[notevenhere]

[ QUOTE ]
When I first read this, my intuition said something like: "This situation can't possibly be EV neutral. After all, we have a better hand than the button." It seems to almost violate the nature of a "better hand" if it is not +EV for us if the inferior hand calls.

I think my intuition was correct, at least in this case. We may not want 12 callers, but we certainly want these two.

If both players call our all-in and the button hits his set we will still win a little over $15 because the button was the short stack in this hand. I won't do the math, but that clearly shifts the EV calculation in favor of rooting for both to call. And if the button's stack wasn't short, his extra money would also improve the EV for us if he called.

Note: I'm not advocating calling here instead of pushing. I'd push this PF every time. But, I'd do it because I expect both players to call and I want their money in the pot now, before they see the flop and suddenly decide they don't like their hands so much.

[/ QUOTE ]


The EV is the EV. Intuition is no substitute for math. If the math says it is EV neutral, then it is. Your intuition is simply wrong. It is EV neutral because the amount of extra money being put into the hand is negated by the decreased odds of you winning the hand once this extra player is involved in the hand.

Your math is also wrong. Assuming we lose to button, but beat UTG+1, we end up with ~$15 after this hand. Since hero started with ~$25 we lose $10 in this scenario.

Now if you mean that we win ~$15 in the sense that $15 is better than $0, then I suppose this is a win. But again, who is to say UTG+1 won't be the one to hit his set? And what about the case in which post-flop, only the person who beats you continues with the hand?