[JaredL]

Thank you for the feedback. I didn't have much time to write my article due to some personal matters, I should certainly have been much more clear on some things which you bring up.

[ QUOTE ]
I like this approach. It applies to other situations, such as analysis of the stop&go technique associated with Greg Raymer, calling from the blinds with about 1 PSB left with the intention of pushing any flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually like it too. This article is simply the start of some more in-depth analysis on this situation. I plan similar analysis of the stop and go.

[ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] You are free to make a small raise with other hands without the intention of calling a reraise, or of calling a stop&go on any flop, or of pushing any flop if your opponent checks to you. That I might make a small raise with AA, then call all-in or push any flop, provides cover for the times I might make a small raise with a weaker hand. My opponent does not know that I plan to push the flop with this hand when I make a small raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is prefectly correct. In this article I'm saying that pushing is better than making a small raise and pushing any flop, calling should you be reraised. It's simply comparing two strategies, not guiding your overall play. I will be studying other strategies, which involve sometimes folding ot a reraise and sometimes checking the flop, in future writings.

[ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] You don't know that the pot will be heads-up against that particular opponent, and neither does a caller who is not last to act. You might get called in multiple places. You might get a call, and then someone might raise, or there may be a reraise and a call. This might add more dead money, or it might give you the information you need to fold. Even if you end up heads up, a small raise might be called by a different player.

[/ QUOTE ]

This point is valid, though I suspect it isn't relevant. I should have been more careful in specificying that I was assuming a heads up pot. I'll have to think about this a bit more perhaps but I think that the same reasoning would apply if the pot went multiway. Say you are on the button with a raising hand. Say you make a small raise and the sb and bb both call. Let's say the SB would have folded had you pushed. That means that the SB has gained EV from your small raise, otherwise she still would fold. The question becomes whether the she would gain this much, or more, EV from the big blind. I don't see that being the case if both players act approximately optimally. Also, if both players are gaining EV this means it must come from you.

[ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] "Since she is increasing her EV, your EV must decrease... While the situation above is not a two-person game, she increases her EV by gaining chips from you so this must cost you EV." No, both players may gain if they are risk averse. I believe that was the theoretical justification given by Raymer for the stop&go: It may give up some expected chips against a good player, but it decreases your chip variance. Much of the time, the decrease in variance is not worth much, but it is important in SNGs. See the past discussion of the stop&go in the STT forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a valid concern to bring up. How will the variance change? I don't think by much. Let's take a look.

She can change her play in two spots - preflop and flop. Preflop she will only call when she would have folded otherwise. This will lead to more variance from these hands as they will all go from fold - you get the blinds to her calling preflop where you will sometimes get the blinds plus the preflop raise, sometimes double up plus a bit, and sometimes bust out.

On the flop she can fold a hand that she would have gone to showdown with. This will decrease variance.

So basically, I'm not even sure that variance will go down with the described strategy. It could certainly go up. Either way I doubt it will change much.

As I said, thanks for the feedback. I think this is to date my worst article. However, I think your concerns are not with the analysis but the writing. You make valid points about its shortcomings (ie I'm just comparing two strategies, not two styles of play).

Jared