Stalling Tactics on the new Party Poker speed games

I've only stalled a few times in SNGs and they've all been in situations like this. It's the bubble, I have a really short stack, and so does another player. His big blind is coming up and if I stall, the blinds will get big enough to put him all-in. You probably already thought of that.

There might be other situations to stall but I haven't really thought about it that much. My first impression would be, the big stack shouldn't stall because he wants the bubble to last as long as possible and the blinds going up, ends the bubble faster.

The final 2/3 tables of turbo MTTs where the BB is larger than everyone's stack.

Stalling can be very +EV. In Stars Sng's, I stall all the time. Ex: 5 handed, I'm SB with 1800 chips, medium to short stacks to my right, info screen tells me the blinds go up to 200/400 within 1 minute. In this situation I will use my entire time bank to make sure the blinds go up before I fold.

Here's my reasoning:

1. I have no chance of getting through small blinds again anyway. They will be 200/400 when they get to me no matter what I do.

2. By stalling I can make the bigger blinds hit some of the smaller stacks before they hit me.

3. My main edge in Sng's is that other players play too tight on the bubble. Stalling in this spot gives me more time to make more +EV pushes, and take nice big pots for free.

Originally Posted by Rockymv

Stalling can be very +EV. In Stars Sng's, I stall all the time. Ex: 5 handed, I'm SB with 1800 chips, medium to short stacks to my right, info screen tells me the blinds go up to 200/400 within 1 minute. In this situation I will use my entire time bank to make sure the blinds go up before I fold.

Here's my reasoning:

1. I have no chance of getting through small blinds again anyway. They will be 200/400 when they get to me no matter what I do.

2. By stalling I can make the bigger blinds hit some of the smaller stacks before they hit me.

3. My main edge in Sng's is that other players play too tight on the bubble. Stalling in this spot gives me more time to make more +EV pushes, and take nice big pots for free.

YOUR NOT PLAYING ENOUGH TABLES

Originally Posted by Rockymv

Stalling can be very +EV. In Stars Sng's, I stall all the time. Ex: 5 handed, I'm SB with 1800 chips, medium to short stacks to my right, info screen tells me the blinds go up to 200/400 within 1 minute. In this situation I will use my entire time bank to make sure the blinds go up before I fold.

Here's my reasoning:

1. I have no chance of getting through small blinds again anyway. They will be 200/400 when they get to me no matter what I do.

2. By stalling I can make the bigger blinds hit some of the smaller stacks before they hit me.

3. My main edge in Sng's is that other players play too tight on the bubble. Stalling in this spot gives me more time to make more +EV pushes, and take nice big pots for free.

I do this all the time, figured a few others had to as well

Let's think about a situation together.

Assume the following:
6 players:
4,000
4,000
4,000
3,000
3,000
2,000

Assume hero has one of the 4,000 chips. Be sure to also consider position, blind level, time remaining at a particular blind level, player skill of shorty and other 4,000 stacks.

Can you find a reason to stall anywhere here?

Originally Posted by Trikflow77

YOUR NOT PLAYING ENOUGH TABLES

That's for sure. I just got a sweet deal on a video card though...so I will be playing more tables soon.

I stall only to time the blinds so they go up right after I post, and only once they hit the 150 level or higher. Mostly in turbos but it works in any format. Allows you to pay a smaller blind and then be in position to steal the higher blind right after that....

Originally Posted by konahead

I stall only to time the blinds so they go up right after I post, and only once they hit the 150 level or higher. Mostly in turbos but it works in any format. Allows you to pay a smaller blind and then be in position to steal the higher blind right after that....

You must not be playing at Party. First of all, you can actually see when the blinds will change. Second of all, you can use your position, if lucky, to manipulate your $EV decisions.

Apparently you do not want to think this question out.

I only play at Party and I can see how much time is left at that blind level so I try to time it so the blinds go up right after me. What don't you get, and do you have to use rolling eyes and annoying shit like that rather than just be reasonable?

I swear, chucky, sometimes I think you do that on purpose just to get a rise out of people. it's unnecessary, my friend...

If there's some other reason - prolonging the bubble, etc - just explain it - I'm more than willing to listen to you.... and then I'd appreciate the input even more since you'd be treating me with the same respect I try to accord you.....

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

Let's think about a situation together.

Assume the following:
6 players:
4,000
4,000
4,000
3,000
3,000
2,000

Assume hero has one of the 4,000 chips. Be sure to also consider position, blind level, time remaining at a particular blind level, player skill of shorty and other 4,000 stacks.

Can you find a reason to stall anywhere here?

I guess I don't see what's not self-evident here. Why shouldn't you always stall to make bigger blinds hit the shorter stacks before they hit you?

