What no-limit cash game micro stakes are

A cash game pays out each hand in chips with real value. You can leave whenever you want and take your chips with you. No-limit means you can bet any amount up to your whole stack. Micro stakes is slang for the smallest blinds a room runs.

The tables have short names. “2NL” means no-limit at $0.01/$0.02. “5NL” means $0.02/$0.05. “10NL” means $0.05/$0.10. The number is the big blind in cents. PokerSkill notes that a full 100 big blind stack costs $2 at 2NL, $5 at 5NL and $10 at 10NL.

A 100 big blind stack, or 100bb, is the standard buy-in. The big blind is the forced bet posted by one player before the cards are dealt. Multiply it by 100 to get your full buy-in.

At the table: Write your table’s big blind in cents. Multiply by 100. That is your full buy-in. Check it against your bankroll before you sit down.

Pick tables with a low rake and loose opponents

Table selection, choosing which room and which table to play, is the first decision that moves your win rate. Rake is the fee the room takes from each pot.

Small pots rarely reach the cap, so the percentage rate matters more than the cap. The cap is the most the room will take from a single pot. PrimeDope puts it plainly: “At microstakes, percentage drives the cost because pots rarely hit the cap.”

Rake is measured in big blinds per 100 hands, written bb/100. A win rate of 5 bb/100 means you collect 5 big blinds per 100 hands after rake.

Room choice is worth real money. PrimeDope publishes its model inputs and method, and its 5NL-anchored model (updated March 2026) ranks WPT Global as the cheapest major room at 6.2 bb/100. GGPoker and PokerStars Europe come out most expensive at 9.0 bb/100. The same brand charges differently by region: 7.4 bb/100 globally, 8.7 in the US, 9.0 in Europe. Over 10,000 hands, that 2.8 bb/100 spread is 280 big blinds; at a $0.05 big blind it comes to $14.

Table makeup matters too. Loose players who call often give you more chances to win. Some coaches use rough cut-offs to spot them: players in more than 30% of hands, flops seen above 35%, average pot above 15bb (RiverOdds). These are rules of thumb from practitioners, not published studies.

At the table: Check the room’s rake page before you play. Compare the percentage and the cap in big blinds. Then sit where you see several loose players.

Rake decides which hands are worth playing

Rake takes a fixed bite out of every pot. A hand that breaks even before rake loses money after it. That is the main reason micro stakes players should fold marginal hands.

For a rough scale, one affiliate compilation, LegalUSPokerSites, lists 8 to 16 bb/100 as a typical 2NL rake burden, against under 1 bb/100 at $5/$10 tables. The page gives no method or date, so treat the range as a rough estimate only.

Run the numbers yourself. In an illustrative setup, a player who wins 15 bb/100 before rake and pays 8 to 12 bb/100 keeps 3 to 7 bb/100. Every marginal call costs more than it looks.

The cap hits harder in big blinds than in cents. At 2NL, PokerStars’ Zoom format takes 3.5% with a $0.30 cap (WorldPokerDeals). That cap equals 15 big blinds, almost one-sixth of a 100bb stack. WorldPokerDeals lists the standard schedule at 5% with a $1.00 cap from $0.01/$0.02 through $0.05/$0.10, with no flop, no drop. Schedules change, so check the room’s page.

One documented exception: GGPoker rakes preflop 3-bet pots. The idea that you can win those pots rake-free does not hold there.

At the table: Find your room’s rake percentage and cap. Divide the cap by the big blind to see it in big blinds. Use that number to decide how many weak hands to drop.

Open-raise sizes and limping

An open raise is the first voluntary bet before the flop. Position and the number of limpers decide the size.

Use bigger opens at $0.01/$0.02 than at higher stakes. BlackRain79 recommends 4x (8 cents) at $0.01/$0.02 and 3x at higher micro stakes. He drops to 3x when stealing from late position at $0.01/$0.02. His reasoning: micro games are full of loose calling stations who dislike folding.

Published charts disagree. Freebetrange’s preflop charts list 2.5 big blinds from every seat and 3 big blinds from the small blind, without naming a stake. Use the stake-specific sizing from BlackRain79 as your starting point and test it in your own games.

Add one big blind per limper. A limper is a player who calls the big blind before the flop instead of raising. BlackRain79’s example: 3x plus four limpers equals 7x.

Limping is debated. BlackRain79 says never limp. Poker Daze argues limping works short-handed and heads-up, and calls small pairs against three limpers at shallow stacks “one of the few defensible limp-calls.” Poker Daze also notes that “solvers assume an opponent who never limps in the first place.” That gap is why the edge survives.

At the table: Open 4x at $0.01/$0.02 and 3x at $0.02/$0.05 and above, dropping to 2.5x to 3x when stealing. Add one big blind per limper. Raise your normal hands.

Isolating limpers, three-bets and cold calls

To isolate a limper is to raise over one or more limpers so you play the pot against fewer players. A three-bet re-raises an open. A cold call is a call of a raise by a player who put nothing in before it.

Raising over limpers costs more than most players expect. Poker Daze’s example: two limpers, $7 in the pot, and you raise to $12. You risk $12 to win $7, so the raise needs folds about 63% of the time to break even. Poker Daze notes that “no limpy low-stakes table is going to give you” that. Raise over limpers with hands that play well after the flop.

Treat three-bets and cold calls with the same care. Against players who call too much, use a tighter range. Cold calls from early position cost extra because players behind you can still act. GTO Wizard notes that “cold-callers in front make you tighter, not wider, at equilibrium.”

At the table: Before isolating, count the limpers and the pot. Divide your raise by the pot after your raise: $12 into a $19 pot gives a 63% fold requirement. If that number sits well above 50%, make sure your hand plays well postflop.

Continuation bets and turn and river lines

A continuation bet, or c-bet, is a flop bet by the player who raised before the flop. It keeps the initiative and wins pots when players fold.

BlackRain79’s beginner guidance is to c-bet 50% to 60% of the time on a 6-max flop. Against two opponents, bet “50% of the time at the most.” Against three or more, bet less. His default flop size is about 60% of the pot.

Bet size sets the fold rate a bluff needs. BlackRain79 gives the arithmetic: “If you bet 1/3 of the pot, your opponent needs to fold only 25% of the time. If you bet a full pot, 50%.”

Turn and river play follows the same logic. Keep betting hands that are still strong. Slow down when the board brings cards that beat you. Sizing up with strong hands against players who call a lot pays well.

At the table: Consider c-betting about half the time after raising into one or two callers, at about 60% pot, and track how often your opponents fold.

Multiway pots need different frequencies

A multiway pot has three or more players after the flop. These pots play very differently from heads-up pots.

