Is there any argument to be made for calling here?

[ChrisV]

Well sure, FOLDS which are -CEV/+$EV come up a lot. Less common are situations where you CALL at -CEV.

Chip EV is used as a tool because its an easily calculated, standard starting point for discussion of the hand. You then apply whatever modifications are necessary. Much like point count at bridge [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. In my post above where I said that call is +630 chips, for example, I didn't think it necessary to go any further because the size of the chip EV I think precludes any more discussion. It's pretty rare that you decline a betting opportunity when the expected return is almost double what you're putting in.

$EV is just shorthand for "play which wins you money" or "play which loses you money", distinguishing that from chip EV - what terminology would you prefer us to use? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Chip EV is used as a tool because its an easily calculated, standard starting point for discussion of the hand. You then apply whatever modifications are necessary. Much like point count at bridge

[/ QUOTE ]

my current bridge partner includes in the pre-alerts to our opponents "he uses the point count ranges on the card as a guide to his usual bid" - point count is a crappy tool because it doesnt describe accurately enough the value of high cards - i think the history of point count reveals that it exists in bridge theory because it makes the game easier to teach

someone has posted after running a computer simulation that its notionally right to call in this problem if your a 30% chance to win - my gut tells me its closer to 40% - chip EV is based on anything above 50% - seems to me that chip EV is a crappy tool too

[ QUOTE ]
$EV is just shorthand for "play which wins you money" or "play which loses you money", distinguishing that from chip EV - what terminology would you prefer us to use?

[/ QUOTE ]

how about right or wrong

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
my current bridge partner includes in the pre-alerts to our opponents "he uses the point count ranges on the card as a guide to his usual bid" - point count is a crappy tool because it doesnt describe accurately enough the value of high cards - i think the history of point count reveals that it exists in bridge theory because it makes the game easier to teach

someone has posted after running a computer simulation that its notionally right to call in this problem if your a 30% chance to win - my gut tells me its closer to 40% - chip EV is based on anything above 50% - seems to me that chip EV is a crappy tool too

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely - which is why I made the analogy, I think it's a good one. Even though point count is a pretty awful way to rate bridge hands, people still define their bids in terms of point count because it's a standard way to talk about hand strength. Chip EV is a bad way to talk about SNG decisions - the independent chip model isn't all that great either - but both of them are approximate measurements, data points that can be incorporated into an analysis.

[texasrattlers]

[ QUOTE ]
Chip EV is a bad way to talk about SNG decisions - the independent chip model isn't all that great either - but both of them are approximate measurements, data points that can be incorporated into an analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if it's a bad way to talk about right vs. wrong decisions, why do it? If you start w/ questionable assumptions I don't have a lot of confidence in conclusions drawn from those assumptions. I have never much appreciated "It's a bad way to look at things, but it's all we got" arguments.