|
|
#21
09-12-2006, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
He wasn't. But the concept applies. It is why we play tight in the beginning and want to make sure that we do not enter into marginal EV situations with a high bust out risk foregoing the goods when bad players self-destruct. Bigger EV spots to come in the future because we own the bubble and other players don't.
|
|
#22
09-12-2006, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky was talking about blowing your whole bankroll or maybe losing all the cash you brought to the casino when you are in a juicy game. You can start a new STT and have more +$EV opportunities. edit: I think it was more the losing all the cash you brought to the casino example. [/ QUOTE ] you are right, but my thought was can this be brought down to the single game. where if you consider your buy-in to be your bankroll do you take the marginal gamble just b/c it is +EV if that gamble busts you out of this game and you lose the opportunity to stack a fish at your table if you are still in, etc. not that i am sold on what i am saying - ICM has been proven, it works, and people much smarter than me and better than me have built it and we're all better players b/c of it. just in that situation where you have a healthy stack does it make more sense to pass on marginal +EV spots.
|
|
#23
09-12-2006, 05:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
ICM already has you passing on +EV spots that are not +$icmEV. This gets debated a ton and 1/2 the time it's one way and 1/2 the time it's the other. At any rate, if you are saying you think ICM errs on the side of overvalueing additional chips you may be right. I have no idea and from what I've read I don't think anything definitive is forthcoming.
|
|
#24
09-12-2006, 05:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
[ QUOTE ]
He wasn't. But the concept applies. It is why we play tight in the beginning and want to make sure that we do not enter into marginal EV situations with a high bust out risk foregoing the goods when bad players self-destruct. Bigger EV spots to come in the future because we own the bubble and other players don't. [/ QUOTE ] right. what i was asking, in light of your post, is can we drill this down even futher to when on the bubble with a healthy stack are we right to pass up small +EV edges when there is a decent probability that a better edge will arise? i.e. does the risk of ruin from a single SNG go up and down based on past hand performance (alot of pushes vs. alot of folds, etc.) and does that change a particular situation from a push to a fold and so forth. (obv. SNGPT takes much of this into consideration assuming we factor in changing opponent attitudes/perceptions about our play accurately)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