Solver data shows how sharply the frequencies shift. A GTO Wizard solver solution used a pot-sized c-bet 18% of the time heads-up. Multiway, that same bet dropped to 1.3%. PokerNews reports the solver “bets only ~11.7% of hands” in one multiway spot, and a turn barrel with a flush draw lost more than 5bb of expected value.

Hand strength shifts too. GTO Gecko simulations found that at least one opponent holds a pair or better 82.0% of the time four-way, against 35.8% heads-up. A pot-sized bluff into three opponents needs each one to fold 79.4% of the time. That target is very hard to hit.

At the table: When three or more players see the flop, bet less often. Use strong hands for value, check back medium hands, and save bluffs for heads-up spots.

Thin value bets and bluff frequency

Value betting means betting to get called by worse hands. A thin value bet is a bet where you expect to win only a little more than half the time when called. Upswing Poker defines it as a bet that wins “a little over 50%” of the time when your opponent calls.

Thin value bets pay against calling stations. BlackRain79 suggests betting about 75% of the pot or more against recreational players who call. He shows a hand with top pair and second kicker value-betting three streets on a board where both draws got there.

Bluffing needs fold equity, the share of the time a bet wins because your opponent folds. Against one opponent, a full-pot bluff needs a fold about 50% of the time. Against three, each player must fold 79.4% of the time. Bluff less in multiway pots and more against players who over-fold.

At the table: Against a player who calls too much, a 75% pot or larger bet with medium-strength hands gets paid; bluff the players who fold to pressure.

Stack depth and topping up

Stack depth is the number of big blinds you have behind. A deep stack gives you room to bet and room to win big pots. A short stack limits both.

Buy in for 100bb and top up between hands when your stack drops. Keep it near full so the big-pot lines stay open.

Do not add chips after a bad loss to chase it back. Plan the buy-in before you sit and stop when your stack drops below the level you set.

At the table: A common plan is a 100bb buy-in, a reload between hands when the stack drops, and a loss limit chosen before the session starts.

Bankroll, win rate and variance

A bankroll is the money you set aside for poker. The usual rule is 20 to 40 buy-ins.

At micro stakes, that works out to concrete numbers. At $0.01/$0.02 a buy-in is $2, so 20 to 40 buy-ins is $40 to $80. At $0.02/$0.05 a buy-in is $5, so $100 to $200. At $0.05/$0.10 a buy-in is $10, so $200 to $400. SplitSuit gives 20 buy-ins as the common rule. ThinkGTO recommends 30 to 40 for a cautious plan. BlackRain79 suggests 30 buy-ins ($150) before moving from $0.01/$0.02 to $0.02/$0.05.

Variance is the swing of luck. In 6-max no-limit cash games, standard deviation runs about 75 to 95 bb/100, according to PrimeDope. Your results can swing far from your true win rate even when your play is sound.

Risk of ruin is the chance your bankroll hits zero before it grows. ThinkGTO’s formula is e^(−2·WR·B÷SD²), where WR is your win rate in bb/100, B is your bankroll in big blinds and SD is your standard deviation in bb/100. A 5 bb/100 winner with an 80 bb/100 standard deviation and a 20 buy-in bankroll (2,000bb) faces about 4.4% risk of ruin. That setup and the pre-rake arithmetic above are illustrative setups; they do not come from tracked results.

Sample size takes patience. PrimeDope estimates about 246,000 hands to prove a win rate within ±2 bb/100 at 95% confidence. GamblingCalc estimates that a 5 bb/100 winner has a 28.93% chance of being behind after 10,000 hands. PrimeDope also puts the chance of a 20+ buy-in downswing at 7% per 100,000 hands for that same player.

Win-rate bands for 2NL and 5NL published online come from affiliate pages with no stated method. Treat any single range as an industry guess and track your own results.

At the table: A common plan is 20 or more buy-ins for your stake, with the win rate tracked in bb/100 across tens of thousands of hands before you treat it as established.

The leaks that cost the most money

A leak is a repeated mistake that loses chips over time. These six show up constantly at micro stakes:

• Playing too many weak hands and paying rake on them.
• Limping with hands you should raise.
• C-betting too often in multiway pots.
• Calling too often against big river bets.
• Bluffing into several opponents.
• Rebuying right away to chase losses.

At the table: Pick one leak. Review your last 500 hands for it. Change one habit, then check results after the next session.

A four-week study plan

Study works best in small, repeated steps. Run this plan over four weeks.

• Week 1: Learn your room’s rake schedule and convert the cap into big blinds. Set your buy-in at 100bb and your bankroll at 20 or more buy-ins.
• Week 2: Practice open-raise sizes. Use 4x at $0.01/$0.02 and 3x above it, plus one big blind per limper. Track how often you open and how often you limp.
• Week 3: Work on flop c-bets. Track your bet frequency, how often players fold, and results by bet size.
• Week 4: Review multiway pots. Count how many hands reach three or more players after the flop. Bet less in those pots and keep bluffs for heads-up spots.

Frequently asked questions

How much money do I need to play $0.01/$0.02 and $0.02/$0.05?

Most players keep 20 to 40 buy-ins. At $0.01/$0.02 that is about $40 to $80. At $0.02/$0.05 it is about $100 to $200. SplitSuit gives 20 buy-ins as the common rule, and BlackRain79 suggests 30 buy-ins ($150) as the threshold for moving from $0.01/$0.02 to $0.02/$0.05.

How much rake do you pay at $0.01/$0.02?

Estimates cluster at 8 to 16 bb/100. LegalUSPokerSites lists this as a typical rake burden. A $0.30 cap equals 15 big blinds at a $0.02 big blind. Check your room’s own rake page before you play.

What size should I open-raise at micro stakes?

Open 4x at $0.01/$0.02 and 3x at higher micro stakes, according to BlackRain79. Add one big blind per limper. Freebetrange’s charts use 2.5 big blinds at every stake, so test both in your own sessions.

Should I ever limp at micro stakes?

BlackRain79 says never limp. Poker Daze allows small pairs against several limpers at shallow stacks. For most hands, raising beats limping.

How often should I continuation bet?

BlackRain79 suggests 50% to 60% of the time on a 6-max flop. Against two opponents, c-bet 50% at most. Against three or more, c-bet less.

How often should I bluff in a multiway pot?

Almost never. A pot-sized bluff into three opponents needs each one to fold 79.4% of the time, according to GTO Gecko. That figure comes from one simulated spot, so treat it as a direction rather than a rule. Save bluffs for heads-up pots.

How many hands before I know my win rate?

