$235 6-man [censored] me with a chainsaw

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, we're taking about passing up a 0.87% edge against TT+,AQ. Back in the day, people used to set the minimum edge to 0.5% and not even consider taking less than that. I'm definitely not folding more than 1.0% away for pretty much any reason, but the stuff in between 0 and 1.0% should be up for debate because it's the amount that can be made up in future hands if the right conditions exist. I'm also not expecting to gain it all back at once. It will happen over a number of subsequent hands.

I'm not sure why my claim seems so outrageous. If I'm wrong, it's not by more than a few tenths and it wouldn't take much to make me right. It's not like I'm suggesting folding 54s or T3o.

[/ QUOTE ]

.87% is ridiculously huge IMO. I remember laughing at people who would advocate passing up clear .2% edges in my SNG days. There is absolutely no reason to expect to get a bigger edge in the future. While we probably won't have .87% against their calling range, it should be over .4 or .5 which is a monstrous edge. Not exactly sure how it translates over to 6 max...its possible there are some differences between what we really need, but I would be completely shocked if pushing wasn't correct. Even if pushing wasn't correct, it's almost a certainty that calling PF and betting any flop is better than folding.

Also the people who set the min edge to .5 and didnt consider taking less than that were raving lunatics. Those players had absolutely no idea what was going on in the math side of the game and had an unrealistic expectation of the edges that were possible. This is especially true now that the competition is much much tougher.