In this study, there are 126 remaining players. 125 make the money. We are on the stone bubble. This means the risk premiums will be high, the adjustments extreme, and someone will be leaving disappointed. Hopefully not us.

In my last two articles, the focus was on how raise-first-in (RFI) ranges are affected as the soft bubble emerges and calcifies. In the next two, in addition to RFI strategies, I’ll also be looking at the responses.

For this article, I’ll be using two sets of HRC outputs: one where the table chip leader is Under the Gun and the shortest stack is in the Cutoff, and another where the short stack is Under the Gun and the chip leader is on the Button. Today, the focus will be on short-stack play.

If you haven’t had a chance yet, I highly recommend reading part one (Soft Bubble Strategies) and part two (Money Bubble Tactics) of this series to help orient your reading of today’s article (part 3 of 3).

Short Stack Play

On the stone bubble, some of the most extreme adjustments come from the shorter stacks. This is due to the high risk premiums weighing on them. In ICM, not all chips are equal—each additional chip is worth less than the one before. Conversely, a single chip can be worth the world.

The reason is simple: if you cash with 1bb, you earn the same payout as the player who has 10, 15, or 25bb. Understanding this helps clarify why short stacks play so tight. Yes, they could win more chips by playing profitable chip expected value (chipEV) poker, but doing so could lose money. It’s a classic case of missing the forest for the trees.

Take a look at the HRC output below:

HRC RFI strategy for Cutoff playing an 11bb stack in an asymmetric configuration (28bb average, 1 from ITM). Cutoff vpips 16.1%.

Red: Min open. Purple: Open Shove All In.

Even in late position, the 11bb shorty plays a 16.1% rfi. This is very tight, tighter than a chipEV Under the Gun open range.

On the stone bubble, the late position short stack is open-folding 55, offsuit broadways, and K9 suited. Again, this contraction in range is due to the high risk premium on the Cutoff. See below:

Bubble factors in this setup. The Cutoff (11bb) has a 12.9% risk premium, resulting in playing significantly tighter than chipEV.

Similarly, notice how ICM impacts the Middle Position player and the Big Blind in the chart above. Even though they aren’t exactly “shorties”, they are shorter than the average stack (28bbs) and have meaningful risk premiums against most players at the table. Middle Position has a 10.6% risk premium against almost everyone; likewise, the Big Blind has a 10.2% risk premium versus almost everyone.

Only versus the short stack do both have a significant decrease in risk premium, with Middle Position’s at 2.9% and Big Blind’s at 2.4%. This is because even if they double up the shorty, they live to die another day. For the same reason, Big Blind also has a lower risk premium against Middle Position than against the deeper stacks.

Even if Middle Position gets a full double through Big Blind, Big Blind still has a chip and a chair. But against everyone else, if they stack off, they stone bubble.

Now, let’s look at how things change when the short stack is in early position:

HRC RFI strategy for Under the Gun playing an 11bb stack in an asymmetric configuration (28bb average, 1 from ITM). Under the Gun vpips 8.3%.

Red: Min open. Purple: Open Shove All In.

Now the shorty plays an 8.3% RFI strategy—99 is open-folded more than half the time, and 88 folds pure. Want to be a champion? Try folding 88 off 11bb. It might seem awfully nitty, but take a look below and you’ll see why.

$ Values of Action with 99 in ICM model. When Under the Gun min-opens 99, they make 2 cents. When they raise all-in, they lose 2 cents.

99 only makes $0.02 as an open. That’s incredibly marginal in a $215 tournament, so it mixes to fold. Meanwhile, 88 loses $4.47 when it open-shoves, and slightly more than $2 when it min-opens. These seemingly small dollar losses can add up fast and make it tough to maintain a positive ROI over the long run.

For reference, take a look at what 88 is worth in chips:

Lucid GTO Trainer preflop chart for 10bb symmetric: Under the Gun. In ChipEV, 88 makes 1.18bb.

88 wins 1.18bb at 10bb effective, but still loses about $4. Once again, this shows that you can win chips while losing money.

How The Table Responds

Below are the responses to the Under the Gun short-stack min-open. Take a look.

HRC output actions overview showing responses to Under the Gun’s min-open.

Note that only the Big Blind has any significant flatting range (41.9%); the rest of the responses are 3bet, mostly at low frequencies.

A major difference between the Under the Gun and Cutoff strategies is the dominance of min-opening versus open-shoving. The Cutoff short stack shoves about two-thirds of the time and min-opens the rest, knowing they’re likely to get it through with few players behind. Even though they’re short, no one wants to lose chunks of their stack to them unnecessarily.

On the other hand, since the Under the Gun shorty opens so tightly, the rest of the table responds tightly as well. As a result, the opener gets 3-bet infrequently and is called even less. Only the Small Blind has a meaningful 3-bet percentage (11.3%), and that’s because they only play via 3-bet.

The only players the short stack really has to worry about are the Button (50bb), who flats less than 4% and 3-bets over 8%, and the Big Blind, who plays about half the deck. In both cases, however, the investment is significantly less than in chipEV.

Put simply, Under the Gun’s range is so tight that everyone should respond honestly, while the Cutoff bets so much that everyone should respond honestly as well.

