[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
If P2 changes his strategy to betting [67,100] then his EV goes from +0.111111 to +0.068687 against my P1

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you are calculating EV incorrectly, because against a P1 who plays this strategy:

P1
[1,56] Fold
[57,100] Call

It is clearly obvious that betting 67+ is better than betting 1-11,79+

Just think about what happens when you bet 67-78 instead of 1-11. If P1 calls, 67-78 has a chance to win, where 1-11 does not. If P1 folds, it doesn't matter what P2's number was, so there's no difference.

If there's extra value when P1 calls (because you win more often), and the same value when P1 folds, betting 67-78 instead of 1-11 is clearly +EV.

This:
[ QUOTE ]

betting [30,100] P2's EV = -0.169091
betting [31,100] P2's EV = -0.165455
betting [32,100] P2's EV = -0.161616
betting [33,100] P2's EV = -0.157576
betting [34,100] P2's EV = -0.153333
betting [35,100] P2's EV = -0.148889
betting [36,100] P2's EV = -0.144242
betting [37,100] P2's EV = -0.139394
betting [38,100] P2's EV = -0.134343
betting [39,100] P2's EV = -0.129091


[/ QUOTE ]

leads me to believe that you're running this through a simulator program. Is that correct?

If so..

I'm going to have to say there's clearly a bug in your code, because you're getting incorrect answers to *very* obvious problems.

[ QUOTE ]
The answer in both cases is No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the answer in both cases is Yes, and the fact that you disagree means that you're doing something wrong, probably in your EV calculation, because it is so blatantly obvious that betting 67+ is better than betting 1-11 and 79+ that I don't even need to run the math, because simple deduction shows that it's true.

But since other threads have shown that people who are confused simply don't accept the most simple logical chains, I'll go ahead and run the math.

In the meantime, why don't you show us how you're calculating EV, because you're obviously doing something wrong.