Mathematical Expectation

[subzero]

I should qualify. I'm talking about NL holdem cash games, full ring. Tournaments are a little different. For example, there may be circumstances where folding AA would be correct if you could move up a couple big spots in prize money.

[mudbuddha]

so lets say, u build ur stack up to 700$ in 100$ NL and someone else goes shows his AK and says lets go all in.. your holding 88 u would take it since u got a 4% edge on him??

[mudbuddha]

so lets say, u build ur stack up to 700$ in 100$ NL and someone else goes shows his AK and says lets go all in.. your holding 88 u would take it since u got a 4% edge on him??

theoretical question i suppose

[subzero]

You should have 20 buy-ins at the level you're playing at. At 100NL, that means $2,000. If someone put me all-in (as you suggested), I would call if losing would not hurt my bankroll to the point where I'd have to drop down to 50NL. If I had 30 or more buy-ins, I would probably call here. I personally need 25-30 buy-ins to emotionally handle the swings in no-limit.

Online, you can't show your cards like this and I haven't met someone who'd risk a 7 buy-in stack on AK. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ellipse_87]

[ QUOTE ]
so lets say, u build ur stack up to 700$ in 100$ NL and someone else goes shows his AK and says lets go all in.. your holding 88 u would take it since u got a 4% edge on him??

[/ QUOTE ]

There's two answers to that. The first is, of course. In fact, if you're involved in poker as a serious, long-term, income-generating enterprise, you must take that bet. The only considerations arguing against it are intangible ones like precluding tilt.

The second answer is that the rare 7x-buy-in stack inflates the unit of risk to a level beyond that which the 10x-buy-in bankroll can sustain. You now have a $1600 bankroll taking on the variance of a $700 bet. For a 20x-buy-in bankroll, it's $2600 vs. $700, still significant.

Anyway, the analysis is whether you want to float 500NL level risk with a 100NL bankroll. It's still a bankroll question, only now you have an increased bankroll because of your great run, and the risk units you face in that one game are larger than the ones you anticipated when you took on that limit.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Theory of Poker:

Pg. 11, paragraph 2 - "Mathematical expectation is at the heart of every gambling situation."


[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Maybe in limit poker. But I guess the response summarizes my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]

You should always choose the action that gives you the highest +EV, even if that means risking your entire stack. [bold] If your bankroll can't handle the variance, then you should be playing at a lower limit. [/bold] If you can't handle the swings emotionally, then this is something you need to work on. But avoiding the highest +EV play to limit your risk is not something you want to do


[/ QUOTE ]

The only time this doesn’t apply is in no-rebuy, no limit tourneys. Think about the beginning of the WSOP final event. If someone gave you a 51% bet for all your chips would you take it? Its +EV, but this is a decision that is made once. Not over a run. So +EV is meaningless. Exactly the same reason small stacks go all in on marginal hands. They don’t care about EV, but rather variance. They knowingly take a bet that only succeeds 33% of the time because they know that they need to have more chips to have any chance of long run success.

I couldn’t find the book on Amazon that I wanted to recommend so I will substitute a slightly watered down version but that is more accessible. Risk management is basically eliminated in limit poker (assuming your br is 300bb).

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...278368-2179035

Note, I don’t read about risk because I think it helps my poker, rather I am mildly interested in Finance.

[/ QUOTE ]

An EV calculation in a tournament also needs to take into account payout structure, blind structure, number of players left, stack sizes of players at the table, and opportunity to make bigger EV bets later. EV IS still the heart of it, it's just that there are more variables to worry about.