What to Do When Your Opponents Are Breaking the Rules

As mentioned in the previous article, your opponents’ responses can cause major shifts in your strategy. When the short stack is focused on survival—and let’s be honest, nobody enjoys the walk of shame back to the registration desk (too bad, it’s the bubble and that desk is long gone)—it becomes crucial to understand how your opponents will actually play, especially when they deviate from what the almighty solver says they should do.

Here are two things to watch for when deciding how to play in real life. And by “real life,” I mean your tournament life.

Wide Big Blind Defense or In-Position Flatting

Some people like to play. Some people like to play back. Whatever the case may be, when you’re an early-position opener on the stone bubble and have a higher risk of seeing flops because your opponents won’t leave you alone, there are countermeasures you can employ.

1. Shove More than the Solver: Here, I don’t mean to add hands to your range. I mean that if the $EV is comparable—or even slightly lower—than min-opening but still profitable, jam instead. Even though you have a stronger range, you aren’t thrilled to get action from the weaker one. As flops are seen and pots increase, lowering SPRs, the risk of busting increases as well. There’s no need to be a hero.
2. Fold More than the Solver: If the fringe of your range is making marginal $EV as an RFI, its value will dip further once you start facing more calls preflop—sometimes into outright losing territory. It’s not fun, but sometimes you gotta sit out and let the children play.

The One Mistake You Can’t Beat

When your opponents overcall versus your open-shoves, nobody wins. Well—nobody in the hand, at least. The caller isn’t getting the right price against your range, and you’re now at risk more often than you expected when you last checked HRC on your bathroom break… Don’t cheat!!!

The real winners are the onlooking players, who lock up a min-cash more often than they should. In spots like this, you just need your hand to win. Hopefully, you’ve got the top of your jamming range and you hold. Or, you win the flip.

There is a countermeasure, but it’s not sexy.

Once again, you just fold more. I mean fewer hands altogether. You’re in the Cutoff, and you open-fold 66 and JT suited. While these are strong, winning hands, if your opponents are calling too wide (often with an ace or king in their hand), the $EV of these shoves drops. You want to shove in a way that blocks their calls, but more often. Just fold and live to see another hand.

Otherwise, your solver-approved 66 open-shove will leave you muttering on the way out of the card room:

“Calls me with A3 offsuit… what a joke. Nice hand, fish.”

But you know what? It’s not the money that matters. It’s who we become in the pr–

Nevermind.

Until next time.

If you’d like to learn more about how to navigate tricky tournament spots, read: This Greedy Value Bet Strategy Will Help You Win More Tournaments.

The post How Short Stacks Navigate the Stone Bubble appeared first on Upswing Poker.

The continual redistribution of chips as players win and lose pots, combined with the shrinking field and looming bubble, makes the stages leading up to the in-the-money (ITM) phase some of the most dynamic, interesting, and ROI-defining in tournaments.

While at a final table, you’ll be making decisions around the lion’s share of the prize pool, but busting near the money too often eats away at your deep-run profits and kills your ROI.

This is the second part of a comprehensive dive into pre-money play (you can read part 1 here).

Today, we’re getting a little closer to the bubble of a 1,000-runner tournament with 125 paid.

To provide some contrast and help clarify your adjustments, I’m using Holdem Resources Calculator (HRC) sims for 175 players left (50 eliminations from ITM) and 150 players left (25 eliminations from ITM).

Let’s dive deep into strategy for this critical stage of a tournament.

Note: Want to navigate every stage of a tournament like a pro, from the first hand to the last?

Get $200 off the ultimate tournament masterclass with coupon code BUBBLE200. Expires Sunday at midnight.

This advanced tournament course from two super high rollers will help you run deeper and win more tournaments.

Make sure you use that BUBBLE200 code to save $200 before this Sunday (May 4th) at midnight.

Short Stack Strategy

I’m going to drop a few charts from my HRC research, then summarize the key takeaways below them.

Just take a quick glance at the charts, maybe make a mental note of the differences, then move onto my explanations. You can always scroll back up to reference the charts as needed.

HRC Raise First In (RFI) Strategy — Cutoff, 11bb Stack (Asymmetric Configuration, 28bb Average, 100 from ITM)

From the Cutoff with 11bb, the RFI strategy is split between min-opening and open-shoving:

• Red: Min-raise.
• Purple: Open shove (all-in).

The Cutoff opens 31.6% of hands in this spot.

HRC Raise First In (RFI) Strategy — Cutoff, 11bb Stack (Asymmetric Configuration, 28bb Average, 50 from ITM)

From the Cutoff with 11bb, the RFI strategy is split between min-opening and open-shoving:

• Red: Min-raise.
• Purple: Open shove (all-in).

The Cutoff opens 30.4% of hands in this spot.

HRC Raise First In (RFI) Strategy — Cutoff, 11bb Stack (Asymmetric Configuration, 28bb Average, 25 from ITM)

From the Cutoff with 11bb, the RFI strategy is split between min-opening and open-shoving:

• Red: Min-raise.
• Purple: Open shove (all-in).

The Cutoff opens 27.5% of hands in this spot.

