|
|
#21
03-27-2007, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another Sit n Go Question
[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume SB flashes his cards to us (A2o). So we know exact odds. Right now our expectation is about 40% of the prize pool (average of 1st & 2nd), calling and winning pushes us up close to 50%, for a gain of almost 10% of PP. Calling and losing reduces our PP share to around 5%. So if we call... 70% of the time we are +10% of the PP. 30% of the time we are -35% of the PP. I'm doing this all with estimates off the top of my head but it looks to me like it's a negative EV call (-3.5% of PP)against any Ace. And remember that two shorties did not push, implying that they didn't have an ace, slightly increasing the likelihood that SB does have one. Of course, SB will push with hand that have no ace. It's the percentage of time SB doesn't have an ace that determines whether it's a good call or not, but we need a bunch of hands without an ace to make up for the many hands with one. Any ace is 28.6%, suited is 33%, etc. A medium suited connector is 22.5%. I think this is just one of those extreme examples where payout considerations (tEV) steam roll cEV. [/ QUOTE ] this is a decent analysis, but i think your numbers are pretty much all on the pessimistic side. adjust them a little and you'll see it's an easy call. 
|
|
#22
03-27-2007, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Sit n Go Question
[ QUOTE ]
So if we call... 70% of the time we are +10% of the PP. 30% of the time we are -35% of the PP. [/ QUOTE ] this has got to be where your mistake is... we must own about 35% of the prize pool already.. if we win, +10% sounds about right if we lose -35% is WAYYY to steep we are not going down to 5% of the PP.. we're probably dropping to about 15% of the prize pool, maybe even more.. the SB and BB own about 15% or the PP each...if we lose, we drop to t900..a little less than them..but it's important to know that when one of the big stacks is suddenly dropped down, the $Equity of the smaller stacks will go up..so the two t1000 stacks will now be worth more than 15% and our stacks will be close to that as well.. and I've already stated that I find the stacks sizes and blind positions post loss to be advantageous to us...so I'd tack that on as well.
|
|
#23
03-27-2007, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Sit n Go Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So if we call... 70% of the time we are +10% of the PP. 30% of the time we are -35% of the PP. [/ QUOTE ] this has got to be where your mistake is... we must own about 35% of the prize pool already.. if we win, +10% sounds about right if we lose -35% is WAYYY to steep we are not going down to 5% of the PP.. we're probably dropping to about 15% of the prize pool, maybe even more.. the SB and BB own about 15% or the PP each...if we lose, we drop to t900..a little less than them..but it's important to know that when one of the big stacks is suddenly dropped down, the $Equity of the smaller stacks will go up..so the two t1000 stacks will now be worth more than 15% and our stacks will be close to that as well.. and I've already stated that I find the stacks sizes and blind positions post loss to be advantageous to us...so I'd tack that on as well. [/ QUOTE ] lol all your stupid calculations mean nothing. you have the guy crushed - you call in a tournament.
|
|
#24
03-27-2007, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Sit n Go Question
[ QUOTE ]
-35% is WAYYY to steep we are not going down to 5% of the PP.. we're probably dropping to about 15% of the prize pool, maybe even more.. the SB and BB own about 15% or the PP each...if we lose, we drop to t900..a little less than them..but it's important to know that when one of the big stacks is suddenly dropped down, the $Equity of the smaller stacks will go up..so the two t1000 stacks will now be worth more than 15% and our stacks will be close to that as well.. [/ QUOTE ] I was too pessimistic. I forgot that if we lose there are 3 shorties and one massive stack. The shorties share (at least) 50% of the prize pool, if they were all equal stacks that's 16.7% each. Since we would have only 900 chips, and will likely lose 300 more on our next hand in the SB, we are probably in the range of 10-15%. But still that only means losing 20-25% and makes it an okay call against a naked ace. If you can call against an ace you can obviously call against any other hand other than two aces. The folded, presumably non ace holding hands, don't get even a suited ace above 36% against us.
|
|
#25
03-27-2007, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Sit n Go Question
I did the math using an ICM calculator. By my calculations, the break-even point from EV perspective is when KK is 61.11% against the SB's range.
A range that's a shade below 60% (and would warrant a fold) is (AQs, AKo, AKs, KK,AA). Add anything else and it tips the scales over 61.11%. The CEV to $EV gap in this hand is around 11.1%, fairly standard for a bubble problem. Call, not even close, let others elaborate.
|
|
#26
03-27-2007, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Sit n Go Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So if we call... 70% of the time we are +10% of the PP. 30% of the time we are -35% of the PP. [/ QUOTE ] this has got to be where your mistake is... we must own about 35% of the prize pool already.. if we win, +10% sounds about right if we lose -35% is WAYYY to steep we are not going down to 5% of the PP.. we're probably dropping to about 15% of the prize pool, maybe even more.. the SB and BB own about 15% or the PP each...if we lose, we drop to t900..a little less than them..but it's important to know that when one of the big stacks is suddenly dropped down, the $Equity of the smaller stacks will go up..so the two t1000 stacks will now be worth more than 15% and our stacks will be close to that as well.. and I've already stated that I find the stacks sizes and blind positions post loss to be advantageous to us...so I'd tack that on as well. [/ QUOTE ] lol all your stupid calculations mean nothing. you have the guy crushed - you call in a tournament. [/ QUOTE ] we're talking about another hypothetical situation...I've stated earlier that it is a clear call.
|
|
#27
03-27-2007, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Sit n Go Question
I'm still waiting for some kind of twist to this or something...
it should make you feel proud that people respect you enough to assume that you are levels above us..even when the situation seems so clear cut. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#28
03-27-2007, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Sit n Go Question
[ QUOTE ]
i believe you've claimed that you're one of the best short stack players in the world. if you think this decision is close, that claim is laughable. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think its very close but I throw some curveball questions sometimes. As to my shortstack play, I wasn't talking about the weird strategy changes required in Sit n Gos. I'll learn that if I need to.
|
|
#30
03-27-2007, 11:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Sit n Go Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i believe you've claimed that you're one of the best short stack players in the world. if you think this decision is close, that claim is laughable. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think its very close but I throw some curveball questions sometimes. As to my shortstack play, I wasn't talking about the weird strategy changes required in Sit n Gos. I'll learn that if I need to. [/ QUOTE ] yea this is quite different than a standard shortstack situation than he would normally be referring to. as for the hand its a call. switch our stack with the SB and give us JJ or something and its more tricky but still fairly straightforward given the understanding of ICM these days.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
