Existence of -cEV yet +Equity Plays?

[HighEV]

Collin,

I hope I'm not misinterpreting your notation, but I don't think I can high five your QED because it looks like, to me, you're cranking expected stack sizes in. When using ICM, we can't plug expected stack sizes in; instead, we have to plug the stack sizes from every possible outcome and weigh the ICM monetary equity from each outcome according to the probability of each outcome. The results obtained using ICM by plugging in expected stack sizes are wrong (I wish they were correct, because they take a lot less work to get). It's precisely because ICM isn't a function of expected stack sizes that I initially hypothesized the existence of plays that are -cEV yet +Equity.
-------
Two Plus Two Forum,

My sincere apologies to anyone who objected to me putting my website in my posts. I spend a lot of my time these days promoting myself, so I sometimes forget to tone it down at times. My schedule gets really busy, and I don't have a lot of history on 2+2, but it's clearly a great place with lots of great minds to debate poker with, so I hope we can put it behind us [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Great thread guys!

Tony Guerrera

[HighEV]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
There was some Gigabet thread in the MTT forum 2 1/2 years or so ago where he made some KJo call on a resteal in a 2-table SNG where there was a lot of good discussion on the topic. Basically, if winning the showdowns opens up chip gaps that tightens up people's future calling ranges or discourages future playbacks, etc. then it can be +$EV, yada-yada...

Of course, that's taking into account future action, maybe you're only talking about the current hand in quesiton.



One of my favorite strategy threads of all time

not sure i agree with gigabet's position but a lot of good discussion

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...what an awesome thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...t=1#Post1366229

Didn't read the whole thing; however, Gigabet is a perfect example of an open-minded player who's willing to think outside of the box. His call risks too many chips for my taste; however, his point about the call dissuading conventional players from reraising on later hands is huge. That kind of willingness to challenge conventional notions led him to enjoy some great success in Party's Step Tournies.

[Pudge714]

Shillx,
Very nice pots.

I find that Giga thread interesting because I feel that call would be +CEV in a lot of games today.

[HighEV]

Based on some of the posts on this thread, I started another thread discussing the derivation of the ICM formula. I decided that it's related to this thread but that it deserved its own thread. I hope this helps people out who've been wondering where the hell it comes from in the first place.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...c=#Post10057183

[MadScientist]

With the assumption of equally skilled players, I can think of a few situations where your equity is greater if you make a -ceV play.
If there is an opponent who will tighten up his pushing range for the entire tournament to KK+, if you make a slightly -ceV call in a winner take all tournament, I am sure you can construct many examples which are +eV.

A similar example may exist in a SNG, but I can not think of a reasonable example.
If you take into account your equity across many tournaments (thousands) based on a call against a regular (metagame), then I believe a situation can exist for SNGs.

[MadScientist]

Also, Collin, your choice of Gus Hansen and Daniel N for SNG pros is quite poor.
Neither has shown any knowledge of ICM or Any proficiency at SNGs. Likely both suck.

Please substitute the two highest volume high stakes players right now from 2p2, z32fanatic and bigjoe03, so that you seem more knowledgable about the state of the games today.
Use Elky or Rainkhan for a player who is not very good.

[Shillx]

A more realistic example might go like this....

CO: t3000 folds
Hero: t800
SB: t9000
BB: t700

Blinds are 300/600

The SB will fold and try to prolong the bubble if we fold. Limping with a worse then random hand against 2 random hands (or just limping peroid if the SB shoves and the BB folds) is going to be -cEV/+$EV. The 1st example is a stretch but this certainly could happen.

cEV = -t600
$EV = +1.4% if the SB shoves and the BB folds

Say this hand goes as planned. Then the next hand you get delt 32o UTG. Calling all-in for t200 will be -cEV and +$EV.

[Collin Moshman]

[ QUOTE ]
Is your aim to answer this question on a theoretical level or a practical level? I'm sure the Poker Theory people are (duh) better with theory than STTF, but that's because we're too busy shipping da moniez to worry about impractical exceptions to an otherwise useful tool. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Dealing with theoreticians is fun and scary. On one hand, they are usually the best pure thinkers in the world. On the other, they'll argue a point indefinitely until you at least concede there's some validity to it, long after anyone except them has stopped caring.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL I guess in part I'm just trying to relive my math days with threads like these. For sure this discussion is theoretical, in that actual hands could be given to show existence, but at the tables, proving/disproving abstract concepts probably won't up your ROI much [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

In the meanwhile I have a lot to do with the book, but will definitely check out the threads linked to by Durron, the Giga threads, etc. I will also try to look at the many hand examples that have been thoughtfully posted by you STTF guys -- thanks to everyone who has contributed so far.

Also, for the casual player just trying to win $, this type of analysis goes a bit beyond what you need in your toolbox....

Lastly, the Gus/Daniel example was meant to be in an MTT context, but I'd have to imagine these guys could do pretty well at SNGs if they wanted to switch gears. I guess that's a topic for another thread though.

Best Regards,
Collin