At 100 players left from the money, the Cutoff plays a 31.6% range. At 50 left, it’s 30.4%. At 25 left, it shrinks to 27.5%. The nearing of the bubble creates a tapering effect on the short stack’s range, and the closer you get, the sharper the contraction becomes.

Notice how the rate of shrinkage steepens. From 100 left to 50 left, the Cutoff’s range contracts by just 1.2%. But from 50 left to 25 left, it shrinks by 2.8%. The proximity of the money produces meaningful RFI adjustments.

Importantly, it’s not the min-raise percentage that’s driving this shift. The min-open frequency only drops by 0.2% from 100 to 25 left. Rather, it’s the all-ins that see a significant decline. This highlights the increasing importance of survival as a short stack near the bubble.

Paying attention to the fringe of your range becomes critical here. Take Qx Tx offsuit, for example.

• With 100 left from the money, this combo shoves 34% of the time.
• With 50 left, it drops to 10%.
• With 25 left, just 6%.

It’s easy to fall into the trap of playing a static “bubble” range when you’re short-stacked. But even with limited chips, nuance and finesse are required.

It’s crucial to understand what the fringe of your range is actually worth. With 25 players left before the money, this combo is worth just $0.05 in dollar expected value ($EV), whether you min-raise or shove. Remember, this is a $215 tournament where the min-cash is about 1.5x the buy-in. With 50 players left, the same hand is worth about $1.82.

So while these are high-frequency RFIs, they don’t add much to your bottom line.

Factors like your opponents calling too wide or too tight, your skill edge at the table, and even where this tournament’s buy-in ranks in your overall schedule should all influence how you proceed.

• How Your Opponents Play: If your opponents are calling too wide, the $EV of your fringe shoves will drop, often turning into losing plays. Conversely, if they’re calling too tight, you should ramp up your aggression. It’s important to recognize whether optimal play is overperforming or underperforming in practice and adjust your strategy accordingly.
• Your Skill Edge Vs. Your Table: Factoring in future gameplay when dealt a bottom-of-range open shove will help you decide whether to strictly follow the ICM outputs. Take the Qx Tx offsuit example: you make just $0.05 by open-jamming, a negligible amount relative to the $215 buy-in. Can you outperform that $0.05 by waiting for a better spot? Gambling tighter might be the better play. On the other hand, if you’re at a skill disadvantage, it’s usually best to take any available +$EV spot as the short stack and hope to either get it through or win when called.
• Your Buy-in Range: Players with a wider buy-in range may want to weigh the $EV of a shove more carefully and tighten up. In this $215 example, if it’s near the top of your buy-in range, you might choose to shave the bottom off your open-shoving range to give yourself a better shot at min-cashing. An extreme example: imagine an online midstakes grinder who satellites into the WSOP Main Event and makes Day 4. In that spot, you might willingly sacrifice some theoretical EV in exchange for a higher chance at locking up a five-figure payout.

Mid Stacks

It’s natural to assume that ICM pressure causes ranges to tighten across all stack sizes. However, there are situations where the opposite happens.

HRC Raise First In (RFI) Strategy — UTG1, 33bb Stack (Asymmetric Configuration, 28bb Average, 100 from ITM)

From UTG1 with 33bb, the RFI strategy opens 18.9% of hands.

HRC Raise First In (RFI) Strategy — UTG1, 33bb Stack (Asymmetric Configuration, 28bb Average, 50 from ITM)

From UTG1 with 33bb, the RFI strategy opens 19.9% of hands.

HRC Raise First In (RFI) Strategy — UTG1, 33bb Stack (Asymmetric Configuration, 28bb Average, 25 from ITM)

From UTG1 with 33bb, the RFI strategy opens 21.4% of hands.

In the HRC outputs for the UTG1 player, the ranges expand as the money approaches.

• 100 from the money: 18.9% open.
• 50 from the money: 19.9% open.
• 25 from the money: 21.4% open — slightly wider than chipEV.

At first glance, this might seem to contradict the ICM model, where you would expect ranges to tighten, not widen. However, this is a mischaracterization of how ICM pressure actually works. While it’s true that ICM often leads to tighter overall play, it would be more accurate to say that ICM determines who you should be playing against most often, not simply that you should tighten across the board.

In the configuration for these sims, the UTG1 player is only at risk of busting versus the Small Blind.

• UTG: 50bb
• UTG1 (EP): 33bb
• MP: 18bb
• HJ: 25bb
• CO: 11bb
• BU: 29bb
• SB: 39bb
• BB: 19.5bb

Stack configuration used for the earlier sims.

Bubble Factors — 150 Players Left (25 from the Money)

After the UTG player folds, the UTG1 player’s highest bubble factor is against the Small Blind.

Notice in the bubble factors above that the highest risk premiums for the UTG1 player are against the UTG and Small Blind, both at 6.8%. When the UTG player folds and UTG1 opens, the opponent they least want to play against is the Small Blind, since they are covered by them, increasing the risk of busting out.

However, in every other possible confrontation, the bubble factors and risk premiums of the opponents against UTG1 are greater than UTG1’s are against them. The opponents are the ones at risk when playing a pot versus UTG1, not the other way around. This dynamic strengthens the case for UTG1 to open wider.

