(22) How can this call be -EV$?

[golfcchs]

200/400 Tourney Texas Hold'em Game Table (NL)
Table Table 67056 (Real Money) -- Seat 3 is the button
Total number of players : 4
Seat 1: TiltMaster00 (1835)
Seat 2: floridatop5 (1265)
Seat 3: transpo48 (1550)
Seat 6: Damage3000 (3350)
Damage3000 posts small blind (100)
TiltMaster00 posts big blind (200)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to TiltMaster00 [ As, Kd ]
floridatop5 folds.
transpo48 folds.
Damage3000 raises (3250) to 3350
Damage3000 is all-In.
TiltMaster00 calls (1635)


It looks like this is negative EV$ acourding to ICM. Really hard to believe this though.

You are up against the one guy that can bust you. Might as well fold and steal blinds from the other two short stacks. Coinflips are not the way to win tournaments.

[golfcchs]

I will not be against pairs very often so it will not a becoin flip. Also acording to ICM I should be folding jacks here.

[splashpot]

Dude, you must be putting the villian on one tight ass range when you do the ICM calcs. Seriously, if you were the villian, wouldn't you be pushing with a huge range?

[golfcchs]

even with 100% it is negative.

Seems to me there's no reason to take risks like this on the bubble.

Then again, I'd call too.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not be against pairs very often so it will not a becoin flip. Also acording to ICM I should be folding jacks here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will you please stop making unqualified statements like this which simply aren't true? Thanks.

eastbay

When you lose, your equity decreases 100%, when you win it only goes up 50%, you don't gain enough when you win to offset the possibility of losing, because there will still be three solid stacks remaing even if you double up.

On the flip side, SB has very little to lose pushing complete garbage, because you shouldn't be calling with anything but premium hands and he's far from crippled even if you call and win, while he's sitting pretty if he busts you (and gets the amusement of doing it with 72o as a side benefit).

[golfcchs]

Whats not ture? I am not attacking ICM I just thought this was an easy call and I think a lot of 2+2'ers would have made it.

[DeathbySuckout]

I would rather lay this down and try to out play the other two short stacks, than take a coin flip here.

[unreal_nh]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, if you were the villian, wouldn't you be pushing with a huge range?

[/ QUOTE ]

with 16BB's, no

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, if you were the villian, wouldn't you be pushing with a huge range?

[/ QUOTE ]

with 16BB's, no

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, you have 16, but everyone else has 8 or less... so it's just as if you had 8bb.

[unreal_nh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, if you were the villian, wouldn't you be pushing with a huge range?

[/ QUOTE ]

with 16BB's, no

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, you have 16, but everyone else has 8 or less... so it's just as if you had 8bb.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're pushing with a huge range??

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Whats not ture? I am not attacking ICM I just thought this was an easy call and I think a lot of 2+2'ers would have made it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's start with this one:

"acording to ICM I should be folding jacks here."

False, as in not true.

eastbay

[bigt439]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, if you were the villian, wouldn't you be pushing with a huge range?

[/ QUOTE ]

with 16BB's, no

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, you have 16, but everyone else has 8 or less... so it's just as if you had 8bb.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're pushing with a huge range??

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes... /images/graemlins/confused.gif. Often any two.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, if you were the villian, wouldn't you be pushing with a huge range?

[/ QUOTE ]

with 16BB's, no

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, you have 16, but everyone else has 8 or less... so it's just as if you had 8bb.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're pushing with a huge range??

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, definitely. It's the bubble, and i have 2x everyone else. And my effective stack is 8xBB. I'm pushing lots of cards.

[unreal_nh]

Thank you /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Let's start with this one:

"acording to ICM I should be folding jacks here."

False, as in not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say this, do you mean just that it's an incomplete statement to talk about what ICM says to do without specifying the other assumptions that are going into actually doing the calculation correctly?

[golfcchs]

Well SB had been very reasonible with his big stack. So if I put SB push range to 25% ICM says call with only QQ+.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let's start with this one:

"acording to ICM I should be folding jacks here."

False, as in not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say this, do you mean just that it's an incomplete statement to talk about what ICM says to do without specifying the other assumptions that are going into actually doing the calculation correctly?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's wrong in several ways.

First, ICM doesn't say anything other than what your equity is given chip stacks. ICM never says call, it never says fold, it never tells you to do anything. It gives you an equity.

Granted the usual SnGPT type analysis which uses ICM is what people often mean when they say "ICM says to do X." I can let that slide. I'm not taking issue with that here, although it would save a lot of confusion if people figured out the difference between ICM and an analysis which happens to use ICM as one component.

What I'm taking issue with here is the epidemic mistake of making unqualified statements about the results of SnGPT type analysis without discussing (or apparently even thinking about!) what is often the most important part of the whole thing: the hand range assumptions.

I see that here all the time. "I plugged this into SnGPT and it said push." Well, 95% of the time that's not true. Sometimes there's an unqualified push or call analysis, and if that's the case, it's better to say that it's an unexploitable push or call. I often follow up with something like "what kind of ranges are you assuming here" and response comes back "oh I just always use average since I don't have any reads." That's not good enough. Not by a longshot.

The analysis here certainly doesn't say fold except under specific conditions. So to say "it says fold" unqualified is false. It doesn't say that. It says fold under some conditions and call under others. It simply does not "say fold."

And finally, given the specifics of this particular hand, in my opinion, folding would only be a clear play given a pretty strong read on SB as a scared money tightwad.

eastbay

[golfcchs]

Thanks for clearing this up. I understand the ICM just gives you the equity and calling and folding is then based soley on the hand ranges you put you opponents on.

[ QUOTE ]
And finally, given the specifics of this particular hand, in my opinion, folding would only be a clear play given a pretty strong read on SB as a scared money tightwad.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this meant for the JJ statment of the AK?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for clearing this up. I understand the ICM just gives you the equity and calling and folding is then based soley on the hand ranges you put you opponents on.

[ QUOTE ]
And finally, given the specifics of this particular hand, in my opinion, folding would only be a clear play given a pretty strong read on SB as a scared money tightwad.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this meant for the JJ statment of the AK?

[/ QUOTE ]

JJ

eastbay

[ QUOTE ]
And finally, given the specifics of this particular hand, in my opinion, folding would only be a clear play given a pretty strong read on SB as a scared money tightwad.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, because it's a pretty thin call for a lot of ranges for villain. I think this is because of what I noted earlier, Hero's equity goes down 100% when he loses, but only increases by about 50% when he wins, so he needs to win about 2/3 of the time to make this +$EV. AKo is that big a favorite against any two, or even as much as about top 40%, but it's only barely that good against the whole "range of ranges" from 40% to 100%, making calling effectively break-even. Now, perhaps there's value in having the big stack and knowing what to do with it that argues for a call if villain's range is that big, but then there's the problem with the cases where it isn't.

If Villain is pushing top 30% we're down to -.4%, and it gets rapidly worse from there (the average default range is -3.2%). I don't feel like mucking around with an ICM calculator (and I'm hoping SNGPT adds equity changes for all players in a hand at some point), but I'd assume that one of the reasons Hero's equity goes from effectively break-even to massively negative is that calling here is actually transferring equity to the two players not in the hand, whereas folding is largely just giving a little more equity to the big stack.

What's even more interesting about this hand is I don't think there's any way in hell I fold AKo here normally, and given that assumption I really want to know if there's something I'm missing in the SNGPT analysis because this is both a potential leak, and a potential exploit (for those times when I'm the big stack and I've got a thinking player trapped in this situation).

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And finally, given the specifics of this particular hand, in my opinion, folding would only be a clear play given a pretty strong read on SB as a scared money tightwad.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

AKo is that big a favorite against any two

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's be clear. We are talking about JJ.

eastbay

Also, FWIW. According to SNGPT if Hero only calls with somewhere between top 12-13%, villain is correct to push with any two, and if villain is pushing any two, hero should only call with somewhere around top 3% (specifically, it recommends 88+, but AKs makes the +.5% cutoff, too if I check it manually, maybe a rounding issue?).

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't feel like mucking around with an ICM calculator (and I'm hoping SNGPT adds equity changes for all players in a hand at some point)

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

eastbay

[ QUOTE ]
AKo is that big a favorite against any two

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's be clear. We are talking about JJ.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. In the hand as originally posted, Hero holds AKo, though. Am I doing anything wrong in using SNGPT to conclude that calling with that is wrong here, or at best very very marginal?

Also, JJ is a fold (less than +.5%) until villain is pushing about 27%+. I'd guess he's pushing at least that if he's open pushing here. The breakeven point for jacks appears to be around any pair, any ace, any big K, FWIW.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AKo is that big a favorite against any two

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's be clear. We are talking about JJ.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. In the hand as originally posted, Hero holds AKo, though. Am I doing anything wrong in using SNGPT to conclude that calling with that is wrong here, or at best very very marginal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks marginal at best to me by the analysis. This "Can you really fold AK on the bubble" thing seems to come up about once a quarter and generate a lot of controversy.

Whiffing against a mid-pair enough times in this spot is enough to make a believer out of you. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

eastbay

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't feel like mucking around with an ICM calculator (and I'm hoping SNGPT adds equity changes for all players in a hand at some point)

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?



eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaning that plugging these numbers/assumptions into SNGPT we see the changes in equity for Hero based on folding/call-winning/call-losing, but not on the other players, but I could go plug pre-post and post-hand numbers for various outcomes into an ICM calculator to check.

