2.07
238,100 1.00 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.15 1.20 1.24 1.34 1.50

So what are you supposed to do with these numbers? Obviously you will not be able to calculate
them on the fly at the table, but you should notice what circumstances give you a high bubble
factor and what circumstances make it low. High bubble factors exist in a number of
circumstances, but most notably when you have a medium stack going against a big stack, or if
there is a very small stack at the table. Low bubble factors exist when you go up against a tiny
stack or you are far from the money. You should also note what your opponents’ bubble factors
are against you. If they are aware of this effect of tournament structure, then you can put yourself
in your opponents’ shoes and adjust accordingly. Opponents with high bubble factors are much
more likely to fold, so you will have a lot of folding equity against them. This 2x2 matrix is a
summary of some of the adjustments you should make to your play based on the bubble factor:

Então o que você acha que deve fazer com estes números? Obviamente você não poderá calcular
os valores exatos durante o torneio, porém você deveria saber em quais circunstâncias você
possui um fator bubble alto e em quais você possui um fator baixo. Várias circunstâncias te darão
um fator bubble elevado, mas o mais comum é quando você está com medium stack e vai contra
um big stack, ou se tem alguém muito short stack na mesa. Fatores bubble baixos existem quando
você vai contra um com stack extremamente baixo ou você está longe do dinheiro. Você também
deve notar quais fatores bubble seus oponentes tem contra você. Se eles estão atentos nestes
efeitos das estruturas dos torneios, então você pode se colocar no lugar deles e ajustar seu jogo de
acordo. Oponentes com fator bubble alto foldam muito mais fácil, então você tem grande fold
equity contra eles. Esta matriz 2x2 é um resumo de alguns ajustes que você deveria fazer baseado
no fator bubble:
Both of your bubble factors are low. This will be fairly close to a cash game in strategy. Since
chip values are fairly linear, normal pot odds can dictate many of your decisions. Just play
normal poker.

Both of your bubble factors are high. Now you essentially have a game of chicken. Neither of
you wants a confrontation as there is not much to gain and everything to lose. So you have two
options: either avoid a confrontation (fold or just keep the pot small) or show that you are 100%
committed (be the first to go all-in). If your opponent understands bubble effects he should back
down if you push first. This is most explicit near the bubble of a satellite that offers multiple
equivalent prizes. In satellites everyone has a high bubble factor, not just the chip leaders. So the
best strategy is usually to either fold pre-flop or push all-in, forcing everyone else to fold.
Making a smaller raise is the worst choice. This gives someone else the initiative, allowing them
to be the one to push first. If they come over the top of you, you are going to have to let the hand
go, sometimes even if you have pocket aces.

Your bubble factor is low, but his is high. Now your opponent can’t afford to lose chips but
they aren’t worth as much to you. This is the time to steal pots with reckless abandon. Your fold
equity here is extremely high.

Your bubble factor is high, but his is low. Now you have to be cautious. Your opponent is
likely to be fairly loose, so you should stop bluffing or making wild steal attempts. You cannot
afford to bluff away your chips since they are too valuable to you and he is more likely to call.
However, if you do have a good hand, then you should push it more aggressively than against
other players since he will be more likely to pay you off. There can be extreme cases, such as
satellite situations, where your bubble factor is so high that you can’t even be aggressive with
your best hands. You should simply fold 100% of the time.

Quantifying bubble factors allows us to dispel a couple big stack myths as well.

Big Stack Myth #1: As the big stack, you should attack the small stacks. It’s actually much
better to attack the medium stacks, as long as they aren’t too big compared to you. The medium
stacks have a much higher bubble factor against you, and yours is about the same against the
small or medium stacks. The medium stacks will be much more afraid of you but the small stacks
might get desperate enough to take a stand.

Big Stack Myth #2: As the big stack, you should call liberally to knock out players. Dan
Harrington, in his excellent books Harrington on Hold’em, even takes this to the extreme by
saying that if your stack is at least 10 times bigger than your opponent, you should go all-in on
any two cards. This is complete nonsense. No matter how the stacks are arranged, your bubble
factor can never be less than 1. That means that if you wouldn’t make the call in a cash game,
then you shouldn’t make the call in a tournament. Super-loose calls will just double up your
opponents more often. You don’t care if you eliminate players as the big stack. When you bust a
player, you are helping everyone else’s equity more than you help yourself. To you they are
simply chips. Yes it doesn’t hurt you that much to call, but it doesn’t help you that much either.

Thinking about bubble factors like this will help you make more intelligent decisions in
tournaments. However, your opponents may not be as aware of these effects, and that can make a
big difference. An opponent who is not aware of bubble factors will play as if his bubble factor
were closer to 1 than it actually is. Your bubble factor remains unchanged, so you have to be
more cautious around an ignorant player. Don’t steal as much with weaker hands, and don’t play
at all near a satellite bubble. Don’t try to play chicken against someone who doesn’t understand
the rules of the game.