The most important factors in shaping UTG1’s opening range are the Button and Big Blind stacks, since they are the players most likely to contest the pot. In this case, UTG1 covers both.

UTG1 covers the Button and the Big Blind — the two players they will be tangling with most often. They also cover everyone else at the table except the Small Blind, who they will have position on. These conditions are what cause UTG1’s RFI range to widen under ICM pressure, rather than contract.

For clarity, take a look at the Big Blind’s response to a UTG1 open, first with 100 players left before the money, then with 25, shown below.

HRC Big Blind Defense Strategy — Versus UTG1 Open (Asymmetric Configuration: 28bb Average, BB with 19.5bb, UTG1 with 33bb, 100 from ITM)

UTG1 opens 18.9% of hands.

The Big Blind’s combined defending range is 59.4%, folding the remaining 40.6%.

HRC Big Blind Defense Strategy — Versus UTG1 Open (Asymmetric Configuration: 28bb Average, BB with 19.5bb, UTG1 with 33bb, 25 from ITM)

UTG1 opens 21.4% of hands.

The Big Blind’s combined defending range is 41.8%, folding the remaining 58.2%.

Since the Big Blind is covered and at risk of busting against the UTG1 opener, they are forced to defend very tightly.

• In the 100-left sim, the Big Blind is already folding 40.6% of hands.
• With 25 left before the money, that number jumps to 58.2%.

In a chipEV environment, this level of folding would be considered extreme. At these stack depths, the Big Blind would typically only fold around 25% of hands.

Folding this much in the Big Blind would result in a losing bb/100 win rate, even if you played like a top-tier player from every other position. Because the Big Blind is forced to defend so tightly, the UTG1 player gains additional incentive to widen their RFI range.

To further illustrate, take a look at the HRC sim below, where the stacks have been rearranged.

• UTG: 111bb
• UTG1 (EP): 33bb
• MP: 18bb
• HJ: 25bb
• CO: 19.5bb
• BU: 50bb
• SB: 29bb
• BB: 39bb

Stack configuration used for the following sim.

HRC Raise First In (RFI) Strategy — UTG1, 33bb Stack (Asymmetric Configuration: 28bb Average, 25 from ITM, Different Stack Setups)

UTG1 opens 19.9% of hands.

Once again, the UTG1 range has contracted to less than chipEV. The driving force behind these adjustments is the Button and Big Blind, who now cover the UTG1 player. When UTG1 opens, the Big Blind folds 44% of the time, more than in the 100-left sim (40.6%), but significantly less than in the 25-left sim (58.2%).

Contrasting this stack setup against the earlier one highlights just how dynamic the ICM model truly is.

When thinking about ICM, think about who you do and do not want to play against.

The Big Stack

In this section, I’ll compare the two 150-remaining (25 left to the money) sims with their different stack setups.

By now, it should be clear: if you are not at risk of busting while others are, you get to play more hands. As the money approaches, the big stack at the table will naturally see an RFI increase from all positions.

HRC Raise First In (RFI) Strategy — UTG, 50bb Stack (Asymmetric Configuration: 28bb Average, 25 from ITM)

UTG opens 21.9% of hands.

In the HRC output above, UTG opens a 21.9% range. This is notably wide, considering that in chipEV:

• At 25bb effective, UTG would open around 18%.
• At 50bb effective, UTG would open around 17%.

The fact that the earliest position can widen its range by nearly 18% highlights just how much ICM pressure impacts the shorter stacks.

As noted in the previous article of this series, preference is given to combos that block opponents’ 3-bets, particularly Ax and Kx hands.

This pattern remains resilient even as the RFI range expands. The additional hands aren’t random pocket pairs or suited connectors; they are primarily suited Kx, Ax 5x offsuit, and offsuit broadways. It’s important to remember that as preflop ranges shift, so must your postflop strategy. A common mistake is to continue using GTO postflop lines that were developed for chipEV ranges, even when ICM pressure is in play.

HRC Raise First In (RFI) Strategy — Button, 50bb Stack (Asymmetric Configuration: 28bb Average, 25 from ITM)

The Button opens 55.5% of hands.

On the Button, the big stack opens over half the deck. This isn’t unusual — at 40bb effective in chipEV, the Button opens around 52%, and at 50bb effective, around 54%. What is unusual is how resilient this percentage remains in an asymmetric setup. In this table configuration, the Small Blind has 29bb, and the Big Blind has 39bb.

Again, covering the players to act means they are never at risk, their opponents are, allowing them to open even more aggressively than standard chipEV strategy would suggest.

That said, being the covering stack on the Button with 25 players left before the money is not a license to raise 80% of your hands.

55.5% is wide, but it’s still an “honest” range.

However, it’s important to understand that opening wider than equilibrium is a lesser mistake than defending wider. As an extreme example:

• If the Button opens 9x4x offsuit, they lose $8.09.
• If the Big Blind defends it, they lose $16.70.

Opening and betting mistakes are far less costly than calling mistakes, especially under ICM pressure.

