Is there any argument to be made for calling here?

[eastbay]

$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

[Jman28]

I'd plug it in the ICM calc against a range of hands if I wasn't playing right now.

Obviously this is somewhat player dependent a little bit.

I'd bet that in most cases it's -$EV, but not by that much.


-Jman28

[stripsqueez]

i dont think its much about EV

if you fold then the other guy becomes a favourite for second - your chances of winning start to become remote

if you call and win you come at least second and you are only a small underdog for first - if you call and lose your desperate but a decent distance from dead in the fight for second

these sorts of decisions remind me of classical positions in games such as bridge and chess - assets have a shelf life and recognising the optimal time to spend an asset is the skill

i think its close - at the table i think i would fold if i pegged the other guy as being too tight which is a common state in this game at this time (this also works because i might be given the chance to steal the BB next hand) - against many players your some chance to be in front pre-flop and J9s is not going to a big dog to many hands

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[texasrattlers]

Wow. This is a really close one. I like to have chips to play with, so I probably fold and then push against shorty next hand if you get the chance. Calling may be the better play but I don't have the guts nor the smarts to make the call.

[texasrattlers]

[ QUOTE ]
these sorts of decisions remind me of classical positions in games such as bridge and chess - assets have a shelf life and recognising the optimal time to spend an asset is the skill

[/ QUOTE ]

I've played chess but not bridge. What the heck does this mean?

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
I've played chess but not bridge. What the heck does this mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont play chess (i do take an interest in and have some understanding of chess theory) so i couldnt give you a chess example

as for bridge the idea is best demonstrated by declarer play problems - in a broad sense a declarer starts with and accumulates assets - in bridge those assets are things like high card strength, entries, threats, and information - how and when to spend those assets seperates good from bad - sometimes they must be spent as soon as they are obtained because they will otherwise lose all or some value - sometimes they will gain value over time and are spent optimally by waiting - if you played bridge at a good standard i could give you examples

perhaps an easier way to make the point is by a straight forward examination of your chances of finishing first second or third in the tournament given the various scenarios - that is a more mainstream way of considering the problem

i cant be arsed going through all the scenarios and in practice you cant do that at the table - if you call the push and win the result is huge - if you call the push and lose your chances are severly damaged - contrast those scenarios with the position your in if you fold to the push - in which scenario do you make more money ?

the chips are your assets - are those assets optimally spent now or is their value higher by waiting ? - same question expressed differently

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[ChrisV]

This talk of chess and bridge is a distraction. I know the bridge analogies stripsqueez is trying to make but there is no good analogy I can think of in chess.

I think stripsqueez is talking a bit abstractly about a point that can be made more simply. There are situations where you should make a play that is negative chip EV because it's positive $EV. These situations occur when you would rather have a shot at a big stack than be assured of a small stack, even if your average chip amount goes down by trying for the big stack. Commonly this occurs when the person stealing from you has a similar stack size and is your major rival. The steal therefore hurts you doubly, making a successful steal very damaging to your $EV. For example, if you have a stack of 700, post up 200 in blind, and are put all in. Even though you may not have pot odds to call, you might choose to call anyway if you think that your remaining stack of 500, posting 100 in SB, has almost no chance of getting you extra cash versus your rejuvenated opponent, whereas your winning stack of 1400 will crush your crippled opponent.

Another way of expressing it, and the way stripsqueez chose, is to say that your 500 remaining chips have higher value this hand than they will in subsequent hands. I think that's a bit of an abstract way of putting it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ChrisV]

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 - I know I'll be pushing with any two as long as there's guys considering folding J9s. J9s vs a random hand is 55%, which hands you a whopping +630 in chip EV.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
There are situations where you should make a play that is negative chip EV because it's positive $EV

[/ QUOTE ]

you mean like all the time ? - i make negative chip EV decisions early in a tourney by refusing to take marginally positive chip positions - i make negative chip EV decisions late by taking marginally negative chip positions

your right that my explanation is a bit abstract (and i think your explanation is as usual accurate and well expressed) but i have issues with tournament theory - given that we agree that chip EV isnt a good judge of what to do why is it common for analysis to even refer to chip EV ? - could it be that this is simply a comfort zone of certainty that flows from accepted ring game theory ?

whilst i'm venting abstractly - what does the term "$EV" mean ? - i mean i know what it means - it means is it a good decision or is it a bad decision - i reckon the whole poker world has gone EV crazy

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[ChrisV]

Well sure, FOLDS which are -CEV/+$EV come up a lot. Less common are situations where you CALL at -CEV.

Chip EV is used as a tool because its an easily calculated, standard starting point for discussion of the hand. You then apply whatever modifications are necessary. Much like point count at bridge [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. In my post above where I said that call is +630 chips, for example, I didn't think it necessary to go any further because the size of the chip EV I think precludes any more discussion. It's pretty rare that you decline a betting opportunity when the expected return is almost double what you're putting in.

$EV is just shorthand for "play which wins you money" or "play which loses you money", distinguishing that from chip EV - what terminology would you prefer us to use? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]