$235 6-man [censored] me with a chainsaw

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, we're taking about passing up a 0.87% edge against TT+,AQ. Back in the day, people used to set the minimum edge to 0.5% and not even consider taking less than that. I'm definitely not folding more than 1.0% away for pretty much any reason, but the stuff in between 0 and 1.0% should be up for debate because it's the amount that can be made up in future hands if the right conditions exist. I'm also not expecting to gain it all back at once. It will happen over a number of subsequent hands.

I'm not sure why my claim seems so outrageous. If I'm wrong, it's not by more than a few tenths and it wouldn't take much to make me right. It's not like I'm suggesting folding 54s or T3o.

[/ QUOTE ]

.87% is ridiculously huge IMO. I remember laughing at people who would advocate passing up clear .2% edges in my SNG days. There is absolutely no reason to expect to get a bigger edge in the future. While we probably won't have .87% against their calling range, it should be over .4 or .5 which is a monstrous edge. Not exactly sure how it translates over to 6 max...its possible there are some differences between what we really need, but I would be completely shocked if pushing wasn't correct. Even if pushing wasn't correct, it's almost a certainty that calling PF and betting any flop is better than folding.

Also the people who set the min edge to .5 and didnt consider taking less than that were raving lunatics. Those players had absolutely no idea what was going on in the math side of the game and had an unrealistic expectation of the edges that were possible. This is especially true now that the competition is much much tougher.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
slim, when you say that theres room for debate for any play <1%, is this factoring in the difficulty of game-change over the last couple of years? I ask because when i first started posting here people always mentioned min edges whereas today the common answers are not using any at this buy in. this would make me think that a +.87 edge is plenty good to take, generally speaking.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol at .87 edges. Dude if I saw something was a minimum of .15 edge I almost always took it. That's cutting it close, but talking about not taking a .3 edge at a freaking $200+ buyin is insane.

Isn't a .87 edge like $18 which is a very large winrate? So we can acheive a fantastic win rate in a single hand, and we even consider not doing so? It's really completely insane. I posted this type of stuff over and over 2 years ago and it seems like everyone has forgotten how huge a .3% edge is.

It's like $7 in a $215. That's like 50% of the winrate of probably the best player in the world nowadays in a single hand. These edges don't fall from trees otherwise everyone would have $50 ROIs in the $215s. Again, I dunno the translations to 6max but the discussion of whether an .87% edge is acceptable is really way off base.

[AMT]

i havent forgotten, i take such thin edges that theyre -EV!!! w00t! repreZent! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] (i was agreeing with you)

[DDBeast]

I've gotta agree with curtains here. If you're SB, this is as good as it gets. If you're making Suzzer fold JJ, you can't really exploit him any more than that. No way pushing < NE2 is optimal.

[tigerite]

I would probably call with the JJ here but a read would be nice, however I would definitely push any two from the SB, cmon people. Curtains is right as always on these matters, you simply can't pass up 0.2-0.3% never mind 0.87% if you want to be a winning player.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
I would probably call with the JJ here but a read would be nice, however I would definitely push any two from the SB, cmon people. Curtains is right as always on these matters, you simply can't pass up 0.2-0.3% never mind 0.87% if you want to be a winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's not go that far. I can think of at least one winning player who might pass it up. Also, this situation only occurs when the levels are about the increase significantly, which won't happen on all site/structures.

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]


a) if he's smart enough to know he is +$EV to be pushing any two, he's usually also smart enough to see an obvious bubble-crushing situation and thus fold the bottom end of his range to preserve the massively +$EV opportunities in later hands ...

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread should be added to an anthology post list thing, it amazes me how fast the bandwagon can fill up before someone points out that there are no wheels on the cart.

I've really started to wonder if folks are hitting reply to quickly or they are just playing some sort of meta game thang...

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


a) if he's smart enough to know he is +$EV to be pushing any two, he's usually also smart enough to see an obvious bubble-crushing situation and thus fold the bottom end of his range to preserve the massively +$EV opportunities in later hands ...

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread should be added to an anthology post list thing, it amazes me how fast the bandwagon can fill up before someone points out that there are no wheels on the cart.

I've really started to wonder if folks are hitting reply to quickly or they are just playing some sort of meta game thang...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's only relevant to very specific situations at the higher buy-ins. Try this in a $22 SNG and you're just wasting money. It's basically a "metagame" play, and those don't work against opponents who aren't thinking anyway. That being said, I don't see why it's so hard to imagine edges in the 0.5-1.0% range being created from blinds that are 4.2% and 8.3% of the prize pool in the 100/200/25 and 200/400/50 levels.

[eurythmech]

Button (t505)

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
Offhand it's probably a call but I dunno payout structure and crap. JJ performs extremely well against any 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do at least know that only top 2 get paid and this is the bubble?