View Single Post
  #8  
Old 09-09-2007, 02:36 AM
jukofyork jukofyork is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Leeds, UK.
Posts: 2,551
Default Re: Dynamic edges based on skill differential *AND* fold equity

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I used a fixed value of 1% to try to keep the example simple, but did try to point out that the value will depend on the different outcomes and the chance of each outcome occuring. From the OP:

[ QUOTE ]
3. In my example you busted in both scenarios if you lost, but in practice more subtle effects will come into play; such as leaving yourself short or gaining a huge dominating stack. So it is not purely based on your chance of busting but on the likely outcomes, their chances of occurring, and (most importantly) the edge you will have over your opponents after the outcome occurs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I did point out that I was assuming the minimum egde was only being used for this reason to simplfy the example. From the OP:

[ QUOTE ]
1. I'm assuming that the edge you choose is only to stop yourself from taking small +EV actions too early.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have reread the OP a few times and can't see this?

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote