Is there any argument to be made for calling here?

[etgryphon]

What I understand the whole +chipEV and the -$EV is when you up against the decision where the pot is laying you the correct odds for most if not all your chips, but you are a dog to win it.

But it doesn't seem to make much sense that you can have a +chipEV but a -$EV I can only see it the other way around (i.e. -chipEV with a +$EV) It is an abstract concept over the short term because you can't reload in a tournament.

I haven't seen where we have really discussed whether making these moves over the duration of tournaments will be better than making the correct "tournament strategy" play.

-Gryph

[ChrisV]

As stripsqueez pointed out, half of SNG strategy rests on the idea of +CEV/-$EV plays. To take the simplest, standard example, suppose you have 5 chips on the button, the SB and BB are both allin for 250, and UTG calls. You have AA. Calling is clearly the chip EV play, but is insane in terms of $EV. It doesn't matter how many tourneys you run it over, calling will still be crazy.

Similarly, it doesn't matter how many tourneys you run it over, going allin on the first hand with a 50.1% chance of winning will still not be correct. Doubling your stack doesn't double your $EV. The Independent Chip Model for example, gives your $EV as percentage of the prize pool as 18.44% with 2000 chips (and, obviously, 10% with 1000 chips).

[etgryphon]

I'm sorry Chris...I'm a little slow...

Is it a poor $EV play because in the AA example we are not winning enough chips to make the chips get us a better chunk of the prize pool (i.e. the chips lose value as you get more of them...)? But, it is the correct move because we will amass more chips because on average we'll be ~60% favorite to win more chips which is the goal? If I'm being clear...

Also, do we consider folding to be a +chipEV move?

Thanks for explaining this...its a new concept.

-Gryph

[tallstack]

IMO, you are getting way too much of an overlay to fold here. Your cards are likely live and suited - they are just not that much of a dog to anything but monster hands. You may even be able to discount monster hands if you believe that your opponent would slow play them to increase his chance of doubling up. You cannot be busted if you lose, and if you bust the button you have a stack that you can work with HU. I also did some ICM and pot odds calcs and they are both in the 2.4:1 to 2.6:1 range. It is hard to imagine that any positional or skill effects can work enough against these odds to make this a fold.

Dave S

[rachelwxm]

From ICM
Folding 28
losing Allin 24.1
Win all in 37.3

There fore you need to only win 30% of time to justify the call.

The only thing hold back the call is that you might think you can steal back from the other short stack next hand. But now that you are equal stacked, I am not surprised that big stack is pushing with any two next hand. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I should add though, I think this is a super, super easy call even without invoking the above principle. SB rates to have a completely random hand


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, except that he doesn't. You are giving too much credit. He rates to have at least Q high.

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
$55 PP SnG. 3 left. I'm BB, blinds 250/500. Short button goes all-in for his 1300, it's 800 to call. I've got 1600 after posting. I've got J9s.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

A little more context: Button was way too tight, so I was almost certain I was facing Q high or better, and probably a lot better. Second, this tightness meant that I was taking his blinds very easily. Because of this, ICM and similar analyses are overvaluing a call and undervaluing a fold. This is because ICM has no concept of positional advantage and folding equity. It overvalues a small stack with no FE left, and undervalues my skill advantage in blind stealing.

These two factors made it close, but I called anyway. He showed KQ and I got no help, and went out on the next hand.

In retrospect, I think I fold and continue to take his blinds. Could go either way, though.

eastbay

[The Yugoslavian]

$EV is basically the value of the prize pool you can expect to win/lose due to your decision. CEV is the amount of chips you expect to win/lose due to your decision. There are many decisions in a 50/30/20 payout structure where a decision in +CEV but -$EV. Frankly, on the bubble, many decisions can be +CEV but -$EV. For instance, let's say the small stack has only 1BB worth of chips left. Going allin against a stack that has you covered is a horrible idea most of the time because you will stand to make 3rd place most of the time just by folding.

ICM tries to provide an objective comparison between CEV and $EV by estimating the value of your chips (many assumptions are made for the algorithm though) at any given point.

I know Eastbay was thinking about running short handed numbers to see if they jive with ICM (since many people doubt how useful it may or may not be). How is that project going Eastbay?

Anyway, you always want to make the best +$EV decision while you only sometimes want to make the best +CEV decision. The tricky part is that calculating CEV is relatively easy and accurate while calculating $EV is much harder.

[etgryphon]

Ok...

Is this the whole strategy of forgoing a good hand to put the small stack out of the SnG because you can be stealing chips and thus be making a +$EV moves on the other players?

or

Is the this the strategy of not going in three handed with a SS and the guy who has you covered and possibly losing and sending the SS ITM?

-Gryph

[Sidekick]

etgryphon I haven't seen a response to your question yet, so I will try and answer it as best I can.

In the example that ChrisV made, the reason that you want to fold in a +chip EV situation (even with a hand such as AA) is that by folding you are almost guaranteed to finish in the money by folding. The only situation where you don't is if both the other two short stacks manage to split the pot.

You are down to four players and the two other short stacks are all in. One of them is going to bust out in 95-99% of the hands. If you play the hand you can quadruple up your chips should you win, but you will still finish out of the money most times due to having such a short chip stack.

Also, in this extreme example you could wind up in second place easily by folding and sitting the hand out. That means that on one hand you go from most likely losing your buy-in to quite possibly taking 2nd place when you have 5 chips in front of you. This is a huge +$EV play.

Hope this helps.