I'm under the impression that there are cases where the equity gains/losses of a hand don't always accrue to the players involved in the hand (correct me if I'm wrong), and this seems like one of those cases. Clearly when Hero call's and loses his 24.8% pre-post equity isn't transferred entirely to villain, whose pre-post equity is 33.9%, so some of it must be going to the other players, right?

Of course, having spent all this time posting in this thread, I probably could have gone and done this by hand now, and I'd already have the answer. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
\Looks marginal at best to me by the analysis. This "Can you really fold AK on the bubble" thing seems to come up about once a quarter and generate a lot of controversy.

Whiffing against a mid-pair enough times in this spot is enough to make a believer out of you. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't been here a whole quarter yet, so I'm happy to be made a believer early. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[niin]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, you must be putting the villian on one tight ass range when you do the ICM calcs. Seriously, if you were the villian, wouldn't you be pushing with a huge range?

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried tight ranges, loose ranges, random ranges, everything, and I couldn't find a range of hands for villian to have to make this +EV. AK would have to beat the range of hands about 70% of the time for this to be +EV, if I did my ICM calcs right.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
Whiffing against a mid-pair enough times in this spot is enough to make a believer out of you. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Yessir, and winning with a pushed shitty pair against AK at the bubble as well. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

This is one of the things I need to remember (not calling AK at the bubble against a big stack, or more exactly: You need to have a very strong case if you call).

[HesseJam]

Sklansky: AK likes to go all-in but does not like to call an all-in.

There is also another meaning of AK:
AK = Anna Kournikova: Looks good but can't win.

[kevkev60614]

Devil's advocate: I think this is a call.

It appears that against most ranges ICM shows a amall loss of equity. But if you win, you're now the big stack. Which means when YOU open push, it's now incorrect for villains to call without a high pair (or AK, I guess I'm arguing).

[me1tdown]

[ QUOTE ]
Devil's advocate: I think this is a call.

It appears that against most ranges ICM shows a amall loss of equity. But if you win, you're now the big stack. Which means when YOU open push, it's now incorrect for villains to call without a high pair (or AK, I guess I'm arguing).

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like the Gigabet Theory of Stack sizes post:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post2610396 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=singletable&Number=261039 6&Searchpage=1&Main=2610396&Words=+Gigabet&topic=& Search=true#Post2610396)

Making -EV plays to get into a different stack range. The caveat being that I don't believe he was advocating calls that would bust you out.

[fluorescenthippo]

[ QUOTE ]
Devil's advocate: I think this is a call.

It appears that against most ranges ICM shows a amall loss of equity. But if you win, you're now the big stack. Which means when YOU open push, it's now incorrect for villains to call without a high pair (or AK, I guess I'm arguing).

[/ QUOTE ]

they are too stupid to fold AK or 66 correctly which means they call and it hurts you

[runner4life7]

I'm sick of this its less than +.5% so its a fold bull [censored]. Thats not what that means at all. It means its a marginal call not a fold. I play the 30s that means .5% is what like$1.50. If i play like you I'm missing lots of 1-1.5 moves and thats just stupid.

[downtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Whiffing against a mid-pair enough times in this spot is enough to make a believer out of you.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

It's amazing what a good teacher experience can sometimes be.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sick of this its less than +.5% so its a fold bull [censored]. Thats not what that means at all. It means its a marginal call not a fold. I play the 30s that means .5% is what like$1.50. If i play like you I'm missing lots of 1-1.5 moves and thats just stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the +.5% threshold is there because you want some margin of error for the hand ranges you're using and that's one simple way of creating one.

For this particular case, with AKo, it's not really an issue as there is no range you can legitimately put villain on (to be complete, if you know villain will only push with an unpaired ace this is +$EV) which does better than break even (+0$EV), and there are plenty of ranges you can use which are seriously negative.

[niin]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sick of this its less than +.5% so its a fold bull [censored]. Thats not what that means at all. It means its a marginal call not a fold. I play the 30s that means .5% is what like$1.50. If i play like you I'm missing lots of 1-1.5 moves and thats just stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reasonable range of hands that this is even +EV for, .5% or not. Every reasonable range I've looked at has been -EV; against any 2 cards it's very slightly -EV.

The only ranges that it's not are ranges that AK dominates, so any unpaired hand with an A or K in it, which is sort of a stupid range to put your opponent on.

If the blinds were 200/400 instead of 100/200 (the hand title appears wrong, they're really at 100/200 if you look at the SB's raise size) then if he pushes with any two, it's very slightly +EV to call.

You make the correct call. This is how I play also at the $20 game.