Conclusion

In this article, I’ve covered the strategic adjustments for what is traditionally considered the soft bubble stage in tournaments. At this point, risk premiums are high enough that RFI percentages become much more dynamic, moving up or down depending on your stack size and table configuration.

Key Takeaways:

• Short stacks tighten up, playing for the min-cash. Pay close attention to your opponents’ tendencies — open-shoving equilibrium ranges against players who call too wide will torch money.
• When the big stack folds, the next stack with the lowest risk of busting (the one covering others) effectively becomes the new chip leader. As a result, opens widen. Make sure not to play too tight!
• With the money bubble looming, the big stack gets to ramp up aggression from all positions, but still within respectable ranges. Be careful not to play too loose.
• Mistakes around ICM pressure: It’s much worse to defend too wide than it is to open too wide.

If you enjoyed this article, keep an eye out for part 3 of my bubble series. And check this out in the meantime: This Greedy Value Bet Strategy Will Help You Win More Tournaments.

Note: Want to navigate every stage of a tournament like a pro, from the first hand to the last?

Get $200 off the ultimate tournament masterclass with coupon code BUBBLE200. Expires Sunday at midnight.

This advanced tournament course from two super high rollers will help you run deeper and win more tournaments.

Make sure you use that BUBBLE200 code to save $200 before this Sunday (May 4th) at midnight.

The post Money Bubble Tactics: Maximize Your Edge as the Pressure Builds appeared first on Upswing Poker.

As you approach the money in poker tournaments, the best approach will depend on multiple factors, not just how much you need the cash.

Concepts like ICM and chipEV get tossed around by poker’s intelligentsia, yet even the most studious can be clueless.

Stack asymmetry, field sizes, player pools, payout structures, varying formats, table configurations, and future game considerations all come into play when making money decisions. Figuring out what matters most — and when — is tough business.

This is the first in a series of MTT articles where I’ll guide you through navigating the money bubble and the crucial stages leading up to it.

What is the Soft Bubble?

Unlike the stone bubble, where one more elimination guarantees payouts — the soft bubble is considerably more elastic, harder to pin down. We know when it ends, but when does it begin?

It marks the stage where the possibility of making the money starts influencing strategy, though less drastically than the stone bubble.

Since ICM applies risk premiums (RP) from the start of a tournament, zealots argue for adjustments from hand 1. But treating it as gospel can backfire — playing too tight too early while others ignore it often means only punishing yourself.

I earmark the soft bubble’s emergence when around 10% of the remaining field needs to bust before making the money. For example, in a 200-runner field with 25 players paid, I would start adjusting with 45 players remaining.

In the example for this article, we are looking at a 1,000-runner tournament with 125 paid and 225 remaining players or 100 eliminations from the money. To some, this might feel early to begin making adjustments, but it’s not as crazy as it seems.

Bubble Factors & The Big Stack

Adjusting your Raise-First-In (RFI) strategy 100 eliminations from the money can seem a bit far-fetched. However, in the ICM model, significant risk premiums are already coming into play due to the bubble factors.

Bubble factors for a 1000-runner tournament with 225 remaining and 125 paid, 28bb average. These translate into risk premiums which affect preflop and postflop strategies. In ICM, losing chips hurts more than gaining them helps. So even when the Under-The-Gun (UTG) player is chipleading their table, they’re not free to go bananas.

Let’s look at the UTG player’s RFI strategy in ChipEV and compare it to HRC’s ICM-adjusted strategy:

Holdem Resources Calculator (HRC) RFI strategy for UTG playing a 50bb stack in an asymmetric configuration (meaning there is a wide variety of stack sizes at the table) with an average of 28bb average. UTG opens 18%.

25bb effective UTG RFI strategy in chipEV from Lucid Poker Trainer. UTG opens 18%.

Notice that in both solutions, the UTG player’s RFI remains 18%. The bubble factors aren’t yet strong enough for the early-position table captain to bulldoze the table. However, there is a noticeable change in the shape of the range.

In the Lucid chipEV output, UTG opens the suited 9x8x, Tx8x, and Jx9x at full frequency. But in the HRC solution, these become pure folds, losing $ev if they open. Similarly, in chipEV, 5x5x is a pure open but sees a significant frequency reduction in the ICM model. The chipEV mixes like suited 8x7x, 7x6x, Qx8x and Kx7x are losing $ev in the ICM model as opens. In a vacuum, removing these would result in a lower RFI %, so what changes?

In the HRC output, you’ll see that Ax9x offsuit starts opening at over half weight compared to chipEV, where it never opens. Offsuit combos like KxTx and QxJx, along with suited Ax2x, increase their raising frequency, making marginal $ev.

As the money bubble looms, preflop blocking effects come into play affecting the edges of your opening range.

Remember, this is the big stack in the earliest position. You could reasonably assume the later position you are in, the more of a releasing effect is experienced. We’ll explore whether that holds true in a future article.

The key takeaway: having the most chips doesn’t necessarily mean playing more hands—at least, not yet.

But what about the other stacks?

Mid-Stacks

In this table configuration, there are three mid-stacks:

• Under the Gun+1 (UTG1) or EP: 33bbs
• High-Jack (HJ): 25bbs
• Button (BTN) or BU: 29bbs

Let’s dive into two of them and look for observable patterns. Once again, we’ll compare the Lucid chipEV solutions with the HRC output.

