Not all 0.2% edges are equal

[kevkev60614]

I see your argument, but I disagree with pretty much everything you've written.

Ignoring the effect of a double up isn't "thinking outside the box," it's making a critical error. The possibility of doubling up doesn't have the most important effect on most pushing $EV calculations, but ignoring it is grievous.

A strong argument could be made for the opposite of your OP. When you're given two $EV pushes, the one where it's more likely you'll double up is more important, because ICM doesn't take the big stack's ability to bully shorties into account.

Furthermore, if we're talking about $/hr, pushing when you're more likely to be called is more likely to speed up the game.

We need to make every +$EV decision possible. It's by taking these $EVs that we pay for rake and add to our ROIs. If the +$EV situations don't add up enough to cover the rake, we should be quitting.

[mackthefork]

Not really, because the hands I'm talking about the last thing you want is a call, they are thin edges based on the fact it gets folded enough, you lose 60-70% of the time when called. I'm not ignoring the double up, it's in the $EV calcs already.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
We need to make every +$EV decision possible. It's by taking these $EVs that we pay for rake and add to our ROIs. If the +$EV situations don't add up enough to cover the rake, we should be quitting.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this, with these 0-0.25% pushes, it is rare (eg where blinds massive and youy don't have any options in reality) that if you wait you will not have a better spot.

Taking all +EV spots will not make you the most money, in fact I'm sure if you took it to the extreme and took all +EV spots even slight ones, you could not make money at SNG.

Mack

[RexWoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it does, because we pay the rake again everytime we open a table, we have to make enough to pay that rake and only then can we profit, this is why a 0.1% push where we get called 10% is better than 0.1% push where we get called 30% or more even, the more we get called the worse it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to forget that in the "called 30% of the time" situation, obviously we win more chips/$ if we are not called or win at showdown than in the "called 10% of the time situation".

This should compensate for the extra-rake we pay for another SnG, no ?

And in the end 0.2 = 0.2 of the prizepool.

The only thing that might convince me to take the 10% and not the 30% is if I have a (very) limited bankroll or nb of SnG available.

[skegvegaspoker]

I'm pretty sure taking every single +EV spot in a SNG will make you money. Isn't that fundamental to SNGs. Additionally, this argument is worthless in reality, as its impossible to know when making a move if it is +0.05%EV rather than -0.05%EV.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure taking every single +EV spot in a SNG will make you money. Isn't that fundamental to SNGs. Additionally, this argument is worthless in reality, as its impossible to know when making a move if it is +0.05%EV rather than -0.05%EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it will lose you money, because you will on average be eliminated before you have a chance to recover the rake (in $EV terms).

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes it does, because we pay the rake again everytime we open a table, we have to make enough to pay that rake and only then can we profit, this is why a 0.1% push where we get called 10% is better than 0.1% push where we get called 30% or more even, the more we get called the worse it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to forget that in the "called 30% of the time" situation, obviously we win more chips/$ if we are not called or win at showdown than in the "called 10% of the time situation".

This should compensate for the extra-rake we pay for another SnG, no ?

And in the end 0.2 = 0.2 of the prizepool.

The only thing that might convince me to take the 10% and not the 30% is if I have a (very) limited bankroll or nb of SnG available.

[/ QUOTE ]

No any bankroll would have a problem if they manage to eliminate themselves (on average) before making enough +£EV decisions to pay the rake in the SNGs they play.

Mack

[advilandy]

I'm going with the opposite argument here...doubling up and proceeding to bully cannot be accounted for in the math (or at least the math we're using). Every single time I have doubled up (that I can remember) in a situation #2 type spot, I have won or at least made the money.

I think your theory might apply better in tournaments with very large fields or tournaments in games like omaha hi/lo where you know much less about what might happen if you decide to push.

In a single table sng of no limit holdem, you have plenty of information and a small enough field to be certain when you double up you will have a close to double expectation in terms of winning the tournament.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going with the opposite argument here...doubling up and proceeding to bully cannot be accounted for in the math (or at least the math we're using). Every single time I have doubled up (that I can remember) in a situation #2 type spot, I have won or at least made the money.

I think your theory might apply better in tournaments with very large fields or tournaments in games like omaha hi/lo where you know much less about what might happen if you decide to push.

In a single table sng of no limit holdem, you have plenty of information and a small enough field to be certain when you double up you will have a close to double expectation in terms of winning the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get tired of this argument, it comes from good and bad players alike, ICM undervalues a big stack, woohoo tell me something new, guess what though, it also undervalues small and medium stacks, at least for me, because no matter what I have I expect to beat the ICM expectation, that's why we are winning players after all. A big stack is not a fix all, and not half so important as people here state.

Regards Mack

[jaws274]

i think your beating the expectation by making +ev moves that the other players aren't making.