I folded AKs on the bubble tonight pre-flop. I felt dirty. - Page 6

pergesu · #51 06-02-2005, 01:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
while it definitely does matter what your goals are, it's not true that a player seeking to make the most money possible will take every +ev situation given to them. it is important to sometimes pass +ev situations to allow yourself to take +ev situations that are plus-er ev later.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, I understand that idea but didn't take it into account in my post.

For whatever hand someone said there was a +1.7% EV diff, and you said it wasn't much, not a whole lot of spots come around that are more +EV than a 1.7% difference. That's just too big to pass up if you're looking to make the most money.

citanul · #52 06-02-2005, 01:30 AM

it's true that i misunderestimated how big 1.7% or so is. i still would argue that it's not terribly much when you're expecting to have like 27% or whatever % of the prize pool to start with. that said, it's likely that you shouldn't be often passing up on spots that big, or wandering into negative spots that big either.

it's quite easy to believe, however, that if your opponents play poorly, (and so many of them do) that you'll be able to find several/many spots later in the game that will give you much more ev than a 1.7% portion.

citanul

curtains · #53 06-02-2005, 01:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I find interesting is the difference between pockets and AKs here using some rough calculations with eastbays program. If he is pushing any two then AKs is a very bad, -1.7% call but 10s is an easy +1.7% call. If you tighten up the range a little and throw out the complete trash then JJ is a marginal +.1% call and AKs rises to -1.3%.

[/ QUOTE ]

as has been noticed before, just cause something is +ev in the calculator does not make it a "call" and just caus it's -ev does not make it a "fold."

also, these results shouldn't be that interesting to you.

citanul

also "a -1.7% call" is hardly a very bad call, and a +1.7% is not an "easy call"

like i said, i knew this thread disgusted me.

[/ QUOTE ]

A -1.7% call is a terrible call!!! It's very hard to find a call that's within reason that loses that much money late in a tournament.

citanul · #54 06-02-2005, 01:59 AM

yes yes, as i responded to i think, though maybe not, i misunderestimated how bad a call the -1.7% was. though i'm still not sure that making every call that is >1.x% positive is that great, given bad opponents and certain situations. my thinking is that they're going to often give you lots and lots of chips later just by folding too much (certain opps). but who knows, i could be totally whacked out right now, you never know.

alright, i'm going to go to bed now.

citanul

curtains · #55 06-02-2005, 01:59 AM

Also please shoot me the day I pass up a situation that I know for sure is +1.7% in EV. One thing I think everyone may not realizing is that the maximum EV of the prize pool you can have is 50%, not 100%. To knowingly throw away 1.7 (3.4% of 50), is just a sin, and cannot be overcome by any skill differential.

ilya · #56 06-02-2005, 02:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i dunno man, when we're looking at say, -1.7% being the difference in equity between folding (147 in equity) and calling (138 in equity) we're not actually talking about very much. 1.7% of the prize pool yes, is nicish money. but.

but there's variance to consider, which is often a consideration for say, everyone. and there's things like how easy it has been/will be for you to steal now and in the money. most push with any two spots in the money at large blind sizes and a decently tight calling range for the bb from the sb are worth a very similar amount of money. and they have the added bonus of you have already gotten into the money.

i'm not a huge fan of sneaking into the money or anything, but if i knew that i could routinely give up a buck or two of sklansky bux to assure myself a huge(r) itm%, i'd do that and be happy knowing that i can outplay my opponents in the money as well as out of the money.

i guess my point is that on an equity of say $150, $8 isn't much. and if you throw $8 out the window once in order to make sure you get into the money, assure yourself $100, likely $150, and possibly $250, i don't think most people run it out.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're really underestimating the value of 1.7%.

For one thing, most of your edges on the bubble and in the money will be smaller than 1.7%. Say you're on the button with KQs, the blinds are 250/500, and the stacks are even. The guys in the blinds are gonna have to be as tight as 66+, A9+, KJ+ before your edge for pushing in that spot hits 1.7%. And this is a pretty favorable scenario: KQs is a strong hand, there are no short stacks to force you to tighen up. I'm sure that in your daily play you routinely take edges that are considerably smaller than 1.7% and feel quite good about it.

another consideration is hourly rate. even if you could make up the 1.7% with superior ITM play, calling in spots like this speeds things along and lets you pack a few more tournaments into each hour.

also. it's true that $8 isn't a lot. but what if this kind of situation comes up once in every tournament you play? if you play 1000 tournaments a month, as many do, you may be costing yourself as much as $8000/month if you fold in this spot every time. Even if you figure that your skill advantage will somehow let you recover 1.5% of the 1.7% you lose by folding here, the remaining 0.2% will still add up to $1000/month in lost potential profit!

citanul · #57 06-02-2005, 02:01 AM

meh, i am not saying necessarilly that you should pass up those edges, i'm saying that for many people who want to reduce variance, it's going to be the "right" play.

and again, against certain opps, i think that you can make up more than 1.7% of the prize pool given their particular types of bad play.

citanul

curtains · #58 06-02-2005, 02:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
meh, i am not saying necessarilly that you should pass up those edges, i'm saying that for many people who want to reduce variance, it's going to be the "right" play.

and again, against certain opps, i think that you can make up more than 1.7% of the prize pool given their particular types of bad play.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, I find it hard to believe people can play that poorly to give up 1.7% edge. I believe this is the type of rationalization people make to make obviously wrong plays and yet write them off as correct because of some abstract future advantage they believe they have (which is almost always overestimated).

citanul · #59 06-02-2005, 02:08 AM

again, you guys win. i did underestimate the amount that 1.7% is. i am going to maintain that for certain players, though it is not right to pass on such edges, it is "right." these players are not likely the ones playing 1000 games a month though.

on your in the money example, i'm assuming that the bulk of the power of that kq hand is generated from the folding equity, not the strength of the hand. if you know the players to be particularly tight, (some tighter than your prescribed sets), you could make more steals. and also, the even stacks is hardly the "there are situations" that i was talking about. even stacks is problems for passing edges in general.

yes, i'm sure that i take edges smaller than 1.7% often. i also pass on them very infrequently i believe. and yeah, i probably also make a bunch of calls that lose me a few bucks every day. some for image, and some for other reasons.

ilya, your argument, and curtains' and anyone else who was up there too, your arguments are all very good. i did underestimate the size of 1.7%, and i hadn't really looked at the %'s on eastbays doohicky before, just the raw dollar amounts. i yield, while humbly still stating that there are players who folding such an edge, and there are opponents that make folding such an edge, work.

citanul

citanul · #60 06-02-2005, 02:09 AM

one last post:

dude, people do play that bad. people frequently play really bad.

all this said, i doubt i've passed on an edge as big as 1.7% in a long, long time.

citanul