[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you bring up a good point about the difference in the edge needed for a call compared to a push. The effect may be less than you state however since you double up 15x more often in situation (b) giving you a greater potential for future +EV. Situation A does pick up the blinds 90% which also adds to future +EV.
I think the problem is in trying to quantify how often +EV situations occur depending on your relative stack size. It seems like it would depend greatly on everyones relative stack sizes and the table dynamics, making it much too complex to generalize.
[ QUOTE ]
I may be missing your point, but don't you have to produce a call scenario with the same $EV as the push scenario if you want to build an argument here? Otherwise, it just collapses to "push loose, call tight".
It's not at all clear to me that b) will necessarily be a +$EV call in a lot of situations, let alone of the same value as a).
[/ QUOTE ]
Heres a quick example:
Not quite 60/40s but you get the idea. Assuming perfect reads which situation is better?
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But it's not the calcs that bother me, it's the pertinence of the original scenario. I think it needs to be comparing like with like in order to be used to build an argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this example does a pretty good job of showing the abstract scenarios from the OP. As for "comparing like with like", then both have the same $EV of 0.14%, and this is the value to be compared against the edge threshold?
I agree that there is gonna be almost no chance to find a state where a SB push has the same state-transitions as a BB call and using an arbitrary value of +1% of prizepool advantage for all non-bust configurations isn't ideal, but I think "I will likely have an X% advantage over these opponents if I don't bust/cripple myself here" ('fudged' a bit based on doubling up, etc) is about all you are going to be able to consider while playing. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
The important fact is that both have the same $EV output from the ICM model and in (a) you will bust 6.34% of the time and in (b) you will bust 38.5% of the time (not so far from the OP's abstract example).
Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]