A further explanation of my red zone theory

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are taking 50/50 games to stay at a 11bb stack you must have a 5bb stack if you gamble with a 11bb stack you have a 23 bb stack or bust with 23 you can do so much in spots where cards don't matter while with 11bb cards matter a lot more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this four times and I have no idea what he said.

Betgo as others said you really need to give an example of folding a +cEV shove with 12bb along with a justification that shows where you make up the EV later.

Without that, all you're saying is that there are fewer +EV shoves w/ 12bb than w/ 8bb, and that you're ok with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not folding a significantly cEV+ shove with 12xBB. It is just that there are not that many cEV+ open shoves with 12xBB. In fact, I may miniraise with 12xBB and let people guess if I have a big hand or a marginal hand.

With 12xBB, I am looking more to reraise than open raise.

A lot of the point of my post is that there are not a lot of good situations to open push 10-12xBB. Of course if it is folded to me in BTN or SB, I usually push with that stack size.

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
You're math is flawed

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not.


Yes, you are in a +EV situation when you hold KQs on the button. But it isn't hugely +EV if both you and your opponents are playing well. So betgo is suggesting to avoid "small +EV" spots. If you define "small +EV spots" as anything with a +EV less than say +.5 BB on average than you are actually folding a ton more than you'd realize. Because standard super easy steals with good cards don't have nearly the +EV that you would expect...you average much less than stealing the pot in the long run.

And if you fold all those hands less than your "small edge threshold" your calculation about what is +EV becomes tainted because now you can't count on action from marginal hands that would insta call a player that pushes anything that is just a shade better than +0 EV (or hell -1 BB EV)

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're math is flawed

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not.


Yes, you are in a +EV situation when you hold KQs on the button. But it isn't hugely +EV if both you and your opponents are playing well. So betgo is suggesting to avoid "small +EV" spots. If you define "small +EV spots" as anything with a +EV less than say +.5 BB on average than you are actually folding a ton more than you'd realize. Because standard super easy steals with good cards don't have nearly the +EV that you would expect...you average much less than stealing the pot in the long run.

And if you fold all those hands less than your "small edge threshold" your calculation about what is +EV becomes tainted because now you can't count on action from marginal hands that would insta call a player that pushes anything that is just a shade better than +0 EV (or hell -1 BB EV)

[/ QUOTE ]
Say I am pushing KQs on the button with 9xBB M of 4.5. Say I get called by top 20% hands. Let us ignore the times both opponents have top 20% hands, and say I get called 40% of the time.

Then the 60% of the time I steal, I pick up 2xBB. When I get called, I am 51.4% to win. The average total pot assuming both opponents have me covered is 19.2xBB. So my average gain if called is .87xBB. .6 * 2 + .4 *.87 = +1.55 xBB, which I do not consider a small gain.

You could run this with some automated tool, and it would give you a similar answer.

Now if I push KQs UTG 9-handed for 9xBB, it is about even. Pushing this hand UTG for 12xBB is cEV-, but pushing it UTG for 6xBB is very cEV+.

[kleath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're math is flawed

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not.


Yes, you are in a +EV situation when you hold KQs on the button. But it isn't hugely +EV if both you and your opponents are playing well. So betgo is suggesting to avoid "small +EV" spots. If you define "small +EV spots" as anything with a +EV less than say +.5 BB on average than you are actually folding a ton more than you'd realize. Because standard super easy steals with good cards don't have nearly the +EV that you would expect...you average much less than stealing the pot in the long run.

And if you fold all those hands less than your "small edge threshold" your calculation about what is +EV becomes tainted because now you can't count on action from marginal hands that would insta call a player that pushes anything that is just a shade better than +0 EV (or hell -1 BB EV)

[/ QUOTE ]
Say I am pushing KQs on the button with 9xBB M of 4.5. Say I get called by top 20% hands. Let us ignore the times both opponents have top 20% hands, and say I get called 40% of the time.