The Early Position Mid-stack

HRC’s RFI strategy for UTG1, playing a 33bb stack in an asymmetric configuration (28bb average), has them opening 18.9% of hands.

In chipEV simulations from Lucid Poker, UTG1 opens 21% of hands when playing with a 25bb effective stack.

Here, we start to see some noticeable differences.

1. Drop in RFI %: In Lucid, UTG1 opens 21%. In HRC, that number drops to 18.9%. — a 2% reduction due to bubble factors.
2. Range Construction: Similar to the UTG output, HRC removes many of the chipEV fringe combos. Mixed-frequency chipEV opens like small suited connectors, the middling suited one and two gappers, weak suited kings, offsuit broadway, and 4x4x all become pure folds in the ICM model. As before, offsuit Ax hands increase in frequency. In HRC, Ax9x offsuit becomes a pure open compared to 56% frequency in chipEV. However, it is not completely the same as Ax2x suited, seeing a reduction in frequency compared to the UTG output.

When looking at outputs, determining the rationale for them can be murky. Is UTG1 tightening up strictly because of the bubble factors? Or is it the bubble factors accentuated by the positional disadvantage and stacks behind? How relevant is the Cutoff’s (CO) short stack when opening? While we can’t name with perfect accuracy at all times what the computer is doing, looking at other scenarios can help us identify more accurately the solution’s rationale.

Let’s look at the late position Mid-Stacks strategy.

The Late Position Mid-Stack

HRC’s RFI strategy for BTN, playing a 29bb stack in an asymmetric configuration (28bb average), has them opening 41.4% of hands.

In chipEV simulations from Lucid Poker Trainer, the BTN opens 45% of hands with a 25bb effective stack.

Comparing these two charts for the BTN, notice a recurring pattern with the previous charts (UTG and UTG1 chipEV vs. HRC outputs):

• Drop in RFI%: It is telling that the position that can VPIP the most profitably, the BTN, loses 10% of its opening range. In chipEV, BTN opens 45%; under ICM adjusted range, that drops to 41.4%. Once again, the folds come from the fringe of the range: the weakest suited combos, the bottom offsuit opens, even 3x3x lower their frequency.

However, a distinguishing factor here is that BTN’s range construction remains the same. It already opens all the combos with blocking effects like Ax and Kx combos. This means there is no other way to expand profitably. Here, there is no expected value (EV) gained by swapping combos, and only EV is saved by folding the weakest parts of our range.

The fact that a playable BTN stack chooses to offload 10% of its opens 100 away from the money speaks to the ICM model’s appraisal of playing for chips. Chips lost are worth more than chips won.

Playing the Mighty Short-Stack

In this HRC setup, we have one short stack with 11bbs playing in the CO.

Let’s see how the ICM models differ from chipEV when you are the short stack.

HRC’s RFI strategy for the CO with an 11bb stack in an asymmetric configuration (28bb average) shows a VPIP of 31.6%.

• Red: Min-open
• Purple: Open shove (All-in)

In chipEV simulations from Lucid Poker, the CO shoves its entire 31% range with a 10bb stack.

There are marked differences between these two charts and the others we’ve compared:

• No Drop in RFI%: In both models, the CO plays approximately 31% of hands. The bubble factors do not significantly impact frequency. Being short-stacked affords the CO a resilient RFI since their bubble factors are low, making their strategy play closer to chipEV.
• Range Splitting: A major difference between CO’s strategy and the others (except the Small Blind [SB]) is the inclusion of open shoves (23.3% of their range). Unlike in chipEV, where the solver prefers pure open-shoving, the ICM model introduces both min-opens and shoves, a hallmark of ICM-adjusted strategies.

Short-Stack Range Splitting – Open Shoves

Under ICM, the short stack benefits from splitting their range, jamming a capped selection that includes strong hands such as pocket pairs up to TxTx, offsuit Ax like AxKx, and suited KxQx. The inclusion of these strong combos allows the CO to incorporate hands that can’t profitably min-open but still perform decently in all-in situations, such as QxTx offsuit and Tx8x suited.

From HRC: The CO’s range split and the players to act responses. When facing CO’s all-in, BTN will continue as a call or reshove for a total 11.3%. When it folds to Small Blind, they will call or reshove for a total 16.7%. When it folds to the Big Blind, they will call 21.9%.

The above action breakdown for this HRC output shows us how tight the players left to act can call or reshove after the CO open shoves. Below are the chipEV responses to Cutoff’s open shove at 10 big blinds effective:

Lucid Poker BTN response to CO open shove at 10 big blinds effective in chipEV. Button calls 16%.

Lucid Poker trainer SB response to CO open shove at 10 big blinds effective in chipEV. Small Blind calls 21%.

Lucid Poker trainer BB response to CO open shove at 10 big blinds effective in chipEV. Big Blind calls 26%.

