[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I felt like it was, and then did some math that strengthened that opinion.

I hear what you're saying, and it's similar to the situations you and I have talked about in which a successful loose steal opens the door to a larger number of even greater +EV situations. However we've yet to come to a reasonable conclusion on that, and anyway we should start with analyzing the EV of pushing this particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Future situations should always have a bearing on the present. If this is -EV, then I dont see how you are going to get a better spot enough of the time to find a +EV.

Its sort of akin to Betgo's argument that we should wait for the blinds to hit us because then EVERY decision will be +EV. There is something you are not taking into account in the math because I don't buy it. But nice work nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what is not being taken into account in the math is the true value of your tournament equity if you fold this hand. ICM does not account for the fact that your stack is crippled. With virtually no potential future FE your stack is not really worth what ICM says it is. You have a small, but real, amount of FE here. If you pass it up it is gone.

I think when the blinds are still relatively low for the rest of the table, but your stack is so small that you have no fold equity you really have less tournament equity than ICM calculates.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I dont think thats it. The calling ranges you put your opponents on is basically a function of what you consider your FE to be. After converting those chips to $ (ICM) you have two equities amounts. The FE is factored in there.