[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing he probably means $ EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by $EV?

There's actual $EV and there's $EV as estimated by some model.

If he means actual $EV then it's nonsense by definition, and I think a disturbing number of people seem confused about this.

If some chip position gives you some strategic advantages, that's already accounted for in your actual $EV. 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.

Then there's $EV as estimated by some model, and the usual fave is ICM. I think talking about "passing on $EV to gain $EV later" in this sense isn't necessarily nonsense, but it's kind of a backwards approach to how you should think about $EV. You should be trying to figure out what factors give an actual $EV that differ from $EV_icm, and talk about what your actual $EV is, rather than saying "you should give up $EV_icm here."

[ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure I know what you're getting at, and it's something that I've noticed before. We really need different language to clarify whether we are talking about the EV of a given move or a given situation. The EV of a situation is going to be the EV of the optimal move in that situation. Passing on one +EV move in a given situation does not mean that we are making a play with lower +EV, necessarily.

Thus, there may be circumstances where every move that can be made is + EV, but one is the most + EV. In particular, to paraphrase ilya, there may be situations where one passes on a +EV opportunity to put your chips in the middle because the $ EV gained by folding and allowing the situation to play out in a different manner might be higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point as well and another thing that people often talk about in a confused way.

eastbay