Comparing the HRC output to the chipEV solutions shows us that in every case, the player calling in the ICM model does so significantly tighter:

• BTN: In chipEV, the BTN calls 16% but in ICM continues 11.3%.
• SB: In chipEV, calls 21% but in ICM continues 16.7%.
• BB: In chipEV, calls 26% but in ICM calls 21.9%.

Even though the players to act have low bubble factors versus the CO, they still experience a dramatic decrease in calls when compared to chipEV. This is due to CO’s range splitting. Since CO is jamming 23% and not 31%, the players behind need to reconstruct their ranges to play versus a tighter open-shove range, resulting in their steep % decrease compared to chipEV.

Short-Stack Range Splitting – Min Opens

With the remaining 8.3% of their range, the CO adopts a polarized min-opening strategy, balancing their strongest hands (JxJx through AxAx) against Ax and Kx combos that are content to fold when shoved on.

This approach is highly effective for a short stack, as the big blind—the most likely caller—faces a tough dilemma:

1. Flatting against a polar range risks an equity realization or domination problem postflop.
2. Reshoving carries the risk of running into the CO’s premium hands.

In either case, the CO benefits—either stealing the blinds without risking their stack or doubling up when called and winning.

Key Takeaways from the Emerging Soft Bubble

In this article, we’ve taken a high-level look at strategy adjustments as the soft bubble begins to emerge. Here are some key insights:

• Risk premiums exist from the start of a tournament and increase as the money nears.
• Big stack aggression isn’t automatic, it depends on bubble factors and the big stack’s position relative to the table.
• Ranges contract for all but the short stack, either by removing combos or swapping for better blockers.
• This far from the money, short stacks benefit from lower bubble factors, translating to unaffected raising frequencies. This means you can play reasonably close to chipEV, albeit with a split-range strategy.

In part 2, we’ll look at how things change as we get closer to the bubble.

Start reading part 2 now >

See you at the tables.

The post Soft Bubble Strategy: How to Survive & Thrive with Any Stack Size appeared first on Upswing Poker.

There is nothing special about pocket aces stacking kings preflop. KK is a strong hand and tough to fold.

But what about power-jamming with the non-nuts and getting called by worse?

If you’re the one shipping chips after calling and losing, it doesn’t feel like a cooler — it feels like you were taken to school.

In today’s game, knowing when and how to extract the absolute maximum with your hands has a massive impact on your ability to cash more often, reach final tables with a chip lead, podium finish, and outright win.

In this article, I’ll show you how to recognize when it’s time to go for the jugular.

Upswing Poker is excited to add tournament player Leo Song-Carrillo to our team. We hope you enjoy his first value-packed article.

Leo has quite the resume. He’s won two ACR Online Super Series (OSS) titles, including a $185,000 score in 2023 and a win in the Sunday $109 for $63,000 in 2024.

Leo’s graph (+$120,000) on all online poker sites

In 2021, he finished 8th in the 96,000-runner $55 PokerStars Big 20 Finale for $57,000. He has recently moved up in stakes, taking shots at $630s and higher, highlighted by a runner-up finish in the $630 $150K Guaranteed for $26,000 last fall.

His success extends to live poker, with two final tables in $1K events in Montreal and Las Vegas late 2024. With deep runs across both online and live arenas, he continues to establish himself as a fierce MTT competitor.

Leo at the Las Vegas Venetian in 2024

Needless to say, you’re in good hands with Leo, who will be writing most of Upswing’s tournament articles going forward.

Thin Value and Greed

Before the solver era, thin value referred to the expected value (EV) gained from small value bets with marginal holdings — in other words, being a little greedy. While that remains true, a lot has changed.

Instead of treating small bets with weaker made hands as clever exploits, they are now fundamental components of robust equilibrium strategies.

Put simply: we used to think it was clever. Now we know it’s correct.

Solvers aren’t just looking to squeeze value from one or two weak combos here or there; they’re optimizing for finding the maximum EV strategy across an entire range. That means failing to bet small with a marginal hand — when split sizes are preferred — can actually result in EV loss.

If you aren’t greedy, you are playing badly.

The GTO poker landscape has redefined what we call “thin”. What makes a play thin depends on the situation. Greed comes in all shapes and sizes.

Today, there are a couple of ways to be greedy — or thin.

Get Instant Access to Winning Strategies

It’s easy to add effective poker strategies to your game inside the Lucid Poker Trainer. 

Practice playing hands and get instant feedback from a pro after every decision with the Daily Cardle quizzes. Join now!

Widened Hand Selection & Size

It isn’t rocket science — a value bet is only a value bet as long as the calling range consists of worse hands. Value bets work linearly, stronger hands derive EV from lower-ranking ones. A beats B to Z, B beats C to Z, C beats D to Z, and so on.

But what about situations where we can use unintuitive hand classes to maximize value against lower ranking hands?

A key concept here is something I like to call greenlighting.

In GTO, ranges are balanced, meaning even passive lines retain some strong combos. But in real life, passive actions can severely cap our opponents’ range — greenlighting our greed.

Consider this hand:

Playing 25 big blinds effective, you open-raise Jx 9x offsuit from the cutoff, and the big blind calls.

Flop: Ts Th 8s (Pot: 5.5bb)

You bet 1.38bb (25% pot) and face a call.

