MTT 101 question...good definitions of cEV & $EV please

[ssnyc]

Someone please put out a clear definition of cEV & $EV...

[Crash0veride]

Expected Value – the expected profit or loss associated with a decision.

$Ev...expected value in dollars.
cEV...expected value in chips.

[ssnyc]

[ QUOTE ]

Expected Value – the expected profit or loss associated with a decision.

$Ev...expected value in dollars.
cEV...expected value in chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

so $Ev...expected value in dollars is the macro version? How much actual money you stand to make from a tournament perspective rather than the hand itself?

[Chipchucker5]

Here's a link from the FAQ in the STT forum that gives an example of calculating $EV http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...te_id/1#import

[Crash0veride]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Expected Value – the expected profit or loss associated with a decision.

$Ev...expected value in dollars.
cEV...expected value in chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

so $Ev...expected value in dollars is the macro version? How much actual money you stand to make from a tournament perspective rather than the hand itself?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it works both ways but in tournament play, $EV in tournaments lie in your equity in the whole tournament but making +EV play consistently throughout the tournament in creases your expected value and therefore also your equity.

[Stumpy]

SSync,

$EV is still looking at the hand itself, but it's looking at how much $ your stack is worth in the tournament, rather than just how many chips are in your stack.

For example, calling an all in, you calculate how many chips you'll have if you win/lose, and how often each happen.
Then cEV = (Win Chips)*(Win %) - (Lose Chips)*(Lose %).

For $EV, translate your chip stack after you win or lose to $ amounts, and calculate that weighted average.

It's not always easy to do, and you almost always have to make some estimates. For the most part, the two don't diverge enough to be dangerous, and when they do it's pretty obvious.

Sats are the super obvious case, because at some point having more chips is completely worthless.

Marginal calls on the bubble for all your chips are the most likely place the two diverge. Marginal pushes may diverge as well, but the average player you're against gets tight on the bubble, which kind of tips it back in your favor.

[ssnyc]

[ QUOTE ]
SSync,

$EV is still looking at the hand itself, but it's looking at how much $ your stack is worth in the tournament, rather than just how many chips are in your stack.

For example, calling an all in, you calculate how many chips you'll have if you win/lose, and how often each happen.
Then cEV = (Win Chips)*(Win %) - (Lose Chips)*(Lose %).

For $EV, translate your chip stack after you win or lose to $ amounts, and calculate that weighted average.

It's not always easy to do, and you almost always have to make some estimates. For the most part, the two don't diverge enough to be dangerous, and when they do it's pretty obvious.

Sats are the super obvious case, because at some point having more chips is completely worthless.

Marginal calls on the bubble for all your chips are the most likely place the two diverge. Marginal pushes may diverge as well, but the average player you're against gets tight on the bubble, which kind of tips it back in your favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

stumpy...

gracias...well put...I don't play enough sats but have watched them enough to see that such calculations are far more crucial than your actual cards...I think I need to review my bubble play in non sats as I usually will not shy away from battles. Usually rather play strong and if I get knocked out shy of $ I don't mind if potential reward is there...