Re: (22) How can this call be -EV$?
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

with 16BB's, no

Re: (22) How can this call be -EV$?
 

[ 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.

Re: (22) How can this call be -EV$?
 

[ 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??

Re: (22) How can this call be -EV$?
 

[ 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

Re: (22) How can this call be -EV$?
 

[ 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... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]. Often any two.

Re: (22) How can this call be -EV$?
 

[ 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.

Re: (22) How can this call be -EV$?
 

Thank you [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: (22) How can this call be -EV$?
 

[ 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?

Re: (22) How can this call be -EV$?
 

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+.

Re: (22) How can this call be -EV$?
 

[ 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