About 246,000 hands are needed to prove a win rate within ±2 bb/100 at 95% confidence, per PrimeDope. GamblingCalc shows a 5 bb/100 winner can still be behind after 10,000 hands.

Is GGPoker rake worse at micro stakes?

Yes. PrimeDope’s March 2026 model puts GGPoker among the most expensive majors at 9.0 bb/100, and GGPoker rakes preflop 3-bet pots.

Big blind defense tournament ante pot odds: the spot

The blinds are 300 and 600, with a 600 chip ante from every player. Six players are dealt in. The seat stacks are illustrative round numbers, and so is the payout ladder later in the piece.

• Hero (big blind): 11,400 chips, which is 19 bb before posting
• Button: 36,000 chips
• Small blind: 18,000 chips
• Other three seats: 20,000, 22,000 and 9,000 chips
• Hero’s hand: J♥ 9♥

The big blind posts 600 for the blind and 600 for the ante, so 1,200 chips are already in from Hero. The small blind posts 300. The button opens to 1,200. Everyone else folds.

The pot is 2,700 chips when the action comes back to Hero. A call costs 600 more, which brings the pot to 3,300. Hero needs 18.2% equity to break even on that call.

The ante is the whole price change

Take the same hand and the same 1,200 open, then remove the 600 ante from every player. The big blind posts 600, the small blind posts 300, and the pot before Hero’s call is 2,100. A call of 600 brings it to 2,700, and the required equity rises to 22.2%.

That is a rise of 4.0 percentage points from one line item in the structure. The ante is dead money Hero can win without a showdown, so it lowers the bar a call has to clear.

What the open size does to the same call

The ante is not the only lever. A bigger open raises the price, because Hero puts in more chips while the dead money stays the same size.

Hero’s hand does not change across those rows. Only the opener’s size changes, and the bar moves from 18.2% to 26.7%.

Where J♥ 9♥ actually stands

The button’s range in this example is a wide one: every pair, suited aces, most suited kings, suited connectors from 65s up, and the offsuit broadways A7o and better.

J♥ 9♥ wins 42.09% of showdowns against that range over a full five card runout. That is a floor for a call, and profit still depends on how Hero plays the rest of the hand from out of position.

Compare the floor with the price. Against a 2 bb open Hero needs 18.2% and holds 42.09%. Against a 3 bb open Hero needs 26.7% and still holds 42.09%. The call clears the bar in both cases, with less room against the bigger open.

The stacks behind decide the raise

A call is not the only option, and the stack decides how much room is left for anything else.

• 12 bb (7,200 chips): posting 1,200 leaves 6,000, and calling 600 leaves 5,400 behind against a 3,300 pot. That is a short stack in a big pot, so most of the value comes from seeing five cards.
• 19 bb (11,400 chips): the call leaves 9,600 behind. There is room to call and still see more cards.
• 30 bb (18,000 chips): the call leaves 16,200 behind. There is room to raise some of the time and fold to a jam.

The ante changes none of those stack numbers. It changes the price, and the price is what moves the same hand between a comfortable call and a thin one.

Why this matters at the table

ICM pressure is a separate question from pot odds, and at this stage of an event it is small. On an illustrative payout setup of 50, 30 and 15 units for the top three places, with stacks of 20,000, 36,000, 22,000, 18,000, 11,400 and 9,000 chips, Hero’s prize share is about 16.9 units and the bubble factor between Hero and the button is 1.004.

A bubble factor near 1.0 means a chip won and a chip lost are worth close to the same prize money here. The pot price is the number that decides this call, and the ante is what makes it cheap.

Frequently asked questions

How much does a big blind ante change the call price?

In this setup the ante lowers the required equity from 22.2% to 18.2%, a drop of about 4.0 percentage points. The ante adds 600 chips to a pot Hero can win without a showdown.

Is J♥ 9♥ a call against a 2 bb open at 19 bb?

Against the wide range above, J♥ 9♥ wins 42.09% of showdowns and the call needs 18.2%. The call clears the price, and the hand plays well when it makes a draw.

What if the button opens to 3 bb instead?

The call costs 1,200 chips and the price rises to 26.7%. Hero still holds 42.09% against the same range, so the call stays playable with a smaller margin.

Does the ante matter as much with a short stack?

The price is the same, but the stack behind it is smaller. At 12 bb the call leaves 5,400 chips behind, so the decision is closer to a commitment than a cheap look at the board.

Where does the pot odds number come from?

It is the call divided by the pot after the call. A call of 600 into 2,700 makes the pot 3,300, and 600 divided by 3,300 is 18.2%.

Chip EV vs ICM in one paragraph

Chip EV treats every chip as equal. Doubling your stack is worth exactly what losing your stack costs. ICM is the model that converts stacks into expected prize money, and that conversion bends. Wikipedia’s entry on the model traces it to David Harville’s 1973 statistics paper, which Malmuth later applied to poker. It assumes all players have comparable skill, so stack sizes alone set each player’s finishing odds.

The example below uses Pot-Limit Omaha (PLO) in a three-player tournament. In PLO each player gets four hole cards and must use exactly two of them. A bet can never be larger than the pot. PLO hands often run close in equity, so a few extra points of required equity change many calls. That is the short version of ICM poker explained; the rest of this page shows where the numbers come from.

Same hand, two answers: the three-player PLO example

Hero should call under chip EV and fold under ICM. The hand is the same. The stacks are the same. Only the unit changes.

Three players remain in a PLO MTT, each with 6,000 chips and blinds of 100/200. The prizes are $50, $30 and $20, a $100 pool. Scale the dollars to any buy-in you like, because the ratios carry over.

The button folded before the flop and put nothing in. Hero and Villain each put in 2,000 total before the flop, including their blinds, so the pot holds 4,000 by the turn. Each has 4,000 left behind. The board is 8♦ 7♣ 2♥ K♦. Hero holds J♥ T♠ 9♠ 6♥. Villain jams the pot, 4,000 into 4,000.

Hero holds no made hand and draws to a straight on the river. Against Villain’s A♣ A♦ 7♠ 5♥, an overpair, Hero wins 37.5% of the time, counting every one of the 40 unseen river cards. Fifteen of those cards make a straight. The other twenty-five leave Villain ahead. Hero cannot see that hand, so treat the number as the typical result against a jamming range.

After the jam the pot is 8,000. Hero pays 4,000 to call, and the final pot is 12,000.

The chip EV answer: call

Hero risks 4,000 to win the 8,000 already in the middle. The final pot is 12,000, so the price is 2-to-1. A 2-to-1 price needs 4,000 ÷ 12,000 = 33.3% equity. Hero has 37.5%.