I guess I don't see what's not self-evident here. Why shouldn't you always stall to make bigger blinds hit the shorter stacks before they hit you?

Let's say a shorty is UTG at present (Let's assume it's 6 handed.) There's 20 seconds remaining until the next blind change. Folded to you in the SB. Blinds are 100/200. Shorty has 1400 chips. Hero has 1200 chips (or another low chip count higher than 1200). Big stacks are playing tight. How do you view this situation in relation to stalling?

Originally Posted by konahead

I only play at Party

Originally Posted by konahead

I stall only to time the blinds so they go up right after I post, and only once they hit the 150 level

Since Party no longer has a 150 level, I assumed you didn't play there.

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

Apparently you do not want to think this question out.

Originally Posted by konahead

What don't you get, and do you have to use rolling eyes and annoying shit like that rather than just be reasonable?

Essentially you just gave me your standard play. I asked if anyone cared to think about constructing scenarios. If you cannot think of any scenarios outside of your standard play, then I can see why the rolling eyes would bother you. Otherwise, I just say things to try and motivate people to use their brain.

Bah, this post is already bothering me.

Originally Posted by Rockymv

I guess I don't see what's not self-evident here. Why shouldn't you always stall to make bigger blinds hit the shorter stacks before they hit you?

How do you feel about stalling here?

Seat 1 (hero)
Seat 2 3,000
Seat 3 4,000
Seat 4 4,000
Seat 5 2,000
Seat 6 3,000

Blinds are 100/200 (or even better 200/400). Hero is BB. Blinds change in 1.5 minutes.

In response to your question about UTG short stack, I would certainly stall long enough so shorty pays the higher fee on the next hand - prior to me pushing into the tight BB with any two. You have to wait - what'd you say - 20 seconds? That's doable.

BUT, if I was big stack, I may try to time the blinds so they go up on the medium stacks rather than the short stack - if stealing has been profitable and prolonging the bubble is in my best interest.... Does that seem reasonable?

(fyi - Party used to have a 150 level - I just meant I don't do it when the blinds are pretty much meaningless...)

btw - I'm just askin for some respect here, chucky, same as I give you. The rolling eyes would bother anyone regardless of whether they came up with outside-the-box scenarios - simply because it's demeaning and insulting. And rolling eyes really don't motivate anyone - trust me.

Sorry to say it, but you know why this post is already bothering you. Just be a little respectful and you'll get a lot better responses. thank you, sir.

Stalling is ghei but occasionally +EV. Scuba, in your situation, I think you're making quick decisions and making the blinds come around as fast as possible for the other players, forcing them to make decisions for 10% or more of their chips as many times as possible, and allowing you to potentially absorb their mistakes.

In 2-3 table SNGs, stalling is generally -EV unless the tables are very close to merging. The general idea is that you can increase the number of chips at your table by knocking a player out and bringing another player over from another table, and by playing more hands, you increase the likelyhood that this will happen. Stalling is +EV when you are close to a merge, generally, because if you make the merge before you hit the blinds you will get at least a few more hands before the blinds, and a much longer orbit.

In a 1-table sng, stalling as the largest stack is +EV because it causes the blinds to raise at a greater rate comparative to the hands played, forcing people to play more marginal hands while you can trap and bait them with pot odds. As a short stack, stalling is similarly -EV for the same reason.

Also, if you have tight average stacks to your left, stalling may make pots bigger to steal, as they are less likely to look up your pushes and raises. This is true of any size stack, however, I think as a short stack the higher blinds affect me more than the average stack, and also the pot odds for them to call your pushes and raises become much more tempting.

Similarly, if you have an aggressive player directly to your right, stalling is likely a poor decision for the reasons stated above.

I'd like to see some commentary on how and why you can stall during postflop play to influence your opponents decisions, and, if you pay attention, can you use stalling as a tell in certain situations?

Chucky wrote:
How do you feel about stalling here?
Seat 1 (hero)
Seat 2 3,000
Seat 3 4,000
Seat 4 4,000
Seat 5 2,000
Seat 6 3,000
Blinds are 100/200 (or even better 200/400). Hero is BB. Blinds change in 1.5 minutes.[/quote]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure stalling here accomplishes anything with 1.5 minutes to go. You may be able to get shorty on a higher sb but I don't think you can stall enough to hit him with the higher bb without actually getting involved in a hand. But you could certainly try...

What about this - w 30 seconds until the blind changes to 400 and everyone playing really tight?:
BB - 1000
SB - hero - 9000
CO - 4000
MP - 4000
UTG - 1000

would you try to get through the two hands quickly so the shorties pay the 200 blind and you can beat up on the 4000 stacks at the 400 level? Or do you stall so shorties gets hit with the higher blind and potentially go out? (This may be a bad example, but you get my drift...)

edit - the above is actually a good line in a MTT - but after giving it some thought in an SnG it's probably better to just get the short stacks out of the way....

