congrats. you guys win

NEVER GIVE UP PFKAOK!!!!!!!! I believe in your theory.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
el D's post though was not very well thought out.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? Much like all of my posts, it was brilliantly thought out.

[ QUOTE ]
if on average, i pushed with x-y range with 12BB and my expected stack after the play was 12.2 BB, then that's +EV. if, with the same range i could push with the 6BB stack and, on average have 6.4BB, then thats MORE +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that one way I'm going to end up w/ 12.2BB and the other way I'm going to end up w/ 6.4BB shows exactly why I better not take any unnecessary risks with 12BB that put me in the "red zone" because even if my "EV is better" in the "red zone," where I end up is a much crappier place.

[gergery]

If my choices are:

a) stay where I am in the pack, or
b) take a gamble where 50% of the time it will shoot me way ahead but the other 50% of the time I will crash and get knocked out, then it is clearly right to take the gamble.

Because in autoraces as in poker the incremental jump in prize money/prestige from knocked out to middle of pack is very small, but the incremental jump in payout from being in the middle of the pack to winning is enormous.

(note: apparently you would not do this if you’re at Taledega) [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

-g

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
a) stay where I am in the pack, or
b) take a gamble where 50% of the time it will shoot me way ahead but the other 50% of the time I will crash and get knocked out, then it is clearly right to take the gamble.

Because in autoraces as in poker the incremental jump in prize money/prestige from knocked out to middle of pack is very small, but the incremental jump in payout from being in the middle of the pack to winning is enormous.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. well this is the just of my theory. again. i appologize, for the misleading title. my main idea was the nitro concept. if i'm a midstack, it will be worth taking a breakeven gambe (even slightly -EV) against a shorter stack, where if i win i move way up, and can gain the benifits of having an M in the high teens, or over 20. and if i lose, it won't be that bad b/c i'm still alive, with a very playable short stack. that is the WORST CASE THOUGH. i'm not ssaying that i want to take a gamble where i'm assured of going to a red stack. but i will take a breakeven gamble if the gamble will take me to a redstack IF it doesn't work out.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that one way I'm going to end up w/ 12.2BB and the other way I'm going to end up w/ 6.4BB shows exactly why I better not take any unnecessary risks with 12BB that put me in the "red zone" because even if my "EV is better" in the "red zone," where I end up is a much crappier place.

[/ QUOTE ]

read my last post. i'm sorry about the confusing wording, but i never meant to imply that i would PREFER a smaller stack over a midsized one. but the combined benifits of having a big stack, and the amount of +EV spots you get in the red zone IMO, make taking certain gambles correct in the orange zone. so paradoxically, it will become correct to take certain -EV gambles with smaller stacks(like calling their push), while at the same time avoiding slightly+EV gambles vs. bigger stacks(like open pushing from EP with AJo at a full table with an M of 8)

[ChrisW]

As I read through this series of threads, I see the following "dialogue":

betgo/pfkaok: "argument X"

many others: "Clearly, argument Y is retarded. You two should stop making argument Y."

betgo/pfkoak: "But we're making argument X, not argument Y."

others: "Don't bother us with irrelevancies."

Is this some kind of practical joke on betgo/pfkoak? Because if not, some of you need a remedial reading comprehension course.