Calling is worth 0.375 × 12,000 − 4,000 = 4,500 − 4,000 = +500 chips. The 12,000 is the final pot, so it includes the 4,000 Hero calls with. Chip EV calls.

The ICM answer: fold

Now convert each outcome into dollars. Here is the full chip ledger, so every stack and the pot add up at each step:

If Hero folds, Villain takes the 4,000 pot and his stack becomes 8,000. If Hero calls and wins, Hero takes the 12,000 pot. The stacks after each choice:

The call-and-win row has Villain out in third. Hero then holds two-thirds of the chips against the button, so Hero’s share is $50 × 2/3 + $30 × 1/3 = $43.33. The 12,000 is the whole pot, so it includes the 4,000 Hero called with. Hero started with 6,000, put in 2,000 before the flop, and called the last 4,000. A win returns the full 12,000.

The call-and-lose row leaves Hero with zero chips, which pays third place.

Here is how to calculate ICM in poker for the fold row. Start with each player’s chip share. Hero holds 4,000 of the 18,000 chips in play (the rest are in the pot and the other stacks), so the chance of first place is 22.2%. For second place, add up the chances that each opponent wins first and Hero then wins the rest. Villain first (8/18) then Hero (4/10) gives 17.8%. Button first (6/18) then Hero (4/12) gives 11.1%. Second place is 28.89% and third is 48.89%. Hero’s equity is $50 × 0.2222 + $30 × 0.2889 + $20 × 0.4889 = $11.11 + $8.67 + $9.78 = $29.56. The same steps work for any stack list, and PrimeDope’s ICM explainer walks through the doubling example.

Calling is worth 0.375 × $43.33 + 0.625 × $20.00 = $28.75. Folding is worth $29.56. Calling costs Hero $0.81, so ICM folds.

Where the line sits

Hero needs 40.95% equity to call under ICM. The algebra is short. Hero’s call is worth p × $43.33 + (1 − p) × $20.00, and that must beat $29.56. Solving gives p = 43/105, or 40.95%. That is 7.6 points above the 33.3% chip EV price.

Here is the same hand in dollars. Calling and losing costs Hero $9.56 compared with folding. Calling and winning gains only $13.77. In chips the call risks 4,000 to win 8,000, a 1-to-2 ratio. In dollars it risks $9.56 to win $13.77, a ratio near 1.44 to 1.

Smaller bets are easier calls. Less of Hero’s stack goes in, so the ICM premium shrinks. The full 4,000 jam is the hardest version of this decision.

Why a lost chip costs more: the payout ladder

The gap comes from the payout ladder, which bends. It has nothing to do with feelings. Psychologists use the term “loss aversion” for a bias where people feel losses more than gains (Wikipedia). ICM contains no bias. It is arithmetic on a payout ladder where the bottom rung is worth zero.

Take four players with 5,000 chips each and prizes of $50, $30, $20 and $0. Everyone’s equity is $25.00. Now compare two changes:

Losing 1,000 chips costs $3.41, while winning 1,000 earns $3.07. The payout ladder is why. Chips at the bottom protect you from the zero.

The gap grows near a pay jump. Four players hold 4,000, 3,000, 2,000 and 1,000 chips, with $50, $30, $20 and $0 prizes. Equities are $33.60, $29.49, $23.59 and $13.32. When the 1,000 stack busts, the other three have 4,000, 3,000 and 3,000, worth $35.43, $32.29 and $32.29. The 4,000 stack gains $1.83 and the 3,000 stack gains $2.80 without playing a hand. That free gain is why mid stacks avoid fights with each other near a jump and let the short stack bust first.

When chip EV and ICM agree

Both models match when the ladder is flat or there is only one prize. Use this table to pick:

The heads-up rows need a note. ICMIZER writes that “there is no ICM heads-up, it is the only stage of a tournament where that is the case”. Both players have locked up second-place money and are playing only for the difference between first and second, so the remaining decision is linear.

At $60/$40, a 7,000 vs 3,000 chip split is worth $54 and $46, not $70 and $30, which is $16 short of chip-proportional. Each chip still gains and loses the same $0.002, so the bubble factor is 1.0 and decisions follow chip EV.

Deal making at a final table runs on the same math. Players use ICM equity to split the money, then either stop there or keep playing for the title (ICMIZER).

Big stacks against big stacks barely feel ICM at all. In the four-player state above (4,000/3,000/2,000/1,000 at $50/$30/$20), the 4,000 stack facing the 3,000 has a bubble factor of 1.004, essentially 1.

Early in a tournament, ICM is small but present. GTO Wizard’s simulation of 500,000 tournaments found it had a statistically significant effect when 50% to 37% of the field remained, well ahead of the 15% bubble.

How big is the gap? A spectrum from satellite to winner-take-all

The gap is largest in a satellite and zero in a winner-take-all event. Here is the same hand, same stacks and same 37.5% equity, across three payout ladders:

A standard MTT final table tends to sit between the first two rows. The WSOP and WPT publish different payout schedules (WSOP, WPT), so treat this placement as a reasoning aid rather than a measured average. The 2025 WSOP Main Event paid $10 million to first out of a $90.5 million pool, about 11%. The top prize is large, but the ladder still has steps. ICM poker strategy at a final table means a real but moderate premium. GTO Wizard’s bubble factor article shows the Sunday Million average (2009 structure, 10,000 runners) peaking at 1.6 on the money bubble.

The satellite end

A PLO satellite fits the third row. Say the prize is two seats worth $50 each, and three players remain with the same stacks as above. Hero holds 4,000 of 18,000 chips, a 22.2% share. Two seats pay and one player misses out. If Hero folds, Villain has 8,000 and the button 6,000, and Hero’s stack is worth $25.56. Call and win locks a seat, worth $50. Call and lose pays zero. Hero needs 51.1% equity to call, against 33.3% by chip count.

Satellites with equal prizes run on all-or-nothing pressure. Once a seat is nearly secure, extra chips add nothing, so the cost of busting outweighs everything else. That narrow equity margin makes loose calls expensive in a satellite. It is also why satellites produce spots where folding aces can be correct (ICMIZER). Shoves are often fine, since the pressure falls on the caller.

The three spots where this costs the most money

Most of the dollars leak in three places.

Calling off on the bubble. A medium stack that calls a covering stack with pot odds but not ICM odds loses the most. In a four-player test with $50/$30/$20, a 3,000 stack facing a 2,000 jam needs 41.67% by chip EV and 53.11% by ICM. Calling at 40% costs $3.24 of a $100 pool. The ICM bar is 11.45 percentage points above the chip-EV bar.

