[NinjaMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point was instead of making -cEV plays to gain big stack (the Gigabet Dilemma) ,you pass +cEV plays to keep big stack (the "Reverse" Gigabet Dilemma).

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point makes no sense. In the long term, making +cEV calls is just that ... +cEV. SO, you're deciding to pass on a long term gathering of chips to maintain a steady stack while others increase theirs? I can understand passing on marginally -cEV situations if you feel you need those chips to balance being outplayed by other players. However, passing on +cEV situations, especially as the big stack, will be -$EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're wrong. passing on +EV situations in the short term can be very +$EV in the long run. this idea is nothing new. traditional tournament wisdom tells you to be very aggressive with the small stack, but very conservative with the big stack. there's no need to gamble it up when you're already in the lead.

in most cases a very slight +EV play is dependent on your analysis of the hand, which is always an inexact science. one slight miscue makes the hand -EV. with the a small stack you don't have the luxury of waiting for a better situation, you just have to go with the read you have and do the best you can.

that luxury does exist when you have a chip lead. the big stack buys you the time to sit and wait. that way you can get your chips in when you KNOW you're making a +EV play. this isn't a fear of being outplayed by other players. it is, in fact, out playing them by making a smart tactical decision.

i'm not saying this is always the right thing to do. bullying a table with a big stack can be very effective, but it can also backfire in a hurry. it can be better to sit and wait.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm *not* wrong, and neither are you. I do like, however, how you brought in a discussion, someone goes in the other opinion, and you say he's wrong. That seems a little unfair, dontchathink?

On topic, I can understand your line about *certain* situations warranting a pass on +cEV calls. However, I think your logic is a little flawed (but maybe mine is, too). Let's look at this situation here:

12 people left, 2 tables of 6. At your table, you have the big stack of 100k. The following stacks are at the table:
60k
10k
20k
50k
40k
Blinds are: 1000/2000 (no ante for argument's sake)

You're in the CO with pp6, and UTG (10k) pushes all-in. From your experience with UTG, he's not great, so he's probably pushing a tighter range than us 2p2ers. Let's say it looks like this, once you figured a range:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 53.6506 % 53.22% 00.43% { 66 }
Hand 2: 46.3494 % 45.92% 00.43% { 22+, A2s+, K8s+, Q9s+, J9s+, A2o+, K8o+, QTo+, JTo }


Does this constitute a marginally +cEV call? Yes. Should you ever pass it up as a bigstack? Probably not. The call increases your +cEV while eliminated someone close to a pay increase, thus, +EV$ in the long term. If UTG had a higher stack, maybe 35-40k, I would understand (but not 100% agree with) folding.

While you nurse the big stack, passing on +cEV opportunities, others are grabbing chips that could have been yours, to increase your chip equity amongst the remaining players, while also creating a higher percentage of the prize pool for yourself.