|
|
#31
08-06-2007, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: When to Ignore ICM, A Winning Turbo Strategy That Is \'Outside the
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What he is saying is that taking a -$EV gamble here, is a good thing for a couple reasons: 1) He is going to loose his fold equity anyway, and then face all in situations with similar strength hands, but for smaller pots. 2) That calling and winning here gives him a big stack on the bubble that he can use to make up for the money he loses on the call by itself. [/ QUOTE ] Taking a -$EV gamble is stupid if your intention is to make money cos a -$EV play is a -$EV play no matter how you look at it. If folding leaves him in a desperate spot it could be that calling with a bad hand is actually +$EV. That sort of thing doesn't show up with ICM which is why no one thinks ICM calcs=$EV. I mean if he's truly taking lots and lots of -$EV gambles it would show in his ROI. Maybe he's taking +$EV "gambles" that people who only use ICM think are -$EV. Maybe it's just a question of notation. [/ QUOTE ] blah. Obviously when I talk about $EV it's about the $EV of the current hand, exclusive of any outside factors, and based on ICM. Cause I can't say the value of 'pwning the bubble' is +0.6% $EV. 
|
|
#32
08-07-2007, 01:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: When to Ignore ICM, A Winning Turbo Strategy That Is \'Outside the
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What he is saying is that taking a -$EV gamble here, is a good thing for a couple reasons: 1) He is going to loose his fold equity anyway, and then face all in situations with similar strength hands, but for smaller pots. 2) That calling and winning here gives him a big stack on the bubble that he can use to make up for the money he loses on the call by itself. [/ QUOTE ] Taking a -$EV gamble is stupid if your intention is to make money cos a -$EV play is a -$EV play no matter how you look at it. If folding leaves him in a desperate spot it could be that calling with a bad hand is actually +$EV. That sort of thing doesn't show up with ICM which is why no one thinks ICM calcs=$EV. I mean if he's truly taking lots and lots of -$EV gambles it would show in his ROI. Maybe he's taking +$EV "gambles" that people who only use ICM think are -$EV. Maybe it's just a question of notation. [/ QUOTE ] but your description is of taking a -EV gamble. Just because its prudent and/or correct doesn't mean its not -EV. youre looking for symantical errors that arent there methinks
|
|
#33
08-07-2007, 03:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: When to Ignore ICM, A Winning Turbo Strategy That Is \'Outside the
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What he is saying is that taking a -$EV gamble here, is a good thing for a couple reasons: 1) He is going to loose his fold equity anyway, and then face all in situations with similar strength hands, but for smaller pots. 2) That calling and winning here gives him a big stack on the bubble that he can use to make up for the money he loses on the call by itself. [/ QUOTE ] Taking a -$EV gamble is stupid if your intention is to make money cos a -$EV play is a -$EV play no matter how you look at it. If folding leaves him in a desperate spot it could be that calling with a bad hand is actually +$EV. That sort of thing doesn't show up with ICM which is why no one thinks ICM calcs=$EV. I mean if he's truly taking lots and lots of -$EV gambles it would show in his ROI. Maybe he's taking +$EV "gambles" that people who only use ICM think are -$EV. Maybe it's just a question of notation. [/ QUOTE ] but your description is of taking a -EV gamble. Just because its prudent and/or correct doesn't mean its not -EV. youre looking for symantical errors that arent there methinks [/ QUOTE ] Maybe but I wasn't talking about the hand in the article, just the ideas in the article in general. I meant that the best play in a certain situation has the biggest EV and is +EV cos taking any other frame of reference is stupid. And a -EV play is never +EV. And you can't determine if a play is +EV just by using ICM because ICM calcs don't look far enough into the future. So it's stupid to say (in the article) that using ICM is wrong when the author obv doesn't understand how ICM is supposed to be used in decision making. I don't know if that makes more sense [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] e: And imo it's not really even a gamble (at least in the sense I understand the word), it's either +EV or -EV and there may or may not be some variance [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#34
08-07-2007, 03:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: When to Ignore ICM, A Winning Turbo Strategy That Is \'Outside the
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What he is saying is that taking a -$EV gamble here, is a good thing for a couple reasons: 1) He is going to loose his fold equity anyway, and then face all in situations with similar strength hands, but for smaller pots. 2) That calling and winning here gives him a big stack on the bubble that he can use to make up for the money he loses on the call by itself. [/ QUOTE ] Taking a -$EV gamble is stupid if your intention is to make money cos a -$EV play is a -$EV play no matter how you look at it. If folding leaves him in a desperate spot it could be that calling with a bad hand is actually +$EV. That sort of thing doesn't show up with ICM which is why no one thinks ICM calcs=$EV. I mean if he's truly taking lots and lots of -$EV gambles it would show in his ROI. Maybe he's taking +$EV "gambles" that people who only use ICM think are -$EV. Maybe it's just a question of notation. [/ QUOTE ] but your description is of taking a -EV gamble. Just because its prudent and/or correct doesn't mean its not -EV. youre looking for symantical errors that arent there methinks [/ QUOTE ] Maybe but I wasn't talking about the hand in the article, just the ideas in the article in general. I meant that the best play in a certain situation has the biggest EV and is +EV cos taking any other frame of reference is stupid. And a -EV play is never +EV. And you can't determine if a play is +EV just by using ICM because ICM calcs don't look far enough into the future. So it's stupid to say (in the article) that using ICM is wrong when the author obv doesn't understand how ICM is supposed to be used in decision making. I don't know if that makes more sense [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] You're talking semantics which dont really matter, there are plays that are -cEV and thus -$EV in a vacuum that will be +$ev in the long run, ICM deals with vacuums true EV is dealt with in long run but you can't really calculate it, what you can calculate is per hand and thus is what everyone refers to when they're talking about it.
|
|
#35
08-07-2007, 01:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: When to Ignore ICM, A Winning Turbo Strategy That Is \'Outside the
I agree this is a fold.
In general, but particularly (near-)bubble situations, you have two extreme priorities: 1. Accumulate Chips so you can be the aggressor 2. Not get blinded out So even if you want to accumulate chips by any means necessary, you should shove a marginal hand at 200-400 before the blind hits you, rather than wait until you are the big blind and call. Shoving ATC earlier in the orbit is a much better strategy because your fold equity goes from 0 (as in the author's suggested call) to quite high in most situations. But let's give the author the benefit of the doubt, and say this was the first hand after the 100-200-25 to 200-400-25 jump. Then as Duderino points out, you still have blind-stealing fold equity with a > 3BB stack during (near-)bubble play. So you might call the button's push a little wider than is common, but 9-high is insufficient IMO. -- Collin
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
