Can an -cEV move ever be +$EV?

[Whitefox]

If we assume everybody is eqal in skill and you have to make a call or a push thats a little bit -cEV can this ever be +$EV?

The scenario im thinking of are if your fold will put you in a situation were you have even less equity in the tournament then if you would make the move.(obv)

The most extreme example of this would be if you are UTG with a stack of only ONE BB and you would know that there are tiny -cEV to make the call, but if you fold you would be in an even worse spot by having to take the BB which would be even more -cEV.

[PantsOnFire]

How about this one?

You are a medium/big stack. It's the final table and we're ITM. There are four short stacks, three medium stacks, you and two chip leaders. The short stacks are playing poorly and limping rather than shoving.

You are on the button with 72off. BB is short stack. Early short stack limps, two short stacks limp behind. You min-raise.

Obviously a min-raise and your hand value are -cEV. You are giving away chips. However, you are forcing the pot larger. BB will have trouble moving in with no fold equity. The other short stacks will have to call another bet for the pot odds. Now you have created a pot where the short stacks are going to be pot committed. There will be at least one or two and maybe three players eliminated.

I think this is an example of +$EV play since short stacks hanging around a final table can be dangerous.

[creedofhubris]

three shortstacks get allin and you call with a very big stack and 32o?

[pzhon]

A few months ago, I proved in this forum that the ICM never supports making -EChips calls in heads up pots. The ICM does not pay attention to the blinds or table dynamics, but it does cover many cases where people incorrectly think it -EChips calls might be +E$.

(By the way, EChips and E$ are how mathematicians normally write "expected chips" and "expected money," following the convention that EX means E(X), the expectation of X, and EV is expected value. It's more common for poker players to say cEV to mean "chip expected value," but I don't think it is too late to change that poor convention.)

When you have a big stack, and are thinking of making a stupid call just because you can, to try to knock someone out, you'll find a lot of company. Then again, over 90% of poker players lose, so maybe you should try to do something different. You are paying 100% of the price to try to knock a player out who is likely to bust out anyway, while you get a tiny fraction of the benefit. The main beneficiaries are the other short stacks. But, don't let the math stop you if you think it's more fun to try to knock people out with garbage than to make money.

[Whitefox]

I'm not talking about situations were you can knock out another player. I'm talking about a situation were if you fold the value of the stack you have left is smaller then the value of taking the call.

A friend of mine argued that he would take a little bit the worst of it if he a bet on the flop and someone put him all-in and he somehow KNEW that he had a little bit -EChips becouse the value(E$) of the small stack he would be left with is less then the value(E$) of taking the call.

I said that taking a -EChip can never be right, passing up on a small +EChip might be right but NEVER calling with -EChip.

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, if we had a choise like in a cashgame we would just leave and and not take the blind but we can't do that so taking the call with a little smaller -EChip would be better then taking the blind.

I have thought about this and I can't argue with that, I still don't belive you should take the worst of it EChip wise becouse playing a smallstack when you are a better player then your opponents is still better then taking the worst of it. But if he could prove that there are some extreme cases were it would be right to take the worst of it EChip wise there might be other cases to.

[PantsOnFire]

pzhon, what did you think of my post here? My goal too was to knock out short stacks but not necessarily by me or by costing me too much.

[jay_shark]

Whitefox , this happens often when you're stack is depleting . However , in a stsng , this is almost never the case . Usually when you have a shortstack , you will be vying for one of the money spots. This in turn creates a situation where you need a much stronger hand to make a call . In other words , even slightly +Cev calls become negative $ EV because of the bubble effect .

However , this is most likely to be the case when you're playing in a multi-table tournament where you stack is depleting and you're not even close to the money . Anytime you're closer to the money , it becomes even more true that a positive Cev call is really a negative $Ev call .

[Whitefox]

So what U are saying is that there is often situations in the early and middle stages in a MTT where you could make a small -EChip call because the small stack you will end up with if you fold have less $EV then the call has?

I find this hard to believe, but If we can prove that is the case with the one BB UTG case I would be more inclined to believe this.(would be hard to prove so I would hope someone would show me that taking the -EChips NEVER is the right thing so I can sleep well again =))

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
You are giving away chips. However, you are forcing the pot larger. BB will have trouble moving in with no fold equity. The other short stacks will have to call another bet for the pot odds. Now you have created a pot where the short stacks are going to be pot committed. There will be at least one or two and maybe three players eliminated.

I think this is an example of +$EV play since short stacks hanging around a final table can be dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have some patience. You can't be sure anyone will be knocked out even if all of their chips go in. If they are limping a lot, they will probably be eliminated rapidly anyway, so the marginal benefit is small. 2 BB can be worth a lot to you.

This type of play, raising for action between your opponents, is much more reasonable on the bubble of a SNG. Lori discussed this type of play in the STT forum years ago. 60% of the prize pool may be thought of as distributed for surviving the bubble (20+20+20), 20% for making it into the top 2 (10+10), and 20% for winning. That is much more warped than in MTTs, even at the final table. If this tactic is not clearly right on the bubble of a SNG (and the ICM often says 2 BB is far too much to pay), then it's not a good play at the final table of a tournamnent.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about situations were you can knock out another player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most people are including that possibility because knocking someone out is generally positive. If it's not right with this added bonus, then it isn't right without it.

[ 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, if we had a choise like in a cashgame we would just leave and and not take the blind but we can't do that so taking the call with a little smaller -EChip would be better then taking the blind.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's a good idea for an example, although playing a random hand all-in in the big blinds is a much smaller penalty than most people imagine. For example, if someone isolates you with a raise, then the small blind is dead money and you get paid 3:2, about the disadvantage of a random hand against A8 or KT.

What happens in these discussions is that people freak out at the thought of having a short stack, and suggest that you throw away your last chips instead of dealing with the situation. When you have a 1 BB stack in the big blind, you have an immediate disadvantage, but if you have a 1 BB stack on the button, this is very favorable as long as you remember that there is more to poker than folding equity. You often get to put your chips in as a slight favorite with a significant amount of dead money thrown in. Your last BB is disproportionately valuable.

In fact, since having a short stack is an advantage on the button, and it's not a huge disadvantage to have a 1 BB stack in the big blind, I don't think it would be right to make a -EChips call to avoid ending up all-in in the big blind. However, slight modifications may salvage this example. It might be worth it to avoid ending up with 4 BB in the big blind, where you will be pot-committed with garbage, and don't get nearly as much value from the dead money.

In a cash game, I believe taking the big blind all-in, and then reloading on the button, is better than leaving or reloading immediately.

In order to find a case where you go against the sublinear value of chips, you need to find something the ICM doesn't see (such as your position relative to the blinds), or else find a multiway pot where calling is slightly -EChip but has some positive effect such as tranferring chips from one player to another with the schooling effect. For example, if a short stack with x chips and a made hand goes in with x chips against a player with 3x chips who pushes, it might be right to make a slightly -EChips call if it is unfavorable to end up against two players with 2x chips. It would take some work to construct examples like this, but I think they should exist.