Growing experience
In a previous article, I recounted that on the day Barry Carter and I launched our first book “Poker Satellite Strategy,” we immediately feared that an event on the other side of the Atlantic would scupper the sales of our newborn. In California, the ever innovative Matt Savage announced his latest creation, a new type of satellite in which the strategy is radically different from the traditional format, so much so we feared that if it caught on it would render the book we had just published obsolescent. Our fears were not realized as the new format was slow to catch on, and it turned out the strategic differences were not as big as we initially feared.
However, in the intervening years, the new format has almost entirely taken over, so last year Barry and I added a new chapter to “Poker Satellite Strategy” covering the differences, and released a video. When we produced these, I hadn’t actually played many, so the strategic differences I identified were all theoretical. This year, I have played quite a few. I won two seats to the World Series of Poker (WSOP) Main Event: one online in a satellite I max late registered because it was overlaying bigly (and which I didn’t even realize was a target satellite until the chipleader won a pot on the final table and disappeared), and another in a live one at the WSOP where I won a flip to scrape over the target. I also played a few at European Poker Tour Barcelona where I scraped over the line again in a Main Event satellite, one of the last to do so.
I’ve picked up some practical adjustments we should make in these satellites to go with the theoretical ones
Having now played a reasonable amount in practise, I’ve picked up some practical adjustments we should make in these satellites to go with the theoretical ones outlined in my book and video. In this article I will share those practical adjustments and some other thoughts on the format I haven’t written about before.
As I pointed out in the previous piece, there are at least four different variants of the format, depending on what the organisers decide to do when a player has surplus chips over the target (allow them to play on with them to potentially win another seat, take them out of play, or redistribute them to either the entire table, or only those players who saw the river in the last hand).
The different variants
Winston Churchill once said that the US and the UK were two countries separated by a common language. Nowadays the US and Europe are separated by a common satellite format. In all the US (and online) target satellites I’m aware of, surplus chips are taken out of play. In Europe by contrast, almost all target stack satellites follow the format PokerStars has adopted: chips are redistributed to players at the table.
The US variant
Because the surplus chips are taken out of play in the US variation, as soon as one player with more than the target stack has won their seat and all their chips are taken out of play, there are no longer enough chips in the tournament for every seat to be won by someone reaching the target.
For example , if we have a 10k starting stack with 100 runners and ten seats, then the target is typically set at 100k. So we have ten seats, one million chips in play, enough for ten players to get to the 100k target. Let’s say the first player wins a seat with 110k. That leaves nine seats, 890k chips in play. It’s no longer possible for nine players to reach the 100k target.
Now let’s change the example and say seven seats have been won, leaving three remaining, and on average 110k was taken out each time. That means 770k in chips have been taken out of the tournament, only 230k remain. The strategic impact of all this is that this variant always turns into a traditional satellite at the end with the last few players awarded seats without reaching the target by virtue of that number of seats remaining.
there aren’t even enough chips in play at the start to satisfy the requirement of one target stack for every seat
This is a much bigger factor when the satellite overlays, because organizers generally don’t adjust the target downwards (because they won’t know for sure the exact numbers or even if it’s going to overlay until late reg closes). This means there aren’t even enough chips in play at the start to satisfy the requirement of one target stack for every seat. For example, the online satellite I won had only 25 runners where it needed 40 to hit the guarantee, meaning there were only 2.5 times the target in play at any point in the tournament, with four seats. Only one player actually reached the target (the chipleader who unexpectedly disappeared on the final table after winning a seat), and the other three went to the last three survivors.
What does all of this mean for the strategy we should adopt? I tell my students to just treat it as a traditional satellite secure in the knowledge that if they survive til the end, they will win a seat. This is a more achievable target than aiming for the actual target stack in the sense you can take less risks to achieve it. You shouldn’t even be thinking about the target at all, unless you get to half of it. Then all the reverse ICM considerations covered in the supplemental chapter of “Poker Satellite Strategy” and my video come into play. But until then, focus on survival, not trying to get to the target.
The European variant
In the the European version, there are always enough chips in play for everyone who gets a seat to get to the target, because all surplus chips are redistributed rather than removed from the tournament. This means you can’t win a seat without reaching the target, but that doesn’t mean you should go all guns blazing trying to get to the target.
It’s a considerable advantage to be at a table where one or more players are on the cusp of the target. In the one I won for the Main Event in Barcelona, I was one of the last to get over the line, and calculated that I got about 30% of the target stack in redistributions. As I said in an earlier article, I dropped as low as two big blinds a few times, and passed some marginally plus chip EV spots because I was reasonably confident redistributions were coming soon.
Most pros who have played a lot of these now think this is the main edge (above skill). This makes max late regging far more profitable when people are on the cusp of the target. In one of these in Barcelona, I max late regged, and received an additional 40% of starting stack within the first orbit before playing a single hand or paying a single blind or ante.