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

I guess I don't see what's not self-evident here. Why shouldn't you always stall to make bigger blinds hit the shorter stacks before they hit you?

Let's say a shorty is UTG at present (Let's assume it's 6 handed.) There's 20 seconds remaining until the next blind change. Folded to you in the SB. Blinds are 100/200. Shorty has 1400 chips. Hero has 1200 chips (or another low chip count higher than 1200). Big stacks are playing tight. How do you view this situation in relation to stalling?

I'd stall and make bigger blinds hit the shorter stack. Clearly you think this is a mistake for some reason. Is it because if the short stack is on a smaller blind, his calling range for a push is tighter, so it will be easier to steal his blind? If so, that's faulty reasoning.

you know, rocky, I've been using the timing of the blinds mostly to have the blinds hit the next player to my left, regardless of stack sizes, simply so I have position to steal the higher blinds - but now I think I'll focus a lot more on having them hit the short stacks. had thought about it but not really applied it. thx for the re-emphasis on this. good post.

Originally Posted by Rockymv

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

I guess I don't see what's not self-evident here. Why shouldn't you always stall to make bigger blinds hit the shorter stacks before they hit you?

Let's say a shorty is UTG at present (Let's assume it's 6 handed.) There's 20 seconds remaining until the next blind change. Folded to you in the SB. Blinds are 100/200. Shorty has 1400 chips. Hero has 1200 chips (or another low chip count higher than 1200). Big stacks are playing tight. How do you view this situation in relation to stalling?

I'd stall and make bigger blinds hit the shorter stack. Clearly you think this is a mistake for some reason. Is it because if the short stack is on a smaller blind, his calling range for a push is tighter, so it will be easier to steal his blind? If so, that's faulty reasoning.

If it's folded to you in the next two hands, what range of hands are you pushing? How does the blinds changing affect your decision? And yes, I'm asking if you're going to push any two into shorty when the blinds are at the next level and he's getting 2:1 pot odds to call.

Also, how is manufacturing folding equity faulty reasoning?

Originally Posted by konahead

would you try to get through the two hands quickly so the shorties pay the 200 blind and you can beat up on the 4000 stacks at the 400 level? Or do you stall so shorties gets hit with the higher blind and potentially go out? (This may be a bad example, but you get my drift...)

Kona, is your strategy one that picks on the small stacks or the medium stacks or other?

Also, I have thought about it for some time, and I cannot think of a situation where stalling as the bigstack has any benefit. With the rare exception that I have an over aggro medium stack to my right, who knows I'm tight, and I care for some reason.

Originally Posted by konahead

edit - the above is actually a good line in a MTT - but after giving it some thought in an SnG it's probably better to just get the short stacks out of the way....

So your SNG strategy is to get the two short stacks out of the way, so you can begin picking on the medium stacks when you're in the money?

I think picking on medium stacks is the best thing to do.

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

Originally Posted by Rockymv

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

I guess I don't see what's not self-evident here. Why shouldn't you always stall to make bigger blinds hit the shorter stacks before they hit you?

Let's say a shorty is UTG at present (Let's assume it's 6 handed.) There's 20 seconds remaining until the next blind change. Folded to you in the SB. Blinds are 100/200. Shorty has 1400 chips. Hero has 1200 chips (or another low chip count higher than 1200). Big stacks are playing tight. How do you view this situation in relation to stalling?

I'd stall and make bigger blinds hit the shorter stack. Clearly you think this is a mistake for some reason. Is it because if the short stack is on a smaller blind, his calling range for a push is tighter, so it will be easier to steal his blind? If so, that's faulty reasoning.

If it's folded to you in the next two hands, what range of hands are you pushing? How does the blinds changing affect your decision? And yes, I'm asking if you're going to push any two into shorty when the blinds are at the next level and he's getting 2:1 pot odds to call.

Also, how is manufacturing folding equity faulty reasoning?

Because only a very solid player is going to significantly loosen his calling range when he's sitting with 1200 chips on a 400 blind as opposed to 200 blind. So there's way more EV in pushing while BB is on a bigger blind.

Even if he does adjust his range to the bigger blinds perfectly, the looser range and bigger blinds cancel each other out (right?), so there's absolutely no advantage in hitting him with a smaller blind.

But basically no one loosens up as much as they actually should while sitting on a large big blind with a relatively small stack, so there's way more EV in those situations.

Originally Posted by Rockymv

Because only a very solid player is going to significantly loosen his calling range when he's sitting with 1200 chips on a 400 blind as opposed to 200 blind. So there's way more EV in pushing while BB is on a bigger blind.