Folding too much as a big stack. The covering stack has little to lose, so it can raise and call wider. A big stack that folds hands with good pot odds gives away value it could take for free.

Mis-adjusting at a pay jump. ICM pressure on a short stack depends on who covers whom. A short stack jamming into another short stack faces a smaller multiplier than the same stack jamming into a big stack.

GTO Wizard’s analysis of 225 flops found that playing chip EV when ICM applied cost as much as 30% of the buy-in in EV. The study covered flops only, so the full cost, including turn and river play, is likely higher.

Using both models at the table

Start with the pot odds, then ask what a bust costs. Near a pay jump, raise your calling bar if the opponent covers you and lower it if you cover the opponent. In a satellite, raise it the most. The same pot-odds-first approach works for every tournament format. For a progressive knockout, the same chip EV logic runs with a bounty added on top.

Frequently asked questions

Is ICM only relevant at the final table?

No. GTO Wizard’s simulation found a significant ICM effect from 50% to 37% of the field remaining, and ICMIZER calls the belief that ICM matters only on the bubble and at final tables “a common myth”. The effect is small early and grows as pay jumps get closer.

Does ICM matter heads-up?

With one prize left, no. Equity equals chip share, so chip EV is correct. With two prizes, the split of money changes ($54/$46 for a 7,000 vs 3,000 stack at $60/$40), but each chip is still worth the same $0.002 to win or lose, so the bubble factor sits at 1.0 and decisions follow chip EV.

Why do solvers give two different answers for the same hand?

They optimize different things. Chip EV maximizes chips, and ICM maximizes dollars. In the example above, the same hand is a +500 chip call and a −$0.81 call. Both numbers are correct for their own goal.

How is a chip’s value calculated in ICM?

Your chance of first place is your share of all chips. Your chance of second is the sum, over each opponent finishing first, of your share of the remaining chips, and so on. Multiply each finishing chance by its prize and add. The three-player example above shows every step.

Why is ICM more important near the bubble?

One bust moves the field up a rung of the ladder by a large amount. On a satellite-style bubble, losing costs everything and winning gains nothing extra (PrimeDope). GTO Wizard’s bubble factor article shows the Sunday Million average (2009 structure, 10,000 runners) peaking at 1.6.

Does ICM apply to cash games?

No. A cash game has no payout ladder, so each chip is worth its face value and chip EV is the right objective.

The spot

• Format: No-Limit Hold’em MTT, middle stage, nine players dealt.
• Stacks: hero 20 BB, button 20 BB, so the effective stack is 20 BB.
• Blinds and ante: 0.5/1 BB with a 1 BB big blind ante, posted by hero.
• Action: the button opens to 2 BB, the small blind folds, hero holds 8♥7♥.

Hero starts with 20 BB, posts the 1 BB big blind and the 1 BB ante, and has 18 BB behind. The button’s 2 BB and the small blind’s 0.5 BB make the pot 4.5 BB before hero calls.

A call costs 1 BB. The pot becomes 5.5 BB and hero has 17 BB behind. Break-even equity is the call divided by the final pot: 1 divided by 5.5, or 18.2%.

Why 8♥7♥ calls

The button’s range is wide: 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J6s+, T6s+, 96s+, 85s+, 75s+, 64s+, 54s, A2o+, K8o+, Q9o+, J9o+ and T9o. That is 526 combos. Against that range, 8♥7♥ has 40.6% equity over 50,000 simulations.

A tight 110-combo range of 77+, ATs+, KQs, AJo+ and KQo cuts the equity to 32.85%. Both numbers sit above the 18.2% price.

Raw equity is not the whole story. Hero acts first after the flop, so the button can bet and apply pressure. The gap between 40.6% and 18.2% is wide enough to absorb some loss of realization.

Why not 3-bet or fold

A 3-bet at 20 BB commits a large part of the stack. A raise to 5 BB leaves 14 BB behind, and a button who calls or 4-bets puts hero in a difficult spot. 8♥7♥ makes its money on later streets, so seeing a flop is more valuable than turning the hand into a bluff. Hands with an ace or king blocker, such as A5s, make better 3-bet bluffs.

Folding gives up a 1 BB call with a hand that has 40.6% equity against the button’s range. The ante already in the pot improves the price.

The flop: K♣ 6♠ 5♦

Hero checks. The button bets 2 BB into the 5.5 BB pot, making it 7.5 BB. A call costs 2 BB, makes the pot 9.5 BB, and leaves hero 15 BB behind. The break-even price is 2 divided by 9.5, or 21.1%.

8♥7♥ has an open-ended straight draw: any 4 or 9 makes a straight, eight outs. Against the same button range, it has 42.7% equity on this flop. That is well above the 21.1% price.

A TexasSolver flop solve used the 5.5 BB pot, 17 BB behind, the button range above, and a big blind calling range of pairs through 99, suited connectors and broadway hands. The tree gave the big blind one bet size (50% of the pot) and the button one bet size (36%), with all-in as the only raise. The results describe this setup:

• Hero’s range checks 99.95% of the time.
• Facing a 2 BB bet, hero’s range calls 43%, raises all-in 57% and folds 0%.

Those frequencies are range-wide, not specific to 8♥7♥. The hand’s own equity and the price make the call clear. Calling keeps the pot smaller and keeps the button’s bluffs in. An all-in raise can fold out worse hands and get called by better ones, so calling is the simpler line at a mid buy-in.

If the turn brings a 4 or 9, hero can bet for value or shove. If it is a blank, hero can give up cheaply or take a stab.

What changes the line

The ante. Without the 1 BB big blind ante, the pot before the call would be 3.5 BB, the call would make it 4.5 BB, and the break-even price would rise to 1 divided by 4.5, or 22.2%. The ante lowers the bar to 18.2%.

Opener size. A 2.5 BB open makes the call 1.5 BB. The final pot is 6.5 BB, so the break-even price is 1.5 divided by 6.5, or 23.1%. The weakest offsuit hands lose the most at that price.

Opponent range. A wider button range gives 8♥7♥ more equity. The loose 526-combo range gives 40.6%; the tight 110-combo range gives 32.85%. A frequent stealer makes the call more profitable.

Stack depth. At 20 BB, hero has 17 BB behind after the preflop call and 15 BB after calling the 2 BB flop bet. The hand needs room to hit a draw and get paid; shallower stacks reduce that room.

Bubble ICM. Near a pay jump, chips won are worth less prize money than chips lost, so the equity bar rises. For a 1 BB call the effect is small. For a shove that risks the whole stack it is much larger. ICM pricing depends on the stacks and payouts, so the number moves with the tournament situation.

