Hello & 4 Ideas

[Th3R3dDr4g0n]

I was (not as much lately) using the cEQ not just on the bubble, but ITM with 3 left.

But when I use the cEQ style, I basically overfold to induce as many confrontations between the other stacks as possible. It's not even about tight, because I could care less about my cards unless they're QQ+.

ITM, I won't complete the SB as long as the BB is the chip leader, because it doesn't change the complexion of the table as it relates to me getting to heads up, in fact it only makes it better because the chip leader can use those blinds to pressure the 3rd player, regardless of whether or not he's the IA. This of course can backfire when the 3rd player doubles up. But over the course of trying this for just 50 SNGs, my 3rd place finishes were skewed very low, and my 2nds were very high. Something like 7 1sts, 11 2nds, 5 3rds.

I should also say though, that at my current level, as long as I have 25% of the chips heads-up, I feel I'm 50/50 to win.

[I_am_mojoyoyo]

Here's an example for those having trouble visualizing the situation, and it comes up very often:

$44 SnG, 1st=$120, 2nd=$72, 3rd=$48
4 players remain, you are the BTN with KT
Blinds are 250-500

UTG: 1500, equity=$49.15
BTN: 1500, equity=$49.15
SB: 1500-250, equity before paying=$49.15
BB: 4500-500, equity before paying=$92.56

UTG folds.
Your play?

You estimate either of the blinds will call your all-in with any ace, any king, any pair (31.2% of the hands).
Hot & cold KT is about 47-53 against this range.
You estimate there is a 50% chance that, if you fold, the blinds will square off, and a 50% chance of either winning.

Simplifying, let's say only one or the other would call, and therefore fold equity is about 40%.

Ev = + 40% * 750 --- you win the blinds
- 60% (47% * 1375 - 53% * 1500) --- you are called
Ev = + 211

Over the long haul you gain an average of 211 chips each time you make this play. This play is +Ev and +Eq so you push, right? Wrong. It's a fold. Here's why:

40.0% you don't affect your payoff room, though your equity improves
28.2% you raise your payoff floor (you move into the $)
31.8% you lower your payoff ceiling (you bust)

If you fold:
25% you raise your payoff floor (you move into the $ because the SB busts)
75% you don't affect your payoff room at all, but:
-> UTG is then virtually forced to move the next hand, being the IA with M=2. You have kept the pressure on the IA.

So in summary:
You can have virtually the same chance of a payoff room benefit (25% vs. 28.2%) by folding. The opportunity cost of the fold (the 40% of the times that you take the blinds uncontested) is offset by the 31.8% chance of busting out unpaid.

And here is the theme of this thread:
the 40% chance of taking the blinds is not worth a 31.8% chance of busting when you get the same benefit without the risk by folding. You should not be busting out in this situation 1 in 3. This is a +Ev situation that (in my opinion) is a clear fold.

[I_am_mojoyoyo]

Obviously I had never heard of ICM.

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously I had never heard of ICM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait you have been reading this forum for a long time and have never seen the term ICM? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Anyway 1 and 4 are very useful concepts that come up in basically every tournament. Two is a useful concept but the situation doesn't arise very often. When it does it certainly has a big impact on decision making. I don't see how 3 is very relevant since it is more of a static condition (and an obvious one at that).

[DevinLake]

Why does your example use chipEV on the bubble of a SNG?

[I_am_mojoyoyo]

I used chipEv because I was lazy, and made an incorrect assumption that it was positive equity as well. The math for the Eq calculations is:

=40%(14.32)+28.2%((37.55+34.80)/2)-31.8%(49.15)
=0.31

So instead of Eq saying push and cEq saying fold, Eq says its neutral.

[relativity_x]

UTG: 1500, equity=$49.15
BTN: 1500, equity=$49.15
SB: 1500-250, equity before paying=$49.15
BB: 4500-500, equity before paying=$92.56

You're planning on folding to the money. There are several problems with this. One, you count on the other ss to bust. Two, you'll be so short stacked ITM that you're 3rd place finishes will be >> 1st place finishes, so you're limiting your maximum earnings. Lastly, you're assuming the big stack is calling us 60% of the time, this is just not right. This depends on the villain's calling range and is different in every situation. I suspect that 60% is very loose here. I can see 40% calling, but more than likely 30%.

Bottom line is that ICM is the bible of sngs. ICM calculates the equity you gain for 1st,2nd,3rd place when you push/fold. The model calculates the worth of the move based on three outcomes of your push: blinds fold/blinds call you win/blinds call you lose. After this, the model compares the EV in pushing compared to folding. Generally, when EV folding>pushing, you fold.

cEV is not useful in this situation because it does not assign a value based on the probability of your action's result. Basically, cEV doesn't consider the advantages of finishing higher ITM.

[I_am_mojoyoyo]

> OP should learn about ICM before writing an SNG article for 2+2 magazine.
OP didn't say he was writing an SNG article for 2+2 magazine about SNG strategy, he said HE HAD written an article (it is not about SNG strategy).

OP did say:
> I am trying to write another article.

Slim Pickins should review his facts before posting something so derogatory.

Slim Pickins should realize that before any great progress is made plenty of errors and dialog must occur.

Slim Pickins should realize that the people who honestly stick their necks out and make an effort to think outside the box are the lifeblood of advancement, here or anywhere.

Slim Pickins owes OP another apology.

[I_am_mojoyoyo]

And OP DID say
I have written an article
It is NOT about SNG strategy
And it HAS been accepted
And OP DID write it without knowing a thing about ICM.

[I_am_mojoyoyo]

I was not assuming big stack calling 60%, I was assuming SB 30% and BB 30% and that they would not call together.