Re: Spark Notes on Gigabet\'s Post
 

Your whole post is contingent upon
[ QUOTE ]
You put down your whole bankroll of $200.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have to come up with an extreme example to make the point, it's not a very strong or valid point. I understand the idea of passing an edge for a greater one later on, but it doesn't apply to SNGs very well for the reason I gave earlier.

That example doesn't fit an SNG situation at all. No good player is laying his roll on the line on one game. And you've got plenty of chips to work with, so there's no need to take an edge. We're talking about situations where the blinds will eat you up soon, so there's no reason to pass a +EV edge.

The idea that Jonathon presented earlier is a very important part of gambling theory, but I believe the structure of late game Party tourneys renders it almost irrelevant.

Re: Spark Notes on Gigabet\'s Post
 

[ QUOTE ]


The idea that Jonathon presented earlier is a very important part of gambling theory, but I believe the structure of late game Party tourneys renders it almost irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder about this? Of course, the counterexample that I
provided via Sklansky/Malmouth is extreme.....that's why its
a counterexample [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But I think the idea of passing up +ev
situations may occur more often then we think, even in the
short span of a sit and go. I can't think of any good ones
off the top my head right now, but I'll think about it.

Suerte,
Jonathan

Re: Spark Notes on Gigabet\'s Post
 

i.e. passing up QQ vs AK flipped up because you know you can get all the money in versus your opponent in the future with better odds.

Re: Spark Notes on Gigabet\'s Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's complete nonsense to say you'd pass on some $EV now for more $EV later. You'd never pass on $EV, ever, because it would be throwing money away, by definition.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct. Counterexample: You have $100 and
Joe offers you $200 to $100 on the flip of a coin. But you
know that tomorrow, Bill will offer $500 for the same gamble,
and if you lose the $100 today, you won't be able to make
tomorrow's bet. You should pass up todays +ev bet for the
better bet tomorrow.

Sklansky has discussion of this in his Tournament Poker for Advanced
Players. But I'm sure you've read this, so your statement
surprises me.

Suerte,
Jonathan

[/ QUOTE ]

If you make that bet with Joe you are throwing money away therefore its -$EV compared to passing the bet. This is not a counterexample to eastbays statement in anyway.

Re: Spark Notes on Gigabet\'s Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's complete nonsense to say you'd pass on some $EV now for more $EV later. You'd never pass on $EV, ever, because it would be throwing money away, by definition.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct. Counterexample: You have $100 and
Joe offers you $200 to $100 on the flip of a coin. But you
know that tomorrow, Bill will offer $500 for the same gamble,
and if you lose the $100 today, you won't be able to make
tomorrow's bet. You should pass up todays +ev bet for the
better bet tomorrow.

Sklansky has discussion of this in his Tournament Poker for Advanced
Players. But I'm sure you've read this, so your statement
surprises me.

Suerte,
Jonathan

[/ QUOTE ]

All you've done here is offered a new game consisting of a sequence of bets, and then are claiming that a $EV for the first game does not apply to this new, different game. That shouldn't be too surprising.

This doesn't contradict what I said at all, you've just demonstrated one of an infinite number of ways to misapply the concept.

The metagame of being offered the two games in sequence has it's own $EV. You have to apply $EV to the correct game for it to be meaningful.

In any case, I believe the TPFAP examples are chip EV in the first place. I found the book almost laughably elementary so I don't own a copy to check.

Returning to the topic at hand, the effect you're describing of getting better bets later in the tournament is already accounted for in $EV. Your example does not illustrate anything relevant, and it certainly doesn't refute my claim. What you have to understand is that $EV is defined in such a way that my statement can't be anything but entirely correct.

eastbay

Re: Spark Notes on Gigabet\'s Post
 

I've been really thinking about Giga's post as well recently. At first I was a bit sceptical about how I could use this in my game, but then I realized it was a pretty obvious extention of something people do all the time.

People make -cEV pushes all the time, pushes that are -$EV under the standard models, but are +$EV in the real world. Sure maybe its becasue its the better of 2 bad alternatives, but anytime people are pushing "any two" it is usually a -EV play. If we can make -EV pushes as a shortstack, why is it so hard to believe that -EV calls (by ICM or whatever) might be worth making on occasion. The trick is identifying those opportunities to gamble.

Re: Spark Notes on Gigabet\'s Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
but anytime people are pushing "any two" it is usually a -EV play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Most of my pushes are because there's enough equity in the pot and enough times my opponents will freely give it to me, that on average I'm increasing my equity.

[ QUOTE ]
If we can make -EV pushes as a shortstack, why is it so hard to believe that -EV calls (by ICM or whatever) might be worth making on occasion. The trick is identifying those opportunities to gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Well it's obvious when the next big blind is going to kill your FE and equtiy in general when you're UTG, so you need to make some type of move. It's not so obvious when chip counts are like the situations Gigabet was in. For better or for worse, Gigabet has decided not to elaborate.

But also note he's not the only one who does this. Top pro's like Daniel Negreanu have commented that they will take the worst of it for a shot in a pot that has a lot of "power".