[daveT]

Doesn't SAGE require the SB (the aggressor) to lose at 8 and 9 BBs?

I don't recall Martingale showing a loss, although it will show a .0000000000000000000000001 +ev (which is larger than any -ev) if you really run that bad. The fish would not be able to martingale profitably at and SNG, because your edge was far larger than 5%.

Fine, I am talking out of my ass a little. I just now finished a game where I was "supposed" to use SAGE. Here was the catch. If my villain had a real good hand, he would raise. Other-wise, he would fold. Why should I risk doubling him through when I can have a little bit of patience and have a larger edge? How is it more profitable to pay 7 BBs on a shove to take the blind when I get the same thing if I min-raise. I still show the same profit with less risk. There is a rare opponent that I feel I need to use something that resembles SAGE. They are usually waiting for something that is going to have a large edge. Now, I am shoving with all sorts of crap: 95s, for crying out loud. I can't see the logic of this when it makes my opponent play correctly by waiting for a hand that is slightly better than mine.

The main problem with SAGE, is that it is only useful for one race, and for a .03 edge, that is terrible. If you really have your opponent down that much, then you most certainly have some sort of edge on him. If we are all aiming for that elusive 63%, using SAGE, and flipping coins makes no sense to me.

I am only stating my opinion. I started using SAGE at the beginning of this month, and started using it real serious about one week ago. There is no denying that I could have done better without it. My wr has dropped and the situations I am shoving, I am shaking my head.