[PrayingMantis]

Brad,

Yes, you are right of course that $EV and CEV can be 2 very different entities, and in my last post I got a bit carried away comparing them. Sure it's possible to make a -CEV move, that is +$EV, especially around the bubble. I was wrong when I stated that making consistently -CEV moves is by definition a mistake, since I wasn't refering to the $EV.

Regarding calculating $EV of specific moves: this is tough and vague, but doable. There was a thread here, a few months ago, with participation of eastbay and Bozeman, in which different approaches to calculate $EV were discussed. This $EV value of any move in a tournament was also discussed.

About your new thoughts that you mention: they are very interesting, and I must say that this is exactly where I'm going with my thinking about this subject, especially after reading and thinking about the replies in this thread.

To summerize some of my thoughts:

(On the bubble, equal stacks) If you're pushing against an opponent, who will call as a slight-medium dog (i.e: loose but not SO loose caller), you should definitely tighten-up your raising criteria, since his call will reduce yours and his $EV, and increase the two other player's $EV. This is, of course, a different perspective on the "gap" concept: If you take in $EV, you should normally need a much better hand to raise than to call, since almost ANY showdown will help the other two players more than the 2 involved in the showdown. And by that logic, if your pushing against a player who does not understand that, you are making a $EV mistake (and actually, if this player is sitting at your immidiate left, you have a rather problematic position, in regard to stealing, so you *might* need to adjust your calling strategy).

Some of what I'm saying here is pretty obvious, but it can have some very important implications on different bubble strategies.

For instance, we can try and think about different approaches (loose/tight, passive/aggressive) to deal with different mixtures of players, divided into 4 rough and extreme types:

1) almost always folds (weak-tight, almost never pushes or calls all-in)
2) Sometimes pushes, but never calls (a smart LAG, 2+2 type?)
3) sometimes calls, but almost never pushes (loose-passive?)
4) sometimes pushes and sometimes calls (loose in general)

1,2 and 4 are more common than 3, but I see all these behaviours on the bubble. 1 is, of course, the type of player you'd always want to have around you...

It is also extremely important to see what is your position in relation to these players (for example, you'd better have 1 or 2 at your immidiate left, than 3 or 4) in order to decide what is the best strategy.

Certain decisions in a strategy will have to be taken in regard to making calls, as x:y favorite, against specific opponent. If we'd have a more clear understanding of what is our advanage against any relevant field, including our position, I think we'll have a better chance to solve these "calling criteria" problems.

So there's still a lot of work...