Bad news and worse news

I recently traveled to Nottingham for the big million-guaranteed-UK and Ireland Poker Tour (UKIPT) stop and found myself in trouble near the bubble.

My third and final bullet was a max late reg one. I grinded the short stack for several hours without much help from the deck at one of the friendliest tables I’ve ever played at in England. There were two players I know well and consider friends (the most stylish man in poker Chris da Silva, and Dean “Stakattack” Clay). A few of the other players knew who I was even if they didn’t know me personally, and the others had no clue who I was (which is fairly typical when I play in the UK). My neighbor to the right was a very interesting maths professor who was therefore a game theory expert. He told me he’d devised threeway toy games where a player can make a bet that is a bluff against one of the other players (they have to fold better) but a value bet against the other (they have to call worse). This was fascinating to me as I’ve been thinking a lot about similar spots that can arise multi-way in poker.

the bad news is I have only 2.6 big blinds to work with

Anyway, we get to two off the bubble and the bad news is I have only 2.6 big blinds to work with, the worse news is I have to post two of them next hand as big blind and ante. The good news is there’s a massive difference between 2.6 big blinds and 2.5 (or less) in this spot, as it gives me enough to post my blinds this orbit and most of the time the bubble will go in the next orbit before I have to post again. Most people think when you get that short you should just flick it in the first half-decent hand you see, but the reality is that doubling is worth little or nothing to you at this point, compared to the chance of cashing before putting your last chips (or chip in this case) at risk.

There are a couple of other mathematical nuances to the spot that might not be apparent immediately. One is that when you are super short, the big blind ante makes doubling worth even less because you just win an ante you won’t have to pay if you have one big blind or less when the blinds next hit you (assuming the rule is big blind posted first before ante, as was the case). The big blind ante also means that if the bubble does go, I can get it in getting at least 12 to 1 on my money (because I can win the full big blind ante).

Flashback to a similar bubble

I first figured this out several years ago at a Unibet Open in Sinaia when I found myself with exactly 2.5 bbs behind (after posting my big blind and big blind ante) on the bubble. Button raised, I look down at 55 in the big blind, and figuring I had no fold equity on a shove and doubling was worth little or nothing to me at this point. My first impulse was to fold, but then I realized that if I folded and left myself with 2.5 bbs, that would become two when I folded my small blind next hand, and then one orbit later I’d have to post those two big blinds as big blind and ante, whereas if I just flat called the min raise and lost the hand, I’d still have one big blind, which was more or less equal to two since that additional big blind was just an ante I wouldn’t have to post next orbit if I didn’t have it.? So I called, set mining, and check folded when I didn’t hit, leaving the entire table scratching their heads as to why I’d called for half my stack, then folded an innocuous-looking flop.

who doesn’t like a good chip and a chair story?

There’s another mathematical nuance I’ll get to in a minute but to continue the story from Nottingham, it became apparent during the orbit before the blinds hit me again that the table was genuinely rooting for me to cash. As I said, super friendly table, and who doesn’t like a good chip and a chair story? Unfortunately for me, the bubble did not burst during that orbit, and I was forced to post my last remaining chip. The entire table folded to Chris in the small blind, and then a bizarre sequence of events occurred that PokerNews partially reported on (they arrived too late to get the full context).

Chris attempted to fold the small blind but was prevented from doing so. The tournament director unsurprisingly informed him that since his small blind was more than the 0.1 of a big blind I had posted, he couldn’t fold. Chris argued the point insisting he had the right to fold, but was told he couldn’t. He then changed tack and said: “But if I stand up and walk away my hand is dead.” The tournament director responded with a bemused look, at which point Chris stood up and walked away.

Unsurprisingly, the tournament director ruled his hand wasn’t dead, and it was turned over and prevailed to send me to the rail. I had no complaints as clearly any other ruling opens the possibility of collusion, which many players I told the story to thought was what Chris was trying to do, given our friendship. However, as I will attempt to explain, it very likely is in Chris’ best interests to fold and keep me alive, allowing the body bubble to continue for longer.

More than meets the eye

The first thing to understand about this rather unique spot is with only 0.1 big blinds posted by me and no ante, the rest of the table has very little incentive to open, particularly since they all had comfortable stacks that could fold into the money. The second thing to understand is that Chris covered most of them, and was in bubble abuse mode, so he could and very likely would put them to the test if they had the temerity to open. With his small blind being bigger than my big blind, he’s effectively the big blind in the hand, not me.

The final key to understanding the situation is that with Chris being in bubble abuse mode, it’s likely far more valuable for him to fold and keep the bubble going for longer than it is to win my last 0.1 of a big blind. This is a scenario those of us who cut our teeth in online sit n goes know only too well: on a bubble with the chip lead and a micro stack, the chipleader wants to keep the micro stack alive for as long as possible to prolong the very profitable (for them) bubble period.

Final thoughts

After I bubbled, I retired to the bar with my roommate for the week, Daragh Davey. He observed he’d never seen me bubble a micro stack before, and when I reflected on it I realized I never had either. I navigated that micro stack to the money in Sinaia, I navigated several two big-blind-or-less stacks through UKIPT bubbles back in the day (and even navigated one all the way to headsup in London once, on a final table that also featured Chris da Silva), and last year I survived a four and a half hour bubble with four big blinds on a UKIPT high roller final table in Dublin. On that occasion, after I was crippled to four bbs after an all-in against Niall “Firaldo” Farrell, one of my table mates observed I was kinda screwed, inspiring one of my favorite Firaldo quips ever.

“Are you kidding? Have you not seen what this man can do with four big blinds?…

This man could paint the Sistine Chapel with four big blinds!”

On this occasion in Nottingham, I wasn’t able to pull off a Houdini act, but I guess I had to bubble one eventually. Overall it was a very enjoyable event, with the Stars live events team and the DTD staff top-notch as ever. Shoutout to my friend and humor-sparring-partner John Farrell who not only final tabled the Main Event but also finished second on the leaderboard after a great season on the circuit.

That leaderboard was won by another good friend of mine, Dave Docherty, who never looked back from winning the Irish Open, and crushed all season. Dave seemed really thrilled with his trophy, to the point he made sure everyone in DTD got to see it on his lap of honor. Obviously, Daragh and I took the p*ss out of him relentlessly for this, pointing out that Daragh is a two-time leaderboard champion, because we are guys and that’s what guys do rather than simply say: “Congratulations, delighted for you mate.” But yeah, congratulations Dave, delighted for you, you trophy-chasing clown.