LOL. You're kidding right? What % of hands are you at least admitting call here?

Originally Posted by Rockymv

Even if he does adjust his range to the bigger blinds perfectly, the looser range and bigger blinds cancel each other out (right?), so there's absolutely no advantage in hitting him with a smaller blind.

But basically no one loosens up as much as they actually should while sitting on a large big blind with a relatively small stack, so there's way more EV in those situations.

Until you figure out a hand range, I'm not going to admit there is more EV in pushing JUST because the blinds are higher. Furthermore, if you're trying to get me to admit that the calling range is the same for the short stack in the BB in this situation with the two different blinds, I won't.

not the same, but more less-than-perfect than on a smaller blind. this is a generalization based on experience that i will stubbornly refuse to cede!

Originally Posted by Rockymv

not the same, but more less-than-perfect than on a smaller blind. this is a generalization based on experience will stubbornly refuse to cede!

How come with all your experience you're refusing to answer the question?

I wasn't suggesting I had a lot of experience, I was saying that this is what the experience I have suggests to me.

You know that I can't give you meaningful calling ranges without more information about a particular situation. This is a general question, so here is my general answer: given there stack size, the size of the blinds, and their reads of me, their is an ideal calling range that a short stack should have. The difference between this ideal range and the short stack's actual range tends to increase as the blinds increase. This is my assumption, one that lines up with my own experience and one on which I think most people would agree.

If my assumption is correct, it follows that my pushes will be more +EV when the blinds are bigger due to the fact that my opponents are making bigger mistakes by having calling ranges that are too tight (and more too tight than when the blinds are smaller).

If you want to respond to this, deal with the two issues separately: the assumption itself, or whether the argument is valid (i. e. whether its it's the case that if my premise is true, then my conclusion necessarily follows).

Originally Posted by Rockymv

I wasn't suggesting I had a lot of experience, I was saying that this is what the experience I have suggests to me.

You know that i can't give you meaningful calling ranges without more information about a particular situation. This is a general question, so here is my general answer: given their stack size, the size of the blinds, and their reads of me, their is an ideal calling range that a short stack should have. The difference between this ideal range and the short stack's actual range tends to increase as the blinds increase. This is my assumption, one that lines up with my own experience and one on which I think most people would agree.

If my assumption is correct, it follows that my pushes will be more +EV when the blinds are bigger due to the fact that my opponents are making bigger mistakes by having calling ranges that are too tight (and more too tight than when the blinds are smaller).

If you want to respond to this, deal with the two issues separately: the assumption itself, or whether the argument is valid (i. e. whether its it's the case that if my premise is true, then my conclusion necessarily follows).

Why do you make assumptions? Why not just do the work?

Furthermore, I think you're missing a more important factor in your analysis/assumptions. It is far more likely, in the higher blind case, that your cards matter. Please remember, we're discussing a 6 handed game, not a bubble spot.

Finally, you are making an argument in which no one can refute without having an agreed upon calling range. Your primary argument which is valid on average when discussing tourneys in general, is that people fold too much. I believe you are using this blanket statement to justify your decision in this spot. I do not know the answer, but my instincts are that your way or my way is probably pretty close to the same outcome mathematically, but your way will have more variance. (if that does not make sense, consider this analogy. Let's say we both average 10 when we shoot 20 free throws. But you are a streaky shooter, and I'm more consistent. So, on average, I will make between 8-12 free throws out of every 20, and you will make between 5-15 free throws.)

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

Why do you make assumptions? Why not just do the work?

It's not really an assumption, more of something that seems very likely and generally held to be true, which I am treating as though it is in fact true for the sake of argument (that's the assumption part). Because if it is in fact true, then my conclusion necessarily follows. You can't play poker without making good assumptions anyway.

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

Furthermore, I think you're missing a more important factor in your analysis/assumptions. It is far more likely, in the higher blind case, that your cards matter. Please remember, we're discussing a 6 handed game, not a bubble spot.

I had understood that the opposite was the case. You need less of a hand to push when the blinds are bigger. The only way that your cards would matter more is if the BB had loosened up his calling as much as he should have (which I have argued is not the case with most players).

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

I do not know the answer, but my instincts are that your way or my way is probably pretty close to the same outcome mathematically, but your way will have more variance.

If it's the case that the BB loosens his range as much he should (again, how much he should is dependent up the specific situaion), then this is exactly right. Our outcomes will be the same, but my method will experience more variace.

At the very least, I can't imagine that it would ever be preferable to keep the blinds smaller in situations like these.

Rocky, I'm a pretty stubborn person, but I think you have me beat.

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

Rocky, I'm a pretty stubborn person, but I think you have me beat.

I appreciate you saying this. I'm an undergrad in philosophy, so I enjoy a good argument.