|
|
|
|
#1
04-27-2007, 03:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: WWHD? (Harrington)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you are up against a pair you are 1.22/1 dog here, so it would be an idiotic call. [/ QUOTE ]If villain SHOWED me QQ I'd insta-call in this spot, and I don't think that's idiotic. Why? Because even if I assume that I have a better than 45% chance to double up later in this tournament, I think that a double up here right before the bubble is worth more than doubling up later. [/ QUOTE ] I think you should quickly grab up all your money in the checking account and take it to the casino. Bet it all on black or red on the roulette wheel. Hell, a double up today is worth more than tomarrow, due to inflation and all. Some "pro" gamblers will tell you that you can't expect to win against the wheel, but they obviously haven't taken into account the double up principle 
|
|
#2
04-27-2007, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWHD? (Harrington)
[ QUOTE ]
I think you should quickly grab up all your money in the checking account and take it to the casino. Bet it all on black or red on the roulette wheel. Hell, a double up today is worth more than tomarrow, due to inflation and all. Some "pro" gamblers will tell you that you can't expect to win against the wheel, but they obviously haven't taken into account the double up principle [/ QUOTE ]Your analogy is terrible. I don't even understand what "they obviously haven't taken into account the double up principle" means. My observation was simple. Villain has a 45% chance to double up here vs. QQ. If he believes his chances are less than 45% to double up by folding and finding a better spot, then he should take the 45% chance now. It's a tournament and hero won't make a significant payout without doubling up. This has nothing to do with taking a losing bet in a casino. If this were the situation in a cash game and villain showed QQ this is obviously a muck. But this isn't a cash game, and cEV != $ev. I believe the advantage hero gains by doubling up now before the bubble, combined with the risk that he probably does not have a greater than 45% chance to double up due to the structure of the game, makes calling greater $ev than folding, even if it -cEV.
|
|
#4
04-27-2007, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWHD? (Harrington)
First, cEV does not equal $EV. It would be lesser than $ev. So you start out with what you admit is a -EV bet (qq vs AK) and add to that the fact that your 'payout' in chips isn't 1:1 in terms of money, it makes it EVEN more -$EV. And we all like money, right?
Or to put it more simply, 'why would a book lie to a person.' I don't see how you can rationally disagree with this, unless you are saying that villians RANGE is fairly wide, ie. maybe A9+, 22+, KQs, for example, or any two. Others have suggested it. I personally don't think so. Educated opinons differ. I try not to think that my opponents are completely ignorant, perhaps that's -EV.
|
|
#5
04-27-2007, 07:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWHD? (Harrington)
[ QUOTE ]
But this isn't a cash game, and cEV != $ev. [/ QUOTE ] This is very, very wrong. [/ QUOTE ] I believe the advantage hero gains by doubling up now before the bubble, combined with the risk that he probably does not have a greater than 45% chance to double up due to the structure of the game [/ QUOTE ] If that's what you believe, than your opinion is perhaps valid. I feel like i'll double up a 7-15M stack MUCH more often than 45% of the time.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
