Tourney Bet Sizing

In the past when talking about end-of-tournament bet sizing, I mentioned a concept called stack dynamics – a key concept to making betting decisions at the end of a tournament. I only went into stack dynamics briefly, but there is much more to be said about end-of-tournament dynamics and the various factors that have an influence over how you should play.

This strategy piece focuses on this and will have detailed discussion and examples on stack dynamics, depth of money dynamics, and how the two work together. This article is going to start off by examining depth of money dynamics.

What Is Depth Of Money Dynamics?

Explained simply, depth of money dynamics is the relation of the average chip stack in proportion to the current blind levels. It is best explained by looking at some concrete examples of three different situations that on the surface appear to be the same, but because of depth of money dynamics are different.

Key point
The length of rounds and blind structure has a huge impact on how you should approach the latter stages of tournaments?

EXAMPLE ONE
Four players left in a tournament

Player A has 125,000 in chips
Player B has 160,000 in chips
Player C has 55,000 in chips
Player D has 20,000 in chips
Average chip stack is 90,000

Situation 1

Blinds: 400/800/ante 200

Player A has approximately 155 times the big blind. Their stack is very deep and they can play virtually any way they want pre and post flop. Player B has 200 times the big blind and is the same situation as player A. Player C has only 60% of the average chip stack, but with nearly 70 big blinds they are actually in the same comfort zone as players A and B and do not need to make any adjustments to their game. Player D has 25 big blinds and despite being very short in relation to the rest of the field, is not to the point where they are in all-in or fold mode. Their re-raise still has fold equity and typical medium stack play is fine here.

Situation 2

Blinds 2,000/4,000/ante 500

Player A has just over 30 big blinds. A standard raise of three times the big blind, or 12,000, is nearly 10% of their stack. Like player D in situation one, this player is in typical middle stack stage. However, there is one significant difference in the fact that player A’s relationship to the average chip stack is much better than player D’s was. Player A here has some flexibility in that they could raise to 12k and still fold if they are re-raised. If player D re-raised to something like 5k in situation 1 they would likely have to call.

Player B has 40 big blinds and is in the same situation as player A and has the added luxury of not being able to go broke on one hand. Player C has 14 big blinds and is dangerously close to reaching short-stack all-in or nothing mode. They don’t have to go all-in pre-flop first to act if they decide to play a hand, but need to realise that if they do open for a raise that it’s not a wise decision to fold.

Player D has five big blinds and is in the desperation stage. All-in or nothing is the only move this player has and they should be looking for spots where they can move all-in as the initial aggressor and most importantly should not be waiting for the big blind to hit them. They simply don’t have that kind of time.

Situation 3

Blinds: 6,000/12,000/ante 1,000

It’s amazing the difference a few rounds can make and this is why the length of rounds and blind structure can have such a huge impact on how the end game is played. In this situation, player A has just over 10 big blinds. Despite being an above average stack, they essentially find themselves in short-stack mode. As with most short-stacks, player A really has one move here and that is all-in or fold.

They can either make a move or ?sit back and wait for a big hand and find their stack whittled down quickly. ?At these levels, a player will lose 22,000 in chips every four hands, meaning it would only take 20 hands for player ?A to have no chips at all. It’s easy to ?see that the waiting for a big hand is not a good strategy to take. The other choice, and probably the preferable one, is to push hard and hope that they are not called by player’s B ?or C.

With this type of structure, which ?is not nearly as uncommon as you might think, the players that usually win are the ones pushing the action ?at this stage. Player B in this situation is in the same boat as player A, and there is no difference in how they should play. You would think with player C having half the chip stack or less of player’s A and B that they would be in terrible shape, but the truth of the matter is their position is only marginally different from that of player’s A and B.
The one main difference is that ?player C can go broke if they lose a showdown, but in all other aspects, player C is facing the same situations as player’s A and B. One double up and they move ahead of them and as such they should be pushing as much as possible to either double up or increase their stack from winning the blinds ?and antes.

Player D is still in a load of trouble, only now it’s multiplied by 1,000. They have less than two big blinds and will be blinded out if they don’t play a hand. They should move in any time they are first to act with any two or call all-in with a wide range of hands including connectors, suited cards, pairs, and any card higher than a ten.

Key point
The stack sizes in relation to the blinds have a direct and proportional impact on the way you should play. The closer your stack size is to the blinds the more urgent your play needs to be

The 3 Stages Of Depth Of Money

The above examples illustrate that ?what your stack size is in relation to ?the blinds will have a direct and proportional impact on the way you should play. The closer your stack size is to the blinds, as in situation three, the more urgent your play needs to be. The further away your stack size is from the blinds, as in situation one, you have more options available to you and you can afford to be patient. There are three specific stages of depth of money and they are as follows:

Deep
This is like situation one and affords the most play.

Medium
The best comparisons for this stage are player D in situation one, and players A, B, and C in situation two. It is important to note, however, that there are different levels of medium. You have upper medium which allows more play and lower medium, which has a player on the verge of being in the shallow stage. This stage allows you to apply the gap concept and to play more than one hand, but much of it will depend on how close you are to being in the shallow stage. If you are teetering on only being able to make one move, you should evaluate each hand carefully before deciding ?to play it.

Shallow
The best comparisons for this stage ?are player D in situation two and all players in situation three. At this stage ?you usually only have one move and that is to go all-in. Post-flop play is removed from your arsenal unless you get a look out of the big blind in an unraised pot. At this stage, aggression should rule and the hands you move all-in with first to act should be indiscriminate.

Key point
If you are severely short-stacked and only able to make one move, you should evaluate each hand carefully before deciding to play

Conclusion
The thing that depth of money dynamics will do for you as a poker player is help you determine the most appropriate action that you should be taking in a given hand. In the next article, I’ll go into more detail about stack dynamics, which when combined with depth of money dynamics will give you a much clearer understanding of how to handle the end stages of a tournament.