The line

Call preflop. On K♣ 6♠ 5♦, check and call the 2 BB bet. The price is 18.2% preflop and 21.1% on the flop; 8♥7♥ has 40.6% and 42.7% equity against the wide button range. The ante, the opener’s size, the button’s range, stack depth and bubble pressure all move those numbers, but the call clears the bar with room to spare.

For the tournament-equity side of the same decision, see SNG vs MTT strategy.

Frequently asked questions

How often should you defend the big blind against a button open at 20 BB?

With a 1 BB ante and a 2 BB open, the call needs about 18% equity. Most suited hands, connected hands, pocket pairs and many offsuit broadways clear that price. A tighter range or a larger open raises the bar.

Should you 3-bet or call with 8♥7♥ at 20 BB?

Call. A 3-bet commits much of the stack and 8♥7♥ has no blocker value. It makes straights and flushes after the flop, so seeing a flop is more valuable.

How much does the big blind ante change the price?

The ante adds 1 BB to the pot and lowers the break-even price for a 1 BB call from 22.2% to 18.2% against a 2 BB open.

Does ICM change the decision?

It can. Near a pay jump, chips won are worth less than chips lost, so the required equity rises. A 1 BB call is only slightly affected; a shove that risks the whole stack is affected much more.

What should you do on the flop with an open-ended straight draw?

Check, then call a small bet. On K♣ 6♠ 5♦, 8♥7♥ has eight straight outs and 42.7% equity against the button’s range, well above the 21.1% price of a 2 BB call. A raise is a valid mix in the solver, but calling is the simpler line.

SNG vs MTT strategy comes down to one idea: the same cards get different correct answers because the prize structures differ. Two spots show the gap before any theory.

Spot one. You hold ace-jack offsuit on the button at 18 big blinds. A big stack shoves from the small blind. In a large MTT, this is a call on chips alone. In a single-table SNG on the bubble, it is usually a fold. PokerSkill frames the split directly.

Spot two. Same cards, different caller range. ICMIZER shows a 30bb chip-leader shove that the big blind calls with the top 43% of hands at chip EV, and only the top 20% under ICM.

Both spots show the direction of the shift. The research carries no worked ace-jack sit and go example, so treat the two answers above as illustrative.

The structures create those gaps. Here is the arithmetic behind them, in tables you can use at the table.

SNG vs MTT: the structural differences that change strategy

Field size, blind speed, payout shape and registration rules drive almost every SNG vs MTT strategy difference. A single-table SNG seats 9 or 10 players and pays three spots, conventionally 50/30/20. PokerStrategy and PokerSkill both describe that split as convention, so check your room’s payout table. Aaron Barone of 888poker, who played more than 287,000 sit and gos as a pro, puts the SNG bubble at four-handed in nine-max and three-handed in six-max.

The WSOP comparison shows scale, and the same series contains events with very different structures. Check each event’s structure sheet before comparing a buy-in or a blind level.

Where the money sits matters most. In BBZ Poker’s 9-player $10 SNG example, with a 50/30/20 payout, doubling your stack from 1,000 to 2,000 chips is worth $18.25 of a $100 prize pool rather than $20 (BBZ Poker). Chip value and prize value separate as a stack grows. GTO Wizard’s 10-player toy game shows the same effect through its bubble factor. That separation drives every bubble adjustment below.

SNG vs MTT: same spot, different answer

The correct action flips between formats when ICM pressure differs. The hand stays the same. Below are two decision spots and one ICM illustration. The ranges are illustrative round numbers from the cited sources, so treat the direction as the lesson and re-run the precise ranges in an ICM tool for your exact payout structure.

Spot 1: A 15bb shove from the button

SNG baseline: the charts point to a wide but structured shoving range, with the marginal bottom hands the first to go when players behind you cover you.

MTT baseline: shove wider once the bubble is far away. Before the bubble, antes alone justify more aggression.

Red Chip’s push/fold charts cover 5, 7, 10 and 15bb under a 9-handed 50/30/20 ICM model. The same chart set notes that model approximates large MTT bubbles well once about 60% of the field is gone, and you can play no-ICM before that point (Red Chip Poker). A sit and go push fold chart therefore works for the first 60% of an MTT, just with the ICM filter switched off.

Antes change the math in both formats. With 1,000/2,000 blinds and a 2,000 big-blind ante, a button raise to 4,400 breaks even when both blinds fold about 47% of the time instead of about 59% without the ante (PokerSkill). PokerSkill is an undated training page, so treat the exact percentages as directional. The direction is a large swing in steal profitability.

Spot 2: The bubble-factor math behind a short-stack call

SNG baseline (illustrative; not a solved AJo example): fold. Four players left means you can ladder into the money by folding.

MTT baseline (illustrative): depends on bubble factor. A call that wins chips can lose money in prize terms.

GTO Wizard’s formula makes the trade explicit: Required Equity = Bubble Factor / (Bubble Factor + 1). In a 10-player SNG toy game where the winner gains $84.44 of the $100 at risk, the bubble factor is 1.18, which implies about 54% required equity (GTO Wizard). Build a bigger stack of prize money above you, and the bubble factor climbs.

That is where the MTT and the SNG part ways. The same GTO Wizard source reports the Kill Everyone curve for a 10,000-runner Sunday Million: bubble factor near 1.6 on the money bubble and near 1.7 at the final-table bubble. Plug 1.6 into the formula and required equity becomes 1.6/2.6, or about 62%. Plug in 1.7 and it becomes 1.7/2.7, or about 63%. A 54% call in the SNG toy game becomes a call needing about 62% on the money bubble of a big field. Plenty of hands move from call to fold on that shift alone.

This is an ICM illustration rather than a direct SNG-versus-MTT comparison; the format flip comes from the prize structure above. ICMIZER’s five-handed example shows the same effect from the caller’s side: a chip leader’s 30bb shove gets called by the top 43% of the big blind’s range at chip EV, but only the top 20% under ICM (ICMIZER). Jonathan Little reports the mirror image for the raiser: a middle stack’s GTO raising range tightens from about 27% at chip EV to around 22% under ICM, and pot-odds calls need 10 to 15% extra equity near the final table (PokerCoaching).

Qualitative note: defending the big blind at 40bb

SNG baseline: the structure points toward defending tighter than the solver’s chip-EV output. In the conventional 50/30/20 single-table structure, cashing is a third of the field, and losing 10bb here costs you fold equity on the next orbit.

MTT baseline: the structure points toward defending near chip-EV ranges in the early and middle stages, then pulling back hard as the bubble approaches.

