When does EV apply? When does it not?

[RobTheCrook]

I was thinking about this the other day when I saw Hevad Khan's post-bust interview with Pokernews or maybe Pokerwire I'm not sure.

For a large volume SNG player like myself, EV is obviously a huge factor in my game. I'm always trying to exploit small edges.

Anyway, Khan claims that the move he made that led to him busting was +EV and will make him money in the long run. However, EV is the profit you expect to make in the long run if you were able to make a play over and over again. Since his chances of making the WSOPME FT again are slim to none, can you ever factor EV into your decision if you're him?

***Situation summed up***
You will never be at a final table again where the payouts are this massive and the jumps between them are this wide. You have a decent chipstack in front of you with a good enough M to play patient. Do you still try to exploit small edges? Or do you avoid taking any big risks?

Thoughts?

[br.bm]

It's always right to take the most +EV course in any action. Even if this action occours only once. Provided you have enough money to handle the losses.

In a tourney I'd prefere low variance actions while I have a large stack (M). The lower the variance the lower your swings and the better your chances to make a big score.
Also, the tourney guys think in $EV and Chip EV. $EV is more important than cEV obv.

[RustyBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
It's always right to take the most +EV course in any action. Even if this action occours only once. Provided you have enough money to handle the losses.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this, and I think most gambling experts would not either. In Theory of Poker (as well as other books of his, like Sklansky on Poker), Sklansky talks about reasons not to take +ev bets. These include

* Losing this bet would preclude you from making a more +ev bet later
* The average expected EV is not great enough for you to risk ruin (why doesn't every gambler play at the highest stakes game where he is +ev? Because this would have unacceptable ROR)
* There are others I don't remember.

This example falls into the first category... taking a slightly +ev situation late in a tournament might prevent you from making a wildly +ev bet in the near future.

But really this is what ICM is for, determining whether a move is worth it in terms of real $, not tournament chips.

[RustyBrooks]

I should amend this to say... in general it is not wrong to take a +ev bet. But it might be *better* not to.

[RobTheCrook]

[ QUOTE ]
I should amend this to say... in general it is not wrong to take a +ev bet. But it might be *better* not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is basically what I was thinking.

My main problem with his reasoning is that he's most likely never going to be playing for this much money again, and folding several small edges might land him ~$1,000,000 richer if other players bust before him.

Some will argue that since he exploits those smaller edges he gives himself a better chance at first place prize money, and that's a very valid point of view.

However I think a situation like this brings up some tricky problems. Exploiting those small edges in $100r on Stars might land you an extra $10k in a single tournament, but passing them up in the ME may get you 100x that much.

[fuzz66]

sklansky covers this in "tournament poker for advanced players"

[fuzz66]

another factor to consider in these situations is your skill level compared to the other players. sklansky advocates the better the player(comparitivly) the less you want to gamble, where a less skilled player should take more chances.

[MasterLJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I should amend this to say... in general it is not wrong to take a +ev bet. But it might be *better* not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

+EV measures the most profit you can make given the current scenario. <u>THAT CAN BE NEGATIVE!!!</u>.

In certain situations the most profit you can make is still the least negative.

+EV and +profit are two different things.


Say you have XY soooted + one over card

Flop: 2 of your suit

$200 stacks, $10 pot.

Villain checks, you bet $7, villain makes it $23, you make it $70, villain shoves.

You have to call $172 to win a $282 pot... you're getting 1.64 to 1 and should call. Calling is the most EV play (as it is better than folding), but this situation isn't the best way to win profit.

Related to poker, EV generally answers the question of, "do I make more money if I call, or if I fold?"

It doesn't answer the question of which line yields the most amount of money.

[_D&L_]

Hi rob, what you're thinking of is risk aversion.

Generally poker players should avoid situations where they would have risk aversion. E.g. you shouldn't be playing with your rent money, because u really can't afford to lose - and therefore cannot play proper.

Making the final table of WSOP or something of that sorts might be a once in a career chance. If that is the case, then risk aversion here cannot really be helped. Such a player migh prefer to lock-in a reasonable payout, rather than putting themselves in a better position to win it all - at the risk of losing everything.

For instance, I'll give you two bets you could take.

Bet 1 gives you a 60% chance of making $10 million dollars, and a 40% chance you make nothing.

Bet 2 gives you $5 million with 100% certainty.

You can only choose to take one bet, and you have no expectation of receiving future opportunities of this caliber. Which bet do you choose?

The average payout of bet 1 is 6 million, though I think the vast majority of us would choose bet 2 and lock-in the 5 million.

----_Dirty&amp;Litigious_----

[linuxrocks]

I think RainKhan should not have taken that small +EV move. It's very very marginal considering the other guys range. Another thing to consider is the tournament blind structure. The blinds were increasing very slowly, but yet people were going crazy with all-in bets.