Here’s how the big blind responds:

Against a c-bet from the cutoff on a Ts Th 8s flop, the big blind plays a high-frequency 71% check-raise strategy. This strategy is built primarily around flopped trips and pairs (8x in this instance), balanced with front and backdoor draws. Since some hands perform better as calls, the big blind also plays some of their strong hands and offsets passively.

Notice how the highest-frequency calling hands are the weak 8x, broadways, and A high, while the predominant action for nutted combos, strongest 8x, straight and flush draws, and respective offsets is to check-raise.

In theory, the big blind should retain some strong draws and nuts in their passive line. However, whether this holds true in-game has major implications on future streets. Humans tend to simplify strategies, often check-raising these board textures at a higher frequency than GTO suggests, sometimes at pure weights. If we anticipate this, we should start seeing green when facing the call.

Turn: Ts Th 8s 9d (Pot: 8.26bb)

Your opponent checks and you’ve improved to a made hand. In theory, J9 has a slight preference for checking back, but when betting, it prefers a split-size approach. Since the EVs of these well-balanced actions are close, the strategy naturally mixes.

With J9o on Ts Th 8s9d, the cutoff’s strategy — after facing a flop check-call and another check, leans toward checking back more often than betting. However, when betting, it prefers split sizes. The presence of a large bet signals the absolute hand strength of J9o relative to the big blind’s range.

Before deciding your action, it’s crucial to recap your thought process:

• You anticipated that the big blind would check-raise their strongest hands more frequently — not purely as aggression, but for simplification.
• Since they didn’t check-raise the flop, their range contains fewer strong 9x (eg. Ks9x), fewer J7/QJ and fewer flush draws.

The restraint on betting J9o with a heart or spade comes from its blocking effects on the opponent’s potential draws. Normally, when betting for value, some of the EV comes from allowing draws to call. However, given our read — that many of those draws would have check-raised the flop — blocking them isn’t a concern. This means you can afford to be a bit more greedy, betting these combos more frequently.

You bet 2.06bb (25% pot) and your opponent calls again, bringing the pot size to 12.38bb.

At this point, you’d expect a strong hand to have check-raised on the flop, or if not then, at least on the turn. 

Now, take note of the limited number of strong hands in the big blind’s calling range:

The solver has roughly 15 combos of strong hands in this node, but some of them check-raise the turn. When the solver chooses to call, it only retains ~7.5 strong combos.

Compare this to the amount of 8x in their range:

By the turn, the solver retains around 22 combos of 8x after calling.

You might worry about better 9x hands in their range, but you anticipated the ones with front and backdoor flush draws would check-raise flop more often than GTO suggests. If this assumption holds, it weakens the big blind’s 9x holdings that beat us while keeping in the ones we beat.

River: Ts Th 8s 9d 5d (Pot: 12.38bb)

Your opponent checks again.

Here is the cutoff’s river strategy:

The cutoff’s river strategy after being called twice versus small barrels and facing a 3rd check. Notice the naked 9x combos are going to showdown.

At equilibrium, J9o prefers to check back at full weight, as the solver opts for a polarized betting strategy. It wants you to bet big with the strongest hands in your range — trips, straights, full houses and overpairs — alongside their corresponding bluffs.

Everything else? It checks down.

The cutoff’s J9o combos check back at pure weights following this action and runout. Betting these combos would mean a small EV loss.

In GTO, your opponent should retain some Tx, some QJ, some 76, and some better 9x, which would typically discourage you from betting. However, you anticipated the strongest parts of their range would have either check-raised the flop or the turn. Additionally, with 76, you might even expect some river leads.

You conclude that your opponent has a much higher density of naked 8x than equilibrium suggests. Aside from a limited number of 9x and a couple of full houses — many of which we also block — we wager to have the best hand.

• A solid player, capped on the river, recognizes that by failing to re-aggress on earlier streets, they’ve emptied themselves of their strongest holdings.
• They also understand that, as a matter of sound theory, they cannot fold 100% of their range vs a polarized bet and need to find calls somewhere. If they’ve made the mistake of getting to the river with a lot of 8x and not much else, then 8x calls.

You put it all together.

You are greenlit for greed.

You go all in and are called by a pair of 8s.

They shake their head and mumble to themselves, “So thin.”

Thin value isn’t just about betting small with a small hand.

By removing combos that beat us and increasing the frequency we are called by worse, we create EV gains where equilibrium expects losses.

Greed isn’t just about size — it’s about which combos we include in that size.

Key Takeaways

• Betting small with small hands isn’t “thin value” — it’s just fundamentally sound.
• Greed isn’t just about bet size; it’s also about expanding the hand classes you value bet.
• Identify spots where villain caps their range—these are your greenlights to bet larger and more frequently than a solver would.

Good luck and see you at the tables.

To learn more about playing poker tournaments at a high level, read:  The 5 Types Of Tournament Poker Players (According to Darren Elias)

There are countless ways to use the Lucid Poker Trainer to improve your poker game. And now you can improve your skills on the go with the Lucid mobile app. Learn more now!

The post This Greedy Value Bet Strategy Will Help You Win More Tournaments appeared first on Upswing Poker.