If you have substantially more chips than your opponent, say double or more his chip stack, he’ll usually be agreeable to taking any amount more than the second place money. If he’s closer in chips, just try to negotiate the best deal you can. You definitely want to get a bigger piece, even if it’s only a small amount that gives you first place bragging rights.
Sample Chops
Let’s say there are four players remaining at the final table with a total of
$150,000 in chips on the table. Here are the remaining prizes to be awarded:
Here are the players’ current chip stacks, and a chop I would consider fair:
Note here that Player A, the chip leader, is giving up enough of the first prize to provide all three of his opponents with slightly better than second place prize money. This is a deal that all would probably go for.
Your immediate reaction to this chop may be that Player A should take a bigger portion of the prize pool, since he has 60+% more chips than his nearest competitor.
That is not the way to think of it. All three of his opponents are so close to each other in chips that none would likely consider a chopped prize of less than second place prize money.
Player A’s chip lead, in fact, is very precarious with three players so close in chips and all at better than 50% of his chip position. He should be happy getting better than second place finish money along with the first place bragging rights.
By contrast, if Player A and Player D were the only two remaining players in on the chop, Player A should go for a settlement more favorable to himself. If the two top prizes were $3,500 and $1,800, Player D might be willing to accept a bump up to
$2,300 for second place, leaving Player A with an even $3,000.
In the first example with four players chopping, Player A had three opponents to outlast rather than one, and all of them would likely feel decently positioned for the second place prize money. For them to agree to chop, first place has to give them enough to make it worth it.
Now look at this situation with four players again and the same prize pool, but with a different chip distribution:
Again, if you’re looking at those chip totals and thinking the chop should more
closely reflect the chip distribution, you still don’t get it. What you’re looking for when you chop is a deal that all involved will agree on. Since tournament prize money is so heavily skewed toward first place, that is where the money for the chop has to come from. It just about always works out that the first place prize takes a big hit, while the other prizes get better, especially the lower prizes.
The easiest way to accomplish a chopping plan when no player has a huge chip lead is to start by taking the total remaining prize pool (or $7,500 in the above examples) and divide it by the number of players in on the chop (or four in the above examples). So: $7,500 / 4 = $1,875.
Now figure out a way to give slightly more than this amount to first place, while making the other players happy with a settlement that’s bigger than what their current position would get them if that was where they finished.
This would not, however, be appropriate in a situation with a big chip discrepancy, such as:
In this example, if Players B, C, and D really want to chop, Player A should not give up more than a few hundred dollars, possibly accepting $3,000 instead of the
$3,500 first prize. That will leave $4,500 in the remaining pool, or $1,500 each for the three short stacks. This would be a payout between the second and third place prizes. They would probably not all accept such a deal, however, since one or more would likely feel like shooting for the $1,800 second place prize money.
In this case, Player A would be making a mistake to give up more of the first place prize money with such a big chip lead on all his opponents. Within a few rounds, one—if not two—of the shorter stacks would exit. And the fewer the number of players in on the chop, the better it will be for those who remain. This type of chip distribution will often lead to a two-way chop between Player A and one survivor, and that will be far more lucrative for both.
SATELLITES
SATELLITES
Satellites are a form of fast tournament, but they have many differences from regular fast tournaments. The book Win Your Way Into Big Money Hold’em Tournaments (formerly titled, Championship Satellite Strategy) by Tom McEvoy and Brad Daugherty is good for discussion of specific satellite hand situations, with strategic advice based on your cards, position, chip stack, and opponents. In this chapter, I’m primarily going to provide comments on the differences between optimal satellite strategies and regular fast tournament strategy.
A satellite is a tournament that does not award money to the winners, but instead awards an entry to a tournament that has a bigger buy-in cost. A single table satellite will usually start with ten players, and will typically award one winner a seat in a tournament that has a buy-in of about ten times the cost of the satellite. A super satellite is a multitable satellite that will award multiple seats into a major tournament, with the exact number dependent on the number of entrants in the satellite. Let’s look at optimal strategies for both types of satellites.