Spark Notes on Gigabet's Post

[ilya]

I was talking about CEV and/or ICM-EV. Eastbay is of course right to point out that we should be thinking of Actual EV rather than CEV/Some Model EV when making decisions, but I think that what Giga was describing is a sort of proprietary $EV model that more closely approximates Actual $EV than either CEV or ICM approaches. In this model, making -CEV and /or -$ICM-EV moves is sometimes correct, and making +$ICM-EV and/or +CEV moves is sometimes incorrect. There are situations where it's readily apparent that the Actual +$EV move is different from the +$ICM-EV/+CEV move, e.g. a battle-of-the-super-shorties situation. Giga's post outlines some of the other situations where Actual $EV diverges from $ICM-EV and or/CEV, and offers a conceptual framework to help recognize such situations whenever they arise.

[Bigwig]

Whatever happened to cliff notes?

[jon462]

can someone please tell me where the original thread by Giga went. I hadnt finished reading it, and now I cant find it (by a search or manually looking).. !!!!

[maddog2030]

I'd venture to say if you search for posts by Gigabet you can't possibly miss it.

[Jonathan]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct. Counterexample: You have $100 and
Joe offers you $200 to $100 on the flip of a coin. But you
know that tomorrow, Bill will offer $500 for the same gamble,
and if you lose the $100 today, you won't be able to make
tomorrow's bet. You should pass up todays +ev bet for the
better bet tomorrow.

Sklansky has discussion of this in his Tournament Poker for Advanced
Players. But I'm sure you've read this, so your statement
surprises me.

Suerte,
Jonathan

[microbet]

Don't remember all the details exactly, it was a few days ago, but some of you probably saw it. Gus Hansen called a push by Antonio Esfandiari with T8 that seemed -EV. Gigabet Block Theory?

I know I had the benefit of seeing all the cards, but I think Gus expected to be getting the worst of it.

[Maulik]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't remember all the details exactly, it was a few days ago, but some of you probably saw it. Gus Hansen called a push by Antonio Esfandiari with T8 that seemed -EV. Gigabet Block Theory?

I know I had the benefit of seeing all the cards, but I think Gus expected to be getting the worst of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I oveheard this hand. Gus must have been thinking to himself why would Antonio push allin here with QQ+. Surely he put him on a mid pocket pair; Gus had a large chunk of his chips committed and made the call.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct. Counterexample: You have $100 and
Joe offers you $200 to $100 on the flip of a coin. But you
know that tomorrow, Bill will offer $500 for the same gamble,
and if you lose the $100 today, you won't be able to make
tomorrow's bet. You should pass up todays +ev bet for the
better bet tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you played a tournament where you said, "If I fold here, I'll be able to get 4x the EV in two more hands"?

It's one thing when you know you have two bets available to you, one which is significantly better than the other. There aren't that many hands in a tourney that offer that great of a difference in +EV. When there are, you have no idea if/when they're coming. If we had time to wait for the best spots, we wouldn't talk about situations where pushing any two is correct.

[paperboyNC]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you played a tournament where you said, "If I fold here, I'll be able to get 4x the EV in two more hands"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that you don't know this and that you may never a better situation.

However, let's give an example. You are playing a heads-up freeze out (aka sng).

You put down your whole bankroll of $200. You each start with 1500 chips and the blinds are 10/20.

You are big blind the very first hand and your opponent moves all-in. You look down to find pocket Tens.

You know for a fact (don't ask how) that your opponent would not move all-in with JJ, QQ, KK, AA.

Should you call? If you lose, your bankroll is gone. The blinds are small enough that you don't lose much by folding and you can probably see 60-70 hands. You can probably find a situation where you are a 80%+ favorite after the flop.

Yes -- if you are the better player, you should avoid situations where you are a marginal favorite if avoiding it gives you the opportunity to be a bigger favorite later.

[nokona13]

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking about CEV and/or ICM-EV. Eastbay is of course right to point out that we should be thinking of Actual EV rather than CEV/Some Model EV when making decisions, but I think that what Giga was describing is a sort of proprietary $EV model that more closely approximates Actual $EV than either CEV or ICM approaches. In this model, making -CEV and /or -$ICM-EV moves is sometimes correct, and making +$ICM-EV and/or +CEV moves is sometimes incorrect. There are situations where it's readily apparent that the Actual +$EV move is different from the +$ICM-EV/+CEV move, e.g. a battle-of-the-super-shorties situation. Giga's post outlines some of the other situations where Actual $EV diverges from $ICM-EV and or/CEV, and offers a conceptual framework to help recognize such situations whenever they arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad to see people making intelligent posts about giga's model. As both microbet and eastbay pointed out, I think it should be pretty apparent that giga's post is about a separate $EV model. I think if we all thought a little deeper about what actual $EV we're gaining or losing on each play, we'd all be much better poker players...