A logical proof of the AEJONES theorem

[Fight Club]

[ QUOTE ]
2) For the purposes of meta-game, in 0 EV situations calling an all-in is better than folding (because it keeps people from taking +EV shots at you, which is +EV for you) and pushing is better than folding (because it generates action on other hands, which is also +EV).


[/ QUOTE ]
how exactly is someone going to take '+EV shots' at me because I didn't take a coinflip in the past

[jackflashdrive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) For the purposes of meta-game, in 0 EV situations calling an all-in is better than folding (because it keeps people from taking +EV shots at you, which is +EV for you) and pushing is better than folding (because it generates action on other hands, which is also +EV).


[/ QUOTE ]
how exactly is someone going to take '+EV shots' at me because I didn't take a coinflip in the past

[/ QUOTE ]

To the extent that you fold in marginal situations (and to the extent that you fold in general), you expand the range of hands with which others can profitably bluff, semi-bluff, and press 'coinflips'.

E.g., If I think you will call/push-over my semi-bluff non-nut flush draw with any hand as good as A high, and if I think your range consists in large part of A-high and better, then I obviously can't push my flush draw because I will almost always get called and at best it is a coin flip. Whereas if I can fold out a good portion of your coin-flipping range then I may end up with a +EV semi-bluff.