Then the 60% of the time I steal, I pick up 2xBB. When I get called, I am 51.4% to win. The average total pot assuming both opponents have me covered is 19.2xBB. So my average gain if called is .87xBB. .6 * 2 + .4 *.87 = +1.55 xBB, which I do not consider a small gain.

You could run this with some automated tool, and it would give you a similar answer.

Now if I push KQs UTG 9-handed for 9xBB, it is about even. Pushing this hand UTG for 12xBB is cEV-, but pushing it UTG for 6xBB is very cEV+.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that example with calling ranges of 20% You're getting called 36% of the time not 40%.

Also Jon you are quite wrong in saying KQs is a close shove in that spot, with large antes shoving is a HUUUGE edge. You're simulations as you say are flawed, there is no way for it to be close when KQs is ahead of their calling ranges.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]

In that example with calling ranges of 20% You're getting called 36% of the time not 40%.

Also Jon you are quite wrong in saying KQs is a close shove in that spot, with large antes shoving is a HUUUGE edge. You're simulations as you say are flawed, there is no way for it to be close when KQs is ahead of their calling ranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said this was a simplifying assumption. We would also have to look at where they both had calling hands and sometimes both called or one raised out the other. It doesn't effect the figures that much. Pushing KQs on the button is significantly cEV+ when you are called.

The premise for the discussion was a small ante like on Stars so that there is 2xBB blinds and antes.

I got +1.55 xBB for pushing KQs on the button with 9xBB. With a larger ante, it is a bigger expected win.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if I push KQs UTG 9-handed for 9xBB, it is about even. Pushing this hand UTG for 12xBB is cEV-, but pushing it UTG for 6xBB is very cEV+.

[/ QUOTE ]
See, I'll just go ahead and push it in with the 12xBB stack anyway, since to me I have a good hand and even though it might be technically -cEV because I'm putting a bigger stack at risk, the reward for doubling up if I get called is much more significant-- I'll have something like 26xBB which is a very useful stack size and gives me room to pick up pots in other ways and not have to shove my stack in for a while.

One thing to remember about pushing earlier that I point out to other people: If you get all in twice as a 60/40 favorite, you're only 36% to survive. If you push earlier in a spot where, say, you're 45% to win if called, a win will give you enough chips that you don't have to make that second push. So pushing slightly earlier as a slightly bigger underdog can actually increase your chances of survival long-term, dig?

[jon_1van]

betgo and kleath,

You both completely missed the point.

I picked an arbitrary example where a steal is SUPER-AUTOMATIC. We all agree that the EV of that spot is somewhere around 1.75 BB depending on antes and calling ranges.


But let that 1.75BB be the cap on your +EV steals (see below). If this is damn near the best you have in your EV portfilio you have severly limited your ability to find higly rewarding spots, because they require deeper stacks.


(Obviously 1.75 BB won't be a hard cap because you will sometimes have TT+, but even then you'll only get action ~35% so your EV won't even get much past +5.75BB)

[kleath]

[ QUOTE ]
betgo and kleath,

You both completely missed the point.

I picked an arbitrary example where a steal is SUPER-AUTOMATIC. We all agree that the EV of that spot is somewhere around 1.75 BB depending on antes and calling ranges.


But let that 1.75BB be the cap on your +EV steals (see below). If this is damn near the best you have in your EV portfilio you have severly limited your ability to find higly rewarding spots, because they require deeper stacks.


(Obviously 1.75 BB won't be a hard cap because you will sometimes have TT+, but even then you'll only get action ~35% so your EV won't even get much past +5.75BB)

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like you think that is a small number? That is pretty huge amount of equity.

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like you think that is a small number

[/ QUOTE ]

Which number?


You are correct though, I don't think either number is a great cap to put our expected winnings.5 or 6 BB is roughly a C-bet. I'd like to think that I can find some situation where I could average more than a C-bets worth of profit.

[Bonified]

This thread contains far too much worrying about what your stack is going to be and what might happen in future. Make best cEV decision on this hand. Repeat. Profit.