Lets discuss this hand - from 350K on Stars

[A_PLUS]

This is along the lines of something that I was thinking about today.

At a certain point in a game, you chips can reach apx 0% folding equity against 'perfect opponents'. I havent worked out the math yet, but here it is.

Whenever your ratio falls below 2.5 (guess), you have apx 0 folding equity.

Ratio = (Blinds + Antes + Your TCs)/(Your TCs - BB).

Once you hit this level, the BB will almost always be right to call. Otherwise, he will need at least a top 25% (again a rough guess)hand to call.

I your situation

43 + 19 / (43-8) < 2. So a BB will still have to have some sort of hand to make the correct call against your steal, leaving you some FE.

So, with a call, 30% of the time you win and have 80K+ in chips, allowing you to steal more liberally without risking your entire stack.

70% of the time you will be down to your last hurrah with just enough chips to ensure folding equity (and probably an interesting decision from the SB, if someone raises 20K, and you are getting over 2-1 to push there).

I really have no idea about the EV of each of the alternatives, but would like to read someones thoughts

[slickpoppa]

This is an autocall. Putting him on a range of any pair, any ace, and any two broadway gives you an equity of 30% according to Pokerstove. Since your pot odds are 3:1, this is +EV. (Even against a tight range of AA-22, AKs-A8s, KQs-KTs, AKo-A8o, your equity is 28%).

Your reasoning for folding is faulty:

[ QUOTE ]
I think if I call and lose (which is likely) then I lose much of my folding equity due to the reduced size of my stack. This means I lose steal-ability and must wait for a solid hand that will hold up all-in. Those are harder to find.


[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot just look at the downside of the equation. Calling gives you more chips in the long run than folding. So by calling, you will be able to steal more.

[Jason Strasser]

Let me try my best.

This call is insta-automatic-essential-easy-ABC whatever, and I can not believe there are actually people advocating a fold here.

First of all. Scott is getting over 3:1. So mathematically alone, that single decision (call or fold), lined up against the range of hands the ss is pushing here, its OBVIOUSLY +EV. Sorry Scott, you said not to say it, but the odds are extremely important here and you obviously have way more than enough to dictate a call here.

Look at this tournament, with 100 left, if you were no.10 in chips you had TEN big blinds. Ten. This is a modified crapshoot. The reaon it is modified is because the only thing you can do in this situation to hurt yourself is to fold too much. If you just raise all in whenever you feel like you can steal blinds or when you have a good hand, and call out of the blinds with correct odds, then you are playing very close to optimally.

To the argument that you lose FE when you lose, true. However you are only losing FE that 60% ish percent of the time you lose... Plus when you are at 5bb you still have FE, especially because of the shallow nature of this tournament. How much FE do you have stealing when half the field has less than 5bb???

I'm not getting out of line saying that people who routinely make this fold have a huge leak in their game. I get a sick sense of joy here insta-calling with 29o, but call me a weirdo.

-Jason

[CardSharpCook]

at 5% equity you make 1750 chips every time you call here. If knowing that you theorhetically made 1750 chips by calling here outweighs the cost of 11K chips.... Well, I just don't see that gain being worth that risk. Strassa, I understand your craps shoot argument, but what of Sklansky's opportunity cost arguement? That is, by taking this deal and losing, we now have less chips when we find a much better situation later. I don't think tourney poker is about taking every slighly + gamble.

Consider this - Almost any time you find yourself in the CO, you odds of inducing a fold with an AI bet outweight the risk of being BOTH called AND beaten. But you wouldn't advocate doing that, would you? Use some patience. Better situations will come up.

CSC

That said, your arguements are causing me to think/re-evaluate, and for that I thank you.

[Jason Strasser]

I understand the concept of waiting if you can get more +EV situations later. May I ask, what are these extremely +EV situations with the sky high blinds and antes eating away at your stack? Especially if your table is aggro, which this one was. Where are these much higher EV situations CSC?

-Jason

[MLG]

You know what, I'll take it one step further than Strassa. To make the big money in this tournament you need to accumulate so many chips that even if you know a hugely positive EV situation is awaiting in the near future you should still take this gamble. You need to gamble with the best of it here because then the added chips you will have if you win can be employed in that situation.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
You know what, I'll take it one step further than Strassa. To make the big money in this tournament you need to accumulate so many chips that even if you know a hugely positive EV situation is awaiting in the near future you should still take this gamble. You need to gamble with the best of it here because then the added chips you will have if you win can be employed in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a far from obvious statement and I think it needs a little more backing.

Let's look at an oversimplified example and say that I know that I'll double up five hands from now - this is a vastly simplified case of your "better gamble down the road." Now let's say that if I fold now I'm left with 7 BBs, if I call I'll have 5 BBs 70% of the time and 9 BBs 30% of the time. Now this means that ten hands from now, after my mysterious double up, I'll have

after calling: 10 BBs 70%, 18 BBs 30%. avg: 12.4 BBs

after folding: 14 BBs

If I really thought a better spot was coming along soon, this suggests to me that keeping my 7 BBs is probably a better plan on average.

Now, a guaranteed double up is obviously silly. And strassa is right to point out that there aren't going to be tons of better spots. But I think what you're advocating in the post I'm replying to doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense.

[MLG]

there's a mistake in your math. how many chips do you have the 30% of the time when you call and win?

[Chaostracize]

How has no one discussed the meta-game reasons for making this call? Next time you're in the blind you'll be remembered as the "guy who defended with 83o." This also helps with your FE. I think this is counterintuitive. People tend to tighten up a lot against someone who they've seen show down something like 83o. They're going to wait for the "right hand to bust you." If I'm way off mark, then let me know. But I think for these two reasons along with with the actual pot odds calcualation make this correct.

[MLG]

Additionally the tournament doesn't end after one double-up. You are going to need at least 2 in order to have even a tiny FT stack. Not to mention the fact that the blinds go up, and you need to continue to increase your stack ahead of the blinds. Or, the times that the added chips allow you to survive a hit from another stack and not bust out.