An SNG at 40 to 60bb starting stacks reaches the push/fold zone quickly with five-minute levels, so hands played at 40bb turn into shove decisions within a level or two (Smart Poker Study). The MTT player at the same depth may have hours of play before ICM pressure appears, which supports looser blind defense.

In a SNG, the bubble arrives early and stays, so every marginal spot carries a future cost. In an MTT, you get many chip-EV spots before ICM pressure lands.

These examples are illustrative calculations from the cited ranges; they are not advice for a specific hand or game.

Photo: Michele Lana on Unsplash

SNG vs MTT strategy, stage by stage

Early play rewards patience in a SNG and volume in an MTT. Late play flips that. Here is the full grid.

The bubble factor progression is the most transferable number in this table. GTO Wizard’s 10-player SNG toy game produces a peak of 1.18. On its 10,000-runner Sunday Million curve the money bubble sits near 1.6 and the final-table bubble near 1.7. Both lights return to 1.0 at heads-up.

SNG vs MTT variance and ROI: why headline return percentages are not comparable

Small field sizes and low per-game swings let a smaller edge compound with less ruin risk. The sourced data here covers MTT fields. For a 20% ROI player in 500-runner fields, per-tournament standard deviation is 7.2 buy-ins, which is 36 times the edge per game (Poker Academy). No comparable per-game standard deviation figure for single-table SNGs appears in this research.

ROI is profit divided by total investment including fees. PokerCoaching works through a 30% ROI example on that basis (PokerCoaching). The volatility around that average grows with field size.

Run these figures against your own plan and keep your results out of the prediction.

Three consequences follow.

A 30% MTT ROI may rest on a small sample. PrimeDope’s calculator shows a 95% confidence interval of minus 140% to plus 180% at 500 tournaments in big fields (PrimeDope). The interval shrinks as the sample grows, so a short run of deep finishes says little about your true win rate.

Downswings run long. PokerCoaching reports 125 buy-in downswings over 1,000 tournaments in 1,200-player fields (PokerCoaching). The Poker Academy simulation puts the median worst downswing at 145 buy-ins across 1,000 tournaments, with 1 in 20 at 275 or more (Poker Academy).

Bankroll needs differ by a multiple. Guidance runs 50 buy-ins minimum, 75 to 100 safer, for single-table SNGs, against 150 minimum and 200 to 300 for large-field MTTs (PokerBankrollApp). GTO Wizard suggests 75 to 125 buy-ins for tournament players generally (GTO Wizard).

Worked example. You have $1,000 and want to play $10 SNGs. That is 100 buy-ins, above the safer SNG band. The same $1,000 in $10 large-field MTTs is also 100 buy-ins, which sits below the 150-buy-in minimum. One bankroll covers the SNG plan and leaves large-field MTTs out of reach until you reach at least 150 buy-ins. The research gives no separate bankroll standard for small-field MTTs.

Photo: Gorilla ROI Data Connector on Unsplash

SNG vs MTT skill edge: where the soft money sits

Single-table SNGs punish leaks in push/fold and ICM discipline harder than MTTs do, because every leak appears in every tournament. An MTT lets a loose bubble call go unpunished for hours, then charges for it once a deep run arrives.

Consider one specific leak: calling too wide on the bubble. In a nine-handed SNG, the bubble is guaranteed to appear and it is unavoidable. One overcalling leak costs money in nearly every game. In a large-field MTT, the deep bubble states arrive only in the rare tournament where you survive long enough to reach them. The same player meanwhile gets many early chip-EV spots where loose calling is fine.

That asymmetry makes SNG a cleaner training ground. The volume of repeatable spots per hour is higher, and the feedback loop is short.

Game selection differs too. SNG fields are small and relatively stable, so the edge comes from table-level reads and precise shove ranges. MTT fields are large, so the edge comes from surviving long enough to reach the stages where most opponents make ICM errors.

SNG vs MTT: how to weigh which format fits

Five factors separate the two formats for most players: bankroll, session length, study time, tolerance for downswings and goal. The sourced guidance covers bankroll and variance. The hours and study notes follow from the structures above. These are educational criteria for comparing the formats; they are not a recommendation to play either.

1. Bankroll in buy-ins at your chosen stake. PokerBankrollApp puts single-table SNGs at 50 buy-ins minimum, with 75 to 100 safer, and large-field MTTs at 150 minimum, with 200 to 300 for comfort (PokerBankrollApp). A roll of 100 buy-ins covers SNGs with room to spare and sits below the large-field MTT band. Small-field MTTs fall between the two sets of figures, and the research gives no separate standard for them.
2. Hours per session. A regular SNG runs its 10 to 15 minute levels from a 40 to 60bb stack and wraps in well under two hours. A slow-structure MTT carries 30 to 60 minute levels, and major-series Day 1 levels can run longer, so its sessions run long. Short sessions are a structural fit for SNGs and hyper-turbos; long blocks are a structural fit for slow MTTs.
3. Study hours per week. Red Chip’s charts cover 5, 7, 10 and 15bb and apply directly to a full-table SNG, so a small study budget goes a long way in SNGs (Red Chip Poker). MTTs add deep-stack postflop play, bubble dynamics and final-table ICM, so they demand more study time.
4. Tolerance for downswings. A 500-runner MTT field carries a per-tournament standard deviation of 7.2 buy-ins at a 20% ROI, with a median worst downswing of 145 buy-ins across 1,000 tournaments (Poker Academy). A player who prefers to stop after a 100 buy-in drawdown may find SNGs the better structural fit.
5. Goal. Steady growth fits SNGs, where a single table pays three spots in the conventional structure and pay jumps arrive quickly. Chasing a large first prize fits MTTs, where the prize pool is spread across a larger field; check each structure sheet for the actual payout shape. The MTT sample figures above show how long it takes for results to separate skill from variance.

Whichever format you pick, the next step is learning where the biggest edges sit in the stage you are in. Our ICM and bubble pressure explainer covers bubble factor and required-equity math in more detail, and the MTT and SNG stage guides break down ranges for each stage in the table above.

Frequently asked questions

Is a SNG or an MTT better for a small bankroll? Single-table SNGs suit a small bankroll. Guidance runs 50 buy-ins minimum for SNGs, with 75 to 100 safer, against 150 minimum and 200 to 300 for large-field MTTs (PokerBankrollApp). GTO Wizard puts tournament players broadly at 75 to 125 buy-ins (GTO Wizard). The bands suggest SNGs suit a bankroll under 150 buy-ins, while large-field MTTs need at least the 150-buy-in minimum; treat this as education rather than a recommendation.

How many buy-ins do I need for SNGs vs MTTs? 50 at a minimum, 75 to 100 for safety in SNGs. For large-field MTTs, 150 minimum and 200 to 300 for comfort. The gap reflects variance: a 500-runner MTT field carries a per-tournament standard deviation of 7.2 buy-ins (Poker Academy).

How many big blinds before shoving in a sit and go? Red Chip’s charts cover 5, 7, 10 and 15bb under a 9-handed 50/30/20 model (Red Chip Poker). PokerSkill puts the push-or-fold line near 25bb when facing a raise; it is an undated training page, so treat the exact line as directional (PokerSkill). Above the deepest chart, the correct shove range depends on your exact payout structure, so run it in an ICM tool.

How many games do I need to know my true ROI? More than most players expect. At 500 tournaments in 500-runner fields, the 95% interval can span minus 140% to plus 180% (PrimeDope). No SNG-specific convergence figure appears in this research, so the MTT intervals above remain the only sourced sample guidance here.

What is a normal downswing in MTTs? PokerCoaching reports 125 buy-in downswings over 1,000 tournaments in 1,200-player fields (PokerCoaching). A 500-runner simulation puts the median worst downswing at 145 buy-ins (Poker Academy).

Do ICM considerations apply in single-table SNGs? Yes. Red Chip’s charts use a nine-handed 50/30/20 model as the SNG case (Red Chip Poker), and GTO Wizard’s 10-player SNG toy game produces a 1.18 bubble factor (GTO Wizard).

Does ICM matter heads-up? No. GTO Wizard’s bubble-factor curve returns to 1.0 heads-up, because no player is left to ladder past (GTO Wizard). Chip EV and prize EV match, so play the strongest range.

Why can a 30% MTT ROI be less reliable than a 10% SNG ROI? Per-game swings are larger in big-field MTTs, so a 30% ROI can rest on a handful of deep runs. The 95% interval at 500 big-field tournaments still spans minus 140% to plus 180% (PrimeDope). A smaller edge across many lower-variance games can build a bankroll with less ruin risk at the same dollar stake. This research carries no SNG-specific standard deviation figure, so treat that comparison as a direction rather than a measured result.

The chip math says call. 99 has 57.1% equity against a 19% shoving range, and chip EV needs only 45.3%. ICM raises the required equity to 63.3%. The $15 head lowers it to 60.5%, which still leaves 99 short. The calculation below uses the stack sizes and payout structure.

The spot

• Tournament: $22 progressive knockout, 180 runners. The $1,800 prize pool and the $1,800 bounty pool are split evenly.
• Situation: 10 players left, 9 paid. Tenth place gets nothing; ninth pays $100 and the winner takes $480.
• Blinds: 500 / 1,000 with a 100 ante, so 2,500 is in the middle before action.
• Hero: big blind, 14,000 behind after posting.
• Cutoff: 12,000, shoves. The $15 head is a $10 starting bounty plus one knockout.
• Range: about the top 19% of hands, something like 22+, A2s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, ATo+, KJo+.

Hero covers the cutoff. The call is 12,000 into a final pot of 26,500.

Step 1: the chip-EV price

Calling 12,000 to win 26,500 needs 45.3%:

Price: 12,000 ÷ 26,500 = 45.3%

Against that range, 99 has 57.1% equity from a seeded 60,000-run Monte Carlo. In chips, the call returns 3,129:

Chip EV: 0.571 × 26,500 − 12,000 = +3,129 chips

The margin is 11.8 points, so chip EV makes this a call.

Step 2: ICM changes the price

ICM converts each stack into a share of the prize pool. With 10 players left and nine paid, the three outcomes are worth:

The break-even equity between folding and calling:

Break-even equity: (190 − 68) ÷ (261 − 68) = 63.3%

At 57.1%, the call is worth about minus $12 in prize equity. The 18-point gap between 45.3% and 63.3% is the risk premium.

Most of that gap sits in the losing branch. A 2,000-chip stack with 10 players left is 1.5% of the chips in play, and the next two hands put 1,700 chips into the middle in blinds and antes. Folding keeps a 14bb stack. The bubble factor for a transfer this size is about 1.23, so a chip lost costs about 23% more prize equity than a chip won adds.

Step 3: pricing the bounty

Half of the $15 head is paid in cash on the knockout. The other half is added to the winner’s bounty and pays out only if that player wins the tournament. The model values the added half at 20.8% of face value here.

• $7.50 cash on the knockout.
• $7.50 added to the winner’s bounty, worth about $1.56.
• Total bounty value: about $9.06.

Adding $9.06 to the win branch lowers the required equity from 63.3% to 60.5%. 99 at 57.1% is still below that line:

Bounty-adjusted call: 0.571 × (261 + 9.06) + 0.429 × 68 − 190 ≈ −$7

The same threshold across a few hands:

At this price, the calling range is about TT+ and AKs. With the $15 head included, the rest of the list loses money.

When the bounty changes the decision

The bounty moves the threshold in this spot by 2.8 points. Several other inputs move it further:

• A $30 head lowers the threshold to 57.9%, which is 0.8 points above 99.
• A $40 head lowers it to 56.3%, and 99 becomes a call.
• Against a 6bb shove the threshold falls to 44.1%, since a loss leaves an 8bb stack.
• With 30bb behind, the threshold is 46.0%, since a loss no longer ends the tournament.
• Against a 35% shoving range, 99 has 61.9% equity and clears the 60.5% threshold.

The four inputs

Four inputs decide a bubble call like this one:

1. Chip-EV price. The call amount divided by the final pot. It sets the baseline.
2. ICM price. Rebuild the fold, win and lose stacks, then compare prize equity. A direct bubble with a short stack usually adds a double-digit risk premium.
3. Bounty value. Half of the head is cash. The added half is tournament equity, so it is worth less than face value.
4. Elimination risk. A loss that leaves a playable stack reduces the ICM cost. A loss that leaves 2bb raises it.

Both the bounty and the ICM cost belong in the same prize-equity calculation. In this spot, the $15 head moves the threshold from 63.3% to 60.5%, and 99 needs another 3.4 points. Folding is worth about $7 more than calling.

How these numbers were produced

The stack equities use the Malmuth-Harville ICM model, computed exactly for the 10 remaining players. Hand equities are seeded Monte Carlo runs of 60,000 showdowns against the stated range. The progressive knockout model pays 50% of the eliminated player’s bounty in cash and adds 50% to the eliminator’s bounty, valuing that added half by the eliminator’s post-hand chip share, which is 20.8% in this spot. The model covers one hand and does not simulate future game states, so treat it as a single-hand estimate. The numbers are rounded, so differences under a tenth of a point are noise.