[ymu]

OK - then I just don't get what you're saying. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

I may be a bit distracted by the way the OP is presented. I don't get the 1% thing at all. What you can win/lose after the push/call/fold is part of the original EV calc. It might need adjustment according to your relative skill with a huge/tiny stack and table dynamics, but that's not an arbitrary figure - it needs info about opponents, stack sizes and table dynamics.

As far as I know choosing a minimum edge is based on risk/reward considerations; edge over the field, confidence in your reads, likelihood of a better spot coming up soon, etc etc etc. All the same things that might lead you to take a negative edge in some (rare) spots.

I'd be more likely to pass up a marginal call than a marginal push - but that's because the risk-reward considerations are different. In particular, the read is a lot more critical for a call - but I incorporate that by making a slightly conservative read. Small differences in ranges can make huge differences in equity in some spots and very little in others, so I think minimum edge is too blunt a tool for that job.

Similarly for pushing into a loose opponent (ie with relatively little FE) - it's not so much about setting a higher minimum edge as being much less certain about their true calling range.

I also don't understand why at one point you seem to say you should use a higher edge for pushing - when the argument seems to lead to using a higher edge for calling?