Some strategic commonalities
One thing both of these formats have is that from the perspective of the player who wins a seat, any chips they win more than the target are essentially worthless. This has huge implications explained in depth in my book and video, but the cliffs are the nearer you get to the target, the more other players can bully you. If you are at 80% of the target stack and somebody shoves for 20%, well, that’s just ideal. If you call and win you win the seat, so your upside is 20%, while if you call and lose you drop to 60%. This is therefore one of the few occasions in tournaments where upside equals downside, or in nerd speak, there’s no ICM. However, let’s say you’re at 99% – now if someone shoved for 20%, your upside is only 1% and your downside 20%, putting you in an ICM hell where even if you called as a 95% favorite, you’d be making a mathematical mistake.
I don’t really buy the popular belief that target satellites “reward aggressive play”
This is why I don’t really buy the popular belief that target satellites “reward aggressive play.” I would argue the opposite, they reward nits who cling on til the end to either claim a seat without reaching the target (in the American variant) or who are helped to the target by considerable stack infusions simply for surviving in the tournament long enough to benefit from redistributions.
In effect, you aren’t rewarded for accumulating chips, you’re actually punished by this rubber band effect. The nearer you get to the target, the more others can abuse your ICM. In one I played, Matt Frankland sat on 99% of target for ages unable to do anything but sit and wait for a super strong hand he could shove, or pray someone else got over the line at the table and gave him the 1% he needed in the redistribution.
What this means at the death is everyone is looking for the perfect partner to play a pot with: if you’re on 90% you want to play someone with exactly 10%, or at the very least not much more. You do not want to play with a 50% (against whom you’re going to need at least 80% equity to get all in), nor do you want to play against a 5% (because winning his stack will just increase your own ICM hell). This makes for a lot more shove everything and fold everything spots than in a normal satellite, as people cast their eyes around the table for the perfect dance partner, as well as noting the ones they can’t dance with under any circumstances. At this stage cards barely matter any more: you might find yourself having to fold Aces on the button one hand only to be able to shove any two next hand.
It therefore becomes extremely important to know not just your own exact stack but also that of every other stack on the table. Many players seemed blissfully unaware of this, as did many dealers, who looked at me in utter mystification as I asked for an exact count when a stack I covered comfortably or was comfortably covered by opened, then spent some time counting my own exact stack:
“But you have much more/less.”
“Yes but I still want an exact count.”
The desirable stack
Pretty much as soon as I heard the details of the format, I realized that the nearer you get to the target, the worse the ICM gets for you. But it wasn’t until I won my flip in Vegas to secure a WSOP Main Event seat when both myself and my opponent had roughly half the target that I realized the knock on implications. The perfect time to gamble is when you are half way to a target stack, because at that point your upside equals your downside, so no ICM. The further you get past half way, the worse it gets for you, and the nearer you get to half way, also the worse it gets. Yes your upside theoretically equals your downside in the sense that if you double from, say 45% to 90%, you’ve doubled your chances in theory. But not in practise, because now you’re in the Hell zone where you have a significant risk premium even against relatively short stacks.
an advanced strategy is to continually bear in mind how desirable or undesirable your stack size is
In essence, 50% of target stack is a “desirable” stack size, and anything just below or well beyond is an “undesirable” stack size. Similarly, 25% of target USA desirable stack size, as a double lands you on 50%, as is 12.5%, and so on. So an advanced strategy is to continually bear in mind how desirable or undesirable your stack size is. With a desirable stack size, you should be looking to double or maintain your stack size, rather than to accumulate chips which will just push you into the undesirable zone. With an undesirable stack size, the reverse is true: you’re not looking for doubles, instead you want to try to accumulate to escape the undesirable zone, secure in the knowledge that even if it doesn’t work out and you lose chips and drift back, if you drift back far enough, you’ll arrive at a desirable stack size.
To give a practical example, say you have pocket Tens. With a desirable stack size, say 50% of target, you should play it aggressively looking to get into a flip for a full double, which will secure your seat. On the other hand, with an undesirable stack size of, say 60%, you don’t want to take a flip (remember you need 60% equity when you get all in), but you should be happy to invest up to 10% of your stack looking to flop a set, and get the extra 40% you need for the seat that way. Similarly with 25% of the target you’re in “looking for a double” mode, but with 30% you’re looking to invest up to 5% with a speculative hand preflop.
These considerations apply in all but the “you can play on to win another seat with any surplus chips” variant because in all the others, every chip over the target stack has a monetary value of nada, zilch, zero dollars. This produces a ripple effect to create desirable and undesirable stack sizes on the road to the target, and massaging and manipulating your stack to the desirable zone is a vital consideration.
Stay desirable!