Re: Heads up Theory
Jman, I'm sorry, but I understand everything you're saying with 100% certainty, and I repeat that your logic is very very confused. It's not that you're advocating some advanced concpet, you are simply confusing some contradicting ideas and somehow arrive at the conclusion you want to arrive at.
You sound like a clever guy, so it's not about disrespecting your intelligence or anything, but I suspect you don't fully comprehend the meaning of the term "EV", and that's part of the reason you're using it in some very illogical manners (there are other reasons).
I'll try to address your last points, but in my exprience in such discussions (as I did had a few.....), I have a feeling you won't be convinced, which is fine, but it is still NOT a matter of opinion, or of misunderstanding you.
[ QUOTE ]
It is entirely not meaningless. The advantages I'm talking about have to do with chip stack disparities. If I have 6k chips vs. 4k chips, what matters is how many chips I have after this play is made. What does not matter is the fact that say, I lose 15 chips on average. What matters is that 70% of the time I gain X chips, 10% of the time I gain Y chips, and 20% of the time I lose Z chips.
What matters is the chip stack situation after the play, which will actually NEVER be 5985 vs. 4015. Therefore, the average chip equity is not the whole story, and what actually happens is not meaningless.
[/ QUOTE ]
You have a very confused idea of EV, that's all I can actually say. If you really think that there's a differece between what you'll have in "reality", and what you'll have on "avarage" according to some simple EV calcultion, you don't understand the concept of EV. It is difficult to discuss your "ideas" when the way you are talking about EV is so confused (BTW, you are making some similar fundamental mistakes in other posts on this thread, not only as a reply to my posts).
I'll move to the second part of your post, in which you deal with your last point (after I wrote: all you're actually saying, is nothing more than this: "It might be correct to make -CEV moves that increase your stack's size". well, Doh? If they increase your stack's size they are +CEV by definition.)
In reply you say:
[ QUOTE ]
No, that is not what I'm saying at all. I am not talking about +cEV moves. I am talking about moves that are -cEV. Remember from above that cEV is an average and is not the entire story.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you don't seem to understand what EV means. If you make a -CEV move, the result is BY DEFINTION a decrease in your stack size (this is when we are talking about specific EV for a move WITHOUT comparing it to other moves. A move can be -EV but still +EV in comparison to another one. Note that this is NOT what we're talking about).
Therefore, what you are saying is essentially nonsense.
[ QUOTE ]
I am talking about moves that on average lose chips, but the majority of the time gain a small amount of chips. Therefore, the majority of the time, they lead to the advantages I'm talking about.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I really hate to repeat it, but you don't understand the meaning of EV.
[ QUOTE ]
I can't see how you don't understand this. Clearly you must agree that in the 'strange' Lawanda case, it is correct to make a -cEV push. What?!? How? A -cEV move that is good for you? This is the same exact concept that you apparently can't grasp.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lawanda's example, as presented, is confused, for the reasons already mentioned. And still, it's very far from being a good example for what you're trying to say, because in that case, you might make a -EV move that will cause your opponent to make some clear and bigger -EV mistakes down the road the big majority of the time. So what you're actually doing is RISKING giving her chips (i.e, sacrificing chips), for this purpose. Saying that you are decreasing her stack is confused thinking.
[ QUOTE ]
As strange as the case is, it explains how it is possible to make a push that is -cEV but still correct, and NOT +cEV.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not arguing with the idea that a -CEV push might be correct in some very specific circumstances, HOWEVER, claiming that you are actually WIDENING the gap between the stacks by doing so (as the big stack), is completely absurd.
|