[Aisthesis]

No, I didn't handle calling requirements for SB and BB differently, and that will definitely make a big difference when we're talking about such a small stack (hurting the all-in, since you no longer get a 100% win due to folding).

The reason I didn't do it was just because it looked to me like it would complicate things enormously, and I don't think it's going to make a huge difference once we get into the more relevant stack-sizes.

In the (hopefully rare) cases where you get down to 3 BB or less, I think the solution will still give some fairly accurate values. In that case, I think I probably would consider going all-in with A9s UTG, although the "solution" up to now seems to suggest that as long as there are no antes, it might be worth waiting out the round.

I think where the math becomes most interesting is in the (for me much more frequent) situations where you have something like 6-12 BB left in your stack. And in that case, the BB still has to call a bet of at least 5 BB. I guess that probably would allow him to call even as a 65-35 underdog, but in practice, I don't think most people will.

But obviously, some non-mathematical factors are going to come into play here: A big stack that won't be hurt by losing against your all-in is going to be much more likely to call, whereas a small stack who would go out if he called and lost is going to be very picky.

Anyhow, for the reasons mentioned, I'm hoping that it won't hurt the model severely if one just ignores the fact that SB and BB are going to have different calling criteria than the others at the table. Factoring that in does seem to me to make a big difference in the "complication level" because one would have to go through ALL the hands in which, for example, BB is less than a 2:1 underdog or whatever.