|
|
#22
08-17-2007, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Can an -cEV move ever be +$EV?
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, great example. This is proof if the ICM is 100% accurate. Is it? [/ QUOTE ] Of course the ICM isn't 100% accurate. The M stands for model, and I have pointed out several things which are not included in the model. It's also not 100% accurate to say that your equity heads-up with 50% of the chips is 50% with equal skill, since the location of the blinds matter, although it is not clear in which direction. (That probably provides additional examples even in heads-up tournaments.) This is about as clean of an example as you can hope to get in a multiway pot, since other than the locations of the blinds, the question is whether you prefer the stacks to be 6300-3700 or 6300-3000-700. Under the ICM, you would prefer the former, since you have a nonzero chance to place third. As I pointed out, it is possible that you would actually prefer 6300-3000-700 for the chance to accumulate chips by bullying the medium-sized stack, but that's also pretty dangerous because you can trade places in one hand. If you would feel happy to see the middle stack knock out the small stack, then you should prefer calling in the -EChips situation I specified. 
|
|
#24
08-20-2007, 11:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can an -cEV move ever be +$EV?
[ QUOTE ]
He then gave me the extreme example of having a stack of only one BB UTG and you KNOW that the call would be a little -EChip but folding and taking the blind is more -EChip, [/ QUOTE ] How is this an extreme example? Even if you call the BB and double up, you'll still have to face a BB that's almost half your stack next hand. This only works out if you have a hand that does well against many opponents and